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

, son of Dr. Addison mentioned in the last article, and one of the most illustrious ornaments of his time, was born May 1, 1672, at Milston near Ambrosbury, Wiltshire, where his father was rector. Appearing weak and unlikely to live, he was christened the same day. Mr. Tyers says, that he was laid out for dead as soon as he was born. He received the first rudiments of his education at the place of his nativity, under the rev. Mr. Naish; but was soon removed to Salisbury, under the care of Mr. Taylor; and thence to Lichfield, where his father placed him for some time, probably not long, under Mr. Shaw, then master of the school there. From Lichfield he was sent to the Charter-house, where he pursued his juvenile studies under the care of Dr. Ellis, and contracted that intimacy with sir Rich. Steele, which their joint labours have so effectually recorded. In 1687 he was entered of Queen’s college in Oxford; where, in 1689, the accidental perusal of some Latin verses gained him the patronage of Dr. Lancaster, by whose recommendation he was elected into Magdalen college as demy. Here he took the degree of M. A. Feb. 14, 1693; continued to cultivate poetry and criticism, and grew first eminent by his Latin compositions, which are entitled to particular praise, and seem to have had much of his fondness; for he collected a second volume of the Musæ Anglicanæ, perhaps for a convenient receptacle; in which all his Latin pieces are inserted, and where his poem on the Peace has the first place. He afterwards presented the collection to Boileau, who from that time conceived an opinion of the English genius for poetry. In his 22d year he first shewed his power of English poetry, by some verses addressed to Dryden; and soon afterwards published a translation of the greater part of the fourth Georgic upon Bees. About the same time he composed the arguments prefixed to the several books of Dry den’s Virgil; and produced an essay on the Georgics, juvenile, superficial, and uninstructive, without much either of the scholar’s learning or the critic’s penetration. His next paper of verses contained a character of the principal English poets, inscribed to Henry Sacheverell, who was then, if not a poet, a writer of verses; as is shewn by his version of a small part of Virgil’s Georgics, published in the Miscellanies, and a Latin encomium on queen Mary, in the Musae Anglicana?. At this time he was paying his addresses to SacheverelPs sister. These verses exhibit all the fondness of friendship; but, on one side or the other, friendship was too weak for the malignity of faction. In this poem is a very confident and discriminative character of Spenser, whose work he had then never read. It is necessary to inform the reader, that about this time he was introduced by Congreve to Montague, then chancellor of the exchequer: Addison was now learning the trade of a courtier, and subjoined Montague as a poetical name to those of Cowley and of Dryden. By the influence of Mr. Montague, concurring with his natural modesty, he was diverted from his original design of entering into holy orders. Montague alleged the corruption of men who engaged in civil employments without liberal education; and declared, that, though he was represented as an enemy to the church, he would never do it any injury but by withholding Addison from it. Soon after, in 1695, he wrote a poem to king William, with a kind of rhyming introduction addressed to lord Somers. King William had no regard to elegance or literature; his study was only war; yet by a choice of ministers whose disposition was very different from his own, he procured, without intention, a very liberal patronage to poetry. Addison was caressed both by Somers and Montague. In 1697 he wrote his poem on the peace of Ryswick, which he dedicated to Montague, and which was afterwards called by Smith “the best Latin poem since the Æneid.” Having yet no public employment, he obtained in 1699 a pension of 300l. a year, that he might be enabled to travel. He staid a year at Blois, probably to learn the French language; and then proceeded in his journey to Italy, which he surveyed with the eyes of a poet. While he was travelling at leisure, he was far from being idle; for he not only collected his observations on the country, but found time to write his Dialogues on Medals, and four acts of Cato. Such is the relation of Tickell. Perhaps he only collected his materials, and formed his plan. Whatever were his other employments in Italy, he there wrota the letter to lord Halifax, which is justly considered as the most elegant, if not the most sublime, of his poetical productions. But in about two years he found it necessary to hasten home; being, as Swift informs us, “distressed by indigence, and compelled to become the tutor of a travelling squire.” At his return he published his travels, with a dedication to lord Somers. This book, though a while neglected, is said in time to have become so much the favourite of the publick, that before it was reprinted it rose to five times its price. When he returned to England in 1702, with a meanness of appearance which gave testimony to the difficulties to which tie had been reduced, he found his old patrons out of power; but he remained not long neglected or useless. The victory at Blenheim 1704 spread triumph and confidence over the nation; and lord Godolphin, lamenting to lord Halifax that it had not been celebrated in a manner equal to the subject, desired him to propose it to some better poet. Halifax named Addison; who, having undertaken the work, communicated it to the treasurer, while it was yet advanced no further than the simile of the angel, and was immediately rewarded by succeeding Mr. Locke in the place of commissioner of appeals. In the following year he was at Hanover with lord Halifax; and the year after was made under-secretary of state, first to sir Charles Hedges, and in a few months more to the earl of Sunderland. About this time the prevalent taste for Italian operas inclining him to try what would be the effect of a musical drama in our own language; he wrote the opera of Rosajnond, which, when exhibited on the stage, was either hissed or neglected; but, trusting that the readers would do him more justice, he published it, with an inscription to the duchess of Marlborough. His reputation had been somewhat advanced by The Tender Husband, a comedy, which Steele dedicated to him, with a confession that he owed to him several of the most successful scenes. To this play Addison supplied a prologue. When the marquis of Wharton was appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, Addison attended him as his secretary; and was made keeper of the records in Bermingham’s tower, with a salary of 300l. a year. The office was little more than nominal, and the salary was augmented for his accommodation. When he was in office, he made a law to himself, as Swift has recorded, never to remit his regular fees in civility to his friends “I may have a hundred friends; and if my fee be two guineas, I shall by relinquishing my right lose 200 guineas, and no friend gain more than two.” He was in Ireland when Steele, without any communication of his design, began the publication of the Tatler; but he was not long concealed: by inserting a remark on Virgil, which Addison had given him, he discovered himself. Steele’s first Tatler was published April 22, 1709, and Addison’s contribution appeared May 26. Tickell observes, that the Tatler began and was concluded without his concurrence. This is doubtless literally true; but the work did not suffer much by his unconsciousness of its commencement, or his absence at its cessation; for he continued his assistance to Dec. 23, and the paper stopped on Jan. 2. He did not distinguish his pieces by any signature.

, an English minor poet of the seventeenth century, was the son of James Allestry, a bookseller of London, who was ruined by the great fire in 1666, and related to provost Allestry, the subject of the next article. Jacob was educated at Westminster school, and entered at Christ-church, Oxford, in the act-term 1671, at the age of eighteen, and was elected student in 1672. He took the degree in arts; was music-reader in 1679, and terrte filius in 1681; both which offices he executed with, great applause, being esteemed a good philologist and poet. He had a chief hand in the verses and pastorals spoken in the theatre at Oxford, May 21, 1681, by Mr. William Savile, second son of the marquis of Halifax, and George Cholmondeley, second son of Robert viscount Kells (both of Christ-church), before James duke of York, his duchess, and the lady Anne; which verses and pastorals were afterwards printed in the “Examen Poeticum.” He died of the consequence of youthful excesses, October 15, 1686, and was buried, in an obscure manner, in St. Thomas’s church-yard, Oxford.

It may appear surprising, how one of Mr. Alleyn’s profession should be enabled to erect such an edifice as Dulwich college, and liberally endow it for the maintenance of so many persous. But it must be observed that he had some paternal fortune, which, though small, probably laid the foundation of his future affluence; and it is to be presumed that the profits he received from acting, to one of his provident and managing disposition, and one who by his excellence in playing drew after him such crowds of spectators, must have considerably improved his fortune: besides, he was not only an actor, but master of a playhouse, built at his own expence, by which he is said to have amassed considerable wealth. This was the Fortune play-house, near Whitecross street, by Moorfields. There is a tradition in the neighbourhood of this place, that in digging the foundation of this house, there was found a considerable treasure; so that it is probable the whole or greatest part of it might fall to Mr. Alleyn. He was also keeper of the king’s wild beasts, or master of the royal bear-garden, which was frequented by vast crowds of spectators: and the profits arising from these sports are said to have amounted to 500l. per annum. He was thrice married; and the portions of his two first wives, they leaving him no issue to inherit, probably contributed to this benefaction. Such donations have been frequently thought to proceed more from vanity and ostentation than real charity; but this of Mr. Alleyn has been ascribed to a very singular cause. Mr. Aubrey mentions a tradition, that Mr. Alleyn, playing a daemon with six others, in one of Shakspeare’s plays, was, in the midst of the play, surprised by an apparition of the devil, which so worked on his fancy, that he made a vow, which he performed by building Dulwich college. Whatever may be in this story, he began the foundation of this college, under the direction of Inigo Jones, in 1614; and the buildings, gardens, &c. were finished in 1617, in which he is said to have expended about 10,Ooo/. After the college was built, he met with some difficulty in obtaining a charter for settling his lands in mortmain; for he proposed to endow it with 800l. per annum, for the maintenance of one master, one warden, and four fellows, three whereof were to be clergymen, and the fourth a skilful organist; also six poor men, and as many women, besides twelve poor boys, to be educated till the age of fourteen or sixteen, and then put out to some trade or calling. The obstruction he met with arose from the lord chancellor Bacon, who wished king James to settle part of those lands for the support of two academical lectures; and he wrote a letter to the marquis of Buckingham, dated Aug. Is, 1618, entreating him to use his interest with his majesty for that purpose . Mr. Alleyn’s solicitation was, however, at last complied with, and he obtained the royal licence, giving him full power to lay his foundation, by his majesty’s letters patent, bearing date the 2 1st of June, 1619; by virtue whereof he did, in the chapel of the said new hospital at Dulwich, called “The College of God’s Gift,” on the 13th of September following, publicly read, and published, a quadripartite writing in parchment, whereby he created and established the said college; he then subscribed it with his name, and fixed his seal to several parts thereof, in presence of several honourable persons, and ordered copies of the writings to four different parishes. Those honourable persons were Francis lord Verulam lord chancellor; Thomas earl of Arundel, earl marshal of England; sir Edward Cecil, second son to the earl of Exeter; sir John Howard, high sheriff of Sussex and Surrey; sir Edward Bowyer, of Camberwell; sir Thomas Grymes of Peckham; sir John Bodley, of Stretham; sir John Tonstal, of L'arshalton; and divers other persons of great worth and respect. The parishes in which the said writings were deposited, were St. Botolph’s without Bishopsgate, St. Giles’s without Cripplegate, St. Saviour’s in Southwark, and the parish of Camberwell in Surrey. The contents or heads of the said statutes, or quadripartite writings, containing the laws and rules of this foundation, are as follow: 1. A recital of king James’s letters patent. 2. Recital of the founder’s deed quadripartite. 3. Ordination of the master, warden, &c. 4. Ordination of the assistant members, &c. 5. The master and warden to be unmarried, and always to be of the name of Alleyn or Allen. 6. The master and warden to be twenty-one years of age at least. 7. Of what degree the fellows to be. 8. Of what degree the poor brothers and sisters to be. 9. Of what condition the poor scholars are to be. 10. Of what parishes the assistants are to be. 11. From what parishes the poor are to be chosen, and the members of this college. 12. The form of their election. 13. The warden to supply when the master’s place is void. 14. The election of the warden. 15. The warden to be bound by recognizance. 16. The warden to provide a dinner for the college upon his election. 17. The form of admitting the fellows. 18. The manner of electing the scholars. 19. Election of the poor of Camberwell. 20. The master and warden’s oath. 21. The fellow’s oath. 22. The poor brother’s and sister’s oath. 23. The assistant’s oath. 24. The pronunciation of admission. 25. The master’s office. 26. The warden’s office. 27. The fellow’s office. 23. The poor brother’s and sister’s office. 29. Thac of the matron of the poor scholars. 30. The porter’s office. 31. The office of the thirty members. 32. Of residence. 33. Orders of the poor and their goods. 34. Of obedience. 35. Orders for the chapel and burial. 36. Orders for the school and scholars, and putting them forth apprentices. 37. Order of diet. 38. The scholars’ surplices and coats. 39. Time for viewing expences. 40. Public audit and private sitting days. 41. Audit and sitting chamber. 42. Of lodgings. 43. Orders for the lands and woods. 44. Allowance to the master and warden of diet for one man a piece, with the number and wages of the college servants. 45. Disposition and division of the revenues. 46. Disposition of the rent of the Blue-house. 47. The poor to be admitted out of other places, in case of deficiency in the parishes prescribed. 48. The disposition of forfeitures. 49. The statutes to be read over four several times in the year. 50. The dispositions of certain tenements in St. Saviour’s parish, Southwark.

, son of the above, was born at Metz, July 29, 1659: he began his studies in that city, and went to Hanau for the prosecution of them. He afterwards applied himself to the civil law at Marpurg, Geneva, and Paris, in the last of which cities he was admitted an advocate. Upon his return to Metz, in 1679, he followed the bar, where he began to raise himself a considerable reputation. After the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685, the protestants of Metz deputed him to court, in order to represent that they ought not to be comprehended in this revocation. But all that he could obtain was, that this city should be treated with more lenity and favour. He followed his father to Berlin, where the elector of Brandenbourg appointed him judge and director of the French in that city. In 1695, that prince gave him, new marks of his confidence and favour, by sending him to Swisserland in order to negociate some affairs of importance. The marquis of Baden Dourlach, who was then at Basil, having had an opportunity of seeing him, entertained so great an esteem for him, that he chose him for his counsellor, and desired the elector of Brandenbourg to give Ancillon leave that he should serve him for some time. Our author did not return to Berlin till the end of the year 1699, and was then appointed inspector of all the courts of justice which the French had in Prussia, and counsellor of the embassy. The elector, being crowned king of Prussia, made him likewise his historiographer and superintendant of the French school, which had been founded at Berlin, according to the scheme which he had formed. He died in that city the 5th of July, 1715, being fifty-six years of age. His works are, 1. “L‘Irrevocabilité de l’Edit de Nantes prouvé par les principes du droit & de la politique,” Amsterdam, 1688, 12mo. 2. “Reflexions politiques, par lesquelles on fait voir que la persecution des reformez est contre les veritable interets de la France,” Cologne, 1686, 12mo. Mr. Bayle is mistaken in supposing, that this work was written by Sandras des Courtils, the author of the “Nouveaux Interets des Princes.” 3. “La France interessée a rétablir l'Edit de Nantes,” Amsterdam, 1690, 12mo. 4. “Histoire de l'Etablissement des François Refugiez dans les Etats de son altesse electorate de Brandebourg,” Berlin, 1690, 8vo. He wrote this out of gratitude to the elector for the generosity which he had shewn to the French Protestants. It appears from this piece, that the elector’s humanity extended to all the different ranks of persons among them. The men of learning tasted all the satisfactions of ease notwithstanding the pressure of misfortune and distress, and enjoyed the charms of society in the conferences which were held at Mr. Spanheim’s, their patron and Mæcenas, who was one of the ornaments of that court, as well as of the republic of letters. 5. “Melange Critique,” mentioned before in his father’s article. 6. “Dissertation sur l‘usage de mettre la premiere pierre au fondement des edifices publics, addressée au prince electoral de Brandebourg, à l’occasion de la premiere pierre, qu‘il a posée lul même au fondement du temple qu’on construit pour les François Refugiez dans le quartier de Berlin nommé Friderichstadt,” Berlin, 1701, 8vo. The author having given an account of every thing which his knowledge and reading would supply him with on this subject, acknowledges at last, that this custom is very like those rivers, whose source is unknown, though we may observe the course of them. 7. “Le dernier triomphe de Frederic Guillaume le Grand, electeur de Brandebourg, ou discours sur la Statue Equestre érigée sur le Pont Neuf du Berlin,” Berlin, 1703. Mr. Beauval says that this piece is an oration and a dissertation united together, and that the style is a little too turgid. 8. “Histoire de la vie de Soliman II. empereur des Turcs,” Rotterdam, 1706, 8vo; a work not very correct, but the preliminary matter is valuable, and contains, among other particulars, some curious information respecting Thuanus, taken from the “Bibliotheque Politique Heraldique Choisie,” 1705, 8vo. 9. “Traité des Eunuques, par C. Dollincan,” 1707, 12mo, Dollincan is an assumed name, and the work unworthy of our author’s abilities. 10. “Memoires concernant les vies et les ouvrages de plusieurs modernes celebres dans la Republique des Lettres,” Amst. 1709, 12mo. This piece, which he was induced to undertake by the persuasion of a bookseller of Rotterdam, as a supplement to Bayle’s dictionary, contains the lives, somewhat diffusely written, of Valentine Conrart, whose article contains 133 pages; Bartholomew d'Herbelot, Urban Chevreau, Henry Justel, Adrian Baillet, James Aubery, Benjamin Aubery Sieur du Maurier, Lewis Aubery, John Aubery, Claudius Aubery, John Baptist Cotelier, and Laurence Beger. 11. “Histoire de la vie de M. Ltscheid,” Berlin, 1713.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine of the sixteenth century, was born at Waibling, a town in the duchy of Wmemberg, March 25, 1528. His father, whose name was James Endris, was a smith. He applied himself to letters with great success for three years; but his parents, being poor, had resolved to bring him up to some mechanical profession, and had agreed with a carpenter for that purpose, when several persons of distinction, who discovered marks of genius in him, contributed to support him in the prosecution of his studies, in which he made a considerable advance. In 1545, he took his master’s degree at Tubingen, and studied divinity and the Hebrew language at the same university. In 1546 he was appointed minister of the church of Stutgard, the metropolis of the duchy of Wirtemberg; and his sermons were so well approved of, that his fame reached the duke, who ordered him to preach before him, which he performed with great applause. The same year he married a wife at Tubingen, by whom he had nine sons and nine daughters, nine of which children survived him. During the war in which Germany was about the same time involved, he met with great civilities even from the emperor’s party, till he was obliged upon the publication of the Interim to retire to Tubingen, where he executed the function of minister. In the year 1553 he took his degree of doctor of divinity, and was appointed pastor of the church of topping, and superintendant of the neighbouring churches. He was afterwards sent for to several parts; and in 1557 he wot to the diet of Ratisbon with Christopher duke of Wirtemberg, and was appointed one of the secretaries at the conference at Worms between the papists and the divines of the Augustan confession. The same year he published his first work on the Lord’s Supper, in which he proposed a method of agreement upon that difficult point of controversy. In June the same year he went with the duke above-mentioned to Francfort upon the Maine, where he preached a sermon, though he was publicly opposed by a Romish priest. In 1558 he replied to Staphylus’s book against Luther, which was entitled “Epitome trimembris Theologise Lutheranse,” and in which he had collected the opinions of several sects, and ascribed them all to that reformer, as the original author of them. In 1559 he was sent to Augsburg, where the diet of the empire was held; and, during the same, preached two sermons before all the princes of the Augustan confession, one on justification, the other on the Lord’s supper; both printed at Tubingen, and very popular. In 1561 he was sent to Paris, in order to be present at the conference of Poissi, which was broken up before he came thither. Some time after his return he was made chancellor and rector of the university of Tubingen. In the beginning of the year 1563 he went to Strasburg, where Jerom Zanchius had propagated several opinions accounted new, and particularly this, that the regenerate and believers could not possibly fall again from grace, or lose the faith, though they had committed sins against the light of their conscience. Our author at last engaged him to sign a form of confession, which he had drawn up. In 1565 he was invited to establish a church at Hagenaw, an imperial city, where he preached a great many sermoni upon the principal points of the Christian religion, which were afterwards printed. In 1568 he assisted Julius, duke of Brunswick, in reforming his churches. In 1569 he took a journey to Heidelberg and Brunswick, and into Denmark. In 1570 he went to Misniaancl Prague, where the emperor Maximilian II. had a conversation with him upon the subject of an agreement in religion. In 1571 he went to visit the churches at Mompelgard; and upon his return had a conference with Flaccius Illyricus at Strasburg, in which he confuted his paradoxical assertion, that sin is a substance. He took several journies after this, and used his utmost efforts to effect an union of the churches of the Augustan confession. In 1583 he lost his first wife, with whom he had lived thirty-seven years; and about an year and half after he married a second wife, who had voluntarily attended her former husband, when he was obliged to leave his country on account of religion. About the same time he wrote a controversial piece, in which he maintained the ubiquity or presence of the whole Christ, in his divine and human nature, in all things. In 1586 he was engaged in a conference at Mompelgard with Theodore Beza concerning the Lord’s supper, the person of Christ, predestination, baptism, the reformation of the popish churches, and Adiaphora or indifferent things; but this had the usual event of all other conferences, which, though designed to put an end to disputes in divinity, are often the occasion of still greater. In 1537 he was sent for to Nordling upon church affairs; and upon his return fell sick, and published his confession of faith, in order to obviate the imputations of his adversaries; but he afterwards recovered, and was sent for again to Ratisbon, and then to Onolsbach by Frederick marquis of Brandenbourg. Upon the publication of the conference at Mompelgard abovementioned, he was accused of having falsely imputed some things to Beza, which the latter had never asserted; he therefore went to Bern to clear himself of the charge. His last public act was a conference at Baden in November 1589 with John Pistorius, who then inclined to Calvinism, and afterwards revolted entirely to the Papists. He had a very early presentiment of his death; and when he found it drawing near, he made a declaration to several of his friends of his constancy in the faith, which he had asserted, and shewed the most undoubted signs of cordial belief, till he expired on the seventh of January 1590, being sixtyone years and nine months old. His funeral sermon was preached by Luke Osiander, and afterwards published. Several false reports were propagated concern ing his death. The Popish priests in the parts adjacent publicly declared from the pulpit, that before his death he had recanted and condemned all the doctrines which he had maintained in word or writing. Besides, there was a letter dispersed, in which they affirmed, with their usual assurance, that he desired very anxiously before his death, that a Jesuit might be sent for immediately, to administer the sacraments to him; which request being denied him, he fell into despair, and expired under all the horrors of it. Of this not a syllable was true, his dying words and actions entirely coinciding with his life and doctrines. His works were extremely numerous, but his biographers have neglected to give a list, or to notice any but his “Treatise on Concord,” 1582, 4to. His life was written by the subject of the next article, 1630.

His other publications vrere, “An Elegy on the death of the marquis of Tavistock,” 1767. “The Patriot,” 1763, a censure on die encouragement given -to prize-fighters: “An Election Ball,” 1776, at first written in the Somersetshire dialect. “A C. W. Bampfylde, arm. Epistola,” 1777. “Envy,” 1778. “Charity,'” 1779. In 1786 he was induced to revise and republish these and other smaller occasional pieces; but he afterwards wrote several pieces, which have been collected by his son, in a splendid edition of his entire works, published in 1808, and prefaced by an elegant memoir of his life, to which the present sketch is highly indebted. His last publication was in Latin, written at Cheltenham, in the summer of 1803, and in the 79th year of his age, an Alcaic ode, addressed to Dr. Jenner, in consequence of his very important discovery of the Vaccine inoculation. He died in 1805, in his eighty-first year, and was interred in Walcot church in the city of Bath, where he had resided for many years. His son has delineated his character with filial affection, but at the same time with an elegant discrimination, and, as his surviving friends acknowledge, with a steady adherence to truth. As a poet, if he does not rank with those who are distinguished by the highest efforts of the art, he may be allowed an enviable place among those who have devoted their talents to the delineation of manners, and who have ennobled the finer affections, and added strength to taste and morals.

The term of his government being expired, he returned to court, where, finding the duke took great delight in theatrical representations, he applied himself to the drama; and, besides the “Cassaria” and “Suppositi,” he composed “La Lena,” and “II Negromante,” in prose and verse, and the “Scolastica” in verse; though the last was Jeft imperfect by his death, and the fifth act added by his brother Gabriele. Of these comedies, four were first printed in prose, and afterwards turned into verse. They were performed with universal applause, before many faniilies of rank, the actors being generally persons of condition; insomuch, that when the Lena was first acted, in 1528, signer Don Francisco of Este, afterwards marquis of Massa, spoke the prologue himself.

, of the same family as the preceding, became bishop of Urbino, where he died in 1504, in the sixty- third year of his age. He had been the scholar of Philelphus, under whom he studied the Greek language with great diligence. He wrote, 1. “Gonzagidos,” a Latin poem, in honour of Ludovico, marquis of Mantua, a celebrated general, who died in 1478. 2. “Latin epistles,” with those of James Piccolomini, called the cardinal of Pavia, printed at Milan in 1506. From his Gonzagidos, first printed by Meuschenius in his collection entitled “Vitae summorum dignitate et eruditione virorum,” vol. III. Cobourg, 1738, it appears that the author had been present at many of the victories and transactions which he there relates.

By the direction of his will, his library was to be sold by public auction but it was purchased by the Royal Institution for iOOOl. His manuscripts were to be offered on certain terms to the marquis of Buckingham and on his declining the purchase, to the British Museum. Those who know the value of the latter national repository will wish he had bequeathed them unconditionally. It was here he first obtained employment in the preparation of the Harleian catalogue of Mss. and he had long enjoyed the honour of being one of the trustees. Mr. Astle was, however, a valuable contributor to the history and antiquities of his country, and very liberal in giving assistance to gentlemen employed in any species of historical investigation. His principal work is his “Origin and Progress of Writing,” some very acute remarks on which may be seen in the Monthly Review for October, 1784. His “Preface and Index to the Catalogue of the Harleian Collection of Mss.” was published in 1763.

, bishop of Galloway in Scotland, was the son of Henry Atkins, sheriff and commissary of Orkney, and was born in the town of Kirkwall, in the stewartry of Orkney. He was educated in the college of Edinburgh, where he commenced M, A. and from thence went to Oxford in 1637-8, to finish his studies Under the tuition of Dr. Prideaux, the regius professor of divinity. Soon after he was appointed chaplain to James marquis of Hamilton, his majesty’s high-commissioner for Scotland, in which station he acquitted himself so well, that, by the application of his noble patron upon his return to England, he obtained from the king a presentation to the church of Birsa, in the stewartry of Orkney. Here he continued some years, and his prudence, diligence, and faithfulness in the discharge of his office, procured him much veneration and respect from all persons, especially from his ordinary, who conferred upon him the dignity of Moderator of the presbytery. In the beginning of 1650, when James marquis of Montrosc landed in Orkney, Dr. Atkins was nominated by the unanimous votes of the said presbytery, to draw up a declaration in their names, containing the strongest expressions of loyalty and allegiance to king Charles II., for which the whole presbytery being deposed by the assembly of the kirk at that time sitting at Edinburgh, Dr. Atkins was likewise excommunicated as one who held a correspondence with the said marquis. At the same time the council passed an act for the apprehending and bringing him to his trial but upon private notice from his kinsman sir Archibald Primrose, then clerk of the council, he fled into Holland, where he lay concealed till 1653, and then returning into Scotland, he settled with his family at Edinburgh, quietly and obscurely, till 1660. Upon the restoration of the king, he accompanied Dr. Thomas Sydserf, bishop of Galloway (the only Scotch bishop who survived the calamities of the usurpation) to London, where the bishop of Winchester presented him to the rectory of Winfrith in Dorsetshire. In 1677, he was elected and consecrated bishop of Murray in Scotland, to the great joy of the episcopal party; and, in 1680, he was translated to the see of Galloway, with a dispensation to reside at Edinburgh, on account of his age, and the disaffection of the people to episcopacy. At this distance, however, he continued to govern his diocese seven years, and died at Edinburgh of an apoplexy, October 28th, 1687, aged seventy -four years. His body was decently interred in the church of the Grey-friars^ and his death was extremely regretted by all good and pious men.

At the revolution, which sir Robert zealously promoted, he was received with great marks of distinction by king William, who, in May 1689, made him lord chief baron of the exchequer. In October following, the marquis of Halifax, whom the Lords had chosen for their speaker, desiring to be excused from discharging that office any longer, the lord chief baron Atkyns was immediately elected in his room, and was speaker till the great seal was given to sir John Sommers, in the beginning of 1693.

, marquis of, one of the ericouragers of useful learning in France, was born at Nismes, in 1686, and became a member of the academies of Marseilles and Nismes. He was of a very distinguished family, whose fame he perpetuated by the probity of his character, his love of science, and the patronage he extended to learning and learned men. He formed also one of the most complete libraries in his time. Among other contributions to literary undertakings, he gave Menard the materials of his collection, entitled “Pieces fugitives pour i'histoire de France,” published in 1759, 3 vols. 4to, and himself published an “Historical Geography,” 8vo, which was not much esteemed. He had, however, a perfect acquaintance witn history and genealogies. He died at his chateau d'Aubais, near Nismes, March 5, 1777, at the advanced age of 92.

, 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.

, an eminent English prelate, descended from a very ancient and honourable family, seated at Aylmer-hall, in Norfolk, was born in 1521, and being a younger brother, was either recommended by his relations, or recommended himself by his pregnant parts, to the marquis of Dorset (Henry Grey), afterwards duke of Suffolk, who honoured him with the title of his Scholar, and gave him an exhibition at the university of Cambridge. When he had there attained competent learning, the marquis took him home, where he became tutor to his children, amongst whom was the lady Jane, who for some days was styled queen, and who, under Aylmer’s tuition, acquired the Latin and Greek tongues, reading and writing in the latter with ease and elegance, By his care also, she received right principles of religion, as he imbibed the opinions of the primitive reformers and having for his patrons the duke of Suffolk and the carl of Huntingdon, in the reign of Edward VI., was for some time the only preacherin Leicestershire; where he had great success in inculcating the, Protestant religion. When the celebrated Ascliam, in a visit to lady Jane in 1550, asked her how so young a lady (not then ahove fourteen) could have arrived at such perfection both in philosophy and the Greek language, she bore the following testimony to the merit of her tutor “1 will tell you,” said she, “and tell you truth, which, perchance, you will marvel at. One of the greatest benefits which ever God gave me, is that he sent so sharp and severe parents, and so gentle a schoolmaster. For when I am in presence either of father or mother, whether I speak, keep silence, sit, stand, or go eat, drink, be merry or sad be sewing, placing, dancing, or doing any thing else, I must do it, as it were, in such weight, measure, and number, and even so perfectly, as God made the world, or else, I am so sharply taunted, so cruelly threatened, yea, presently sometimes with pinches, nips, and bobs (or other ways, which I will not name, for the honour I bear them), so without measure misordereo”, that I think myself in hell, till time come that I must go to Mr. Elmer, who teachfeth me so gently, so pleasantly, with fair allurements to learning, that I think all the time nothing while I am with him and when I am called from him, 1 fall a weeping, because whatsoever I do else but learning, is full of grief, trouble, fear, and wholly misliking unto me and this my book hath been so much my pleasure, and bringeth daily to me more pleasure, and more yet, in respect to it, all other pleasures, in very deed, be but trifles and troubles unto me." Mr. Ascharn was so affected with this interview, that in a letter to lady Jane, dated the eighteenth of January, 1551, he speaks of it in rapture, and by a beautiful apostrophe, addressing himself to Mr. Ay liner, felicitates him on his having so ingenious a scholar, in a strain of compliment, which he says the great Sturmius made use of to him, speaking of his happiness, in having the lady Elizabeth for his pupil. In this letter it is, that he desires Mr. Aylmer, to whom be foresaw it would be shewn, to engage the lady Jane, to write a letter in Greek to himself, and another to Sturmius, and also desires they might continue to live in the same learned friendship and intercourse, which they had hitherto done.

, marquis of St. Philippe, was born in Sardinia, of an ancient family, originally Spanish, and rendered his name known, not only by his learning, but by his important employments under Charles II. and Philip V. After the death of Charles II. he served under the dukeof Anjou his successor, and during the revolt in Sardinia conducted himself with wisdom and loyalty. Philip V. rewarded his services by creating him a marquis. He died at Madrid in 1726, much esteemed. His learned “History of the Monarchy of the Hebrews” was translated into French, and published in 2 vols. 4to, and 4 vols. 8vo. He wrote also “Memoirs of the history of Philip V. from 1699 to 1725,” which abound rather too much in military relations, but the whole is said to be scrupulously exact in point of fact.

, an eminent English sculptor, born in 1735, was the son of Mr. William Banks, land-steward to the then duke of Beaufort, a situation which he occupied with honour and credit to himself, and from which he derived very handsome emolument. His eldest son Thomas, evincing a strong partiality for the arts, was placed with Mr. Kent, whose name is well known in the architectural annals of that period but, shewing afterwards a preference for sculpture, he studied that art with greater success in the royal academy, then lately instituted, and obtained the geld medal and other prizes for his productions he was also elected to be sent for three years to pursue his studies on the continent, at the expence of that establishment which was one of its regulations previous to the French revolution, when the disturbances in Italy rendered it difficult, if not impossible, for Englishmen to travel in that country. The residence of Mr. Banks was prolonged beyond the limits allowed by the academy for his enthusiastic admiration of the antique, which could then be seen only in perfection in that now despoiled country, and his eager endeavours to imitate the simplicity and elegance of its best specimens, made him unwilling to quit a spot where he could contemplate its beauties with unremitting delight. He met with some patronage from his countrymen who visited Rome and among others of his productions which were sent to this country, was a basso-relievo in marble, representing Caractacus with his family broughtprisoners before Claudius which now ornaments the entrance-hall at Stowe, the seat of the marquis of Buckingham a beautiful little figure of Pysche stealing the golden fleece, in marble also, which was intended as a portrait of the princess Sophia of Gloucester, and is still in her family and an exquisite figure of Cupid catching a butterfly, an emblem of loye tormenting the soul, the size of life, which perhaps for grace, symmetry of form, and accuracy of contour, has scarcely been equalled by a modern hand, and might almost vie with those productions of the ancients, to which his admiration, as well as emulation, had been so constantly directed.

, counsellor of state, marquis of Marolles upon the Seine, was ambassador from France to Switzerland under the reign of Lewis XIV. He had been chief deputy of monsieur de Chavigni, secretary of state, and assisted at the conferences at Munster, as a minister of the second rank, when endeavours were made to procure him the title of excellency, which did not succeed. He had been already named for the embassy in Switzerland, and served France with great integrity and address, during the whole course of this embassy. He wrote in Latin the History of France from the death of Lewis XIII. to the year 1652. This work was printed in 1671, and well received by the public. The style is excellent; affairs are related without flattery, and with great skill in the intrigues of the cabinet. The author has latinised his name by that of Labardicus. He had made a French translation of this history, which in the opinion of good judges was much inferior to the original Latin. As he was very learned in points of divinity, he wrote a book of Controversy in Latin, against the opinion of protestants concerning the Eucharist, which was not published. It is thought he destroyed it himself. He died in 1692, ninety years of age.

, a very learned divine and bishop in the seventeenth century, was born at Langhill, in the parish of Orton, in Westmorland, in 1607; being the son <*f Mr. Richard Barlow, descended from the ancient family of Barlow-moore in Lancashire. He had his first education at the free-school at Appleby, in his own country. From thence being removed, in the sixteenth year of his age, to Queen’s college in Oxford, he took his degrees in arts, that of master being completed the 27th of June, 1633, and the same year was chosen fellow of his college. In 1635, he was appointed metaphysic-reader in the university; and his lectures being much approved of, were published in 1637 for the use of the scholars. When the garrison of Oxford surrendered to the parliament in 1646, he submitted to the persons then in power and by tb-^ interest of colonel Thomas Kelsey, deputy governor of that garrison, or more likely by that of Selden or Dr. Owen, preserved his fellowship, notwithstanding the parliamentary visitation, of which he gave a ludicrous account, in a pamphlet entitled “Pegasus.” In 1652 he was elected keeper of the Bodleian library and about the same time, was made lecturer of Church-hill, near Burford, in Oxfordshire. July 23, 1657, he took his degree of bachelor in divinity and, in the latter end of the same year, was chosen provost of his college, on the death of the learned Dr. Langbaine. After the restoration of king Charles II. he procured himself to be one of the commissioners, appointed first by the marquis of Hertford, chancellor of the university, and afterwards by the king, for restoring the members which were ejected in 1648. The 2d of August, 1660, he was not only created doctor in divinity among the royalists, but also chosen Margaret professor of divinity, the 1st of September following, upon the ejection of Henry Wilkinson, senior. He wrote, the same year, “The case of a Toleration in matters of religion,' 7 addressed to the famous Rob. Boyle, esq. in which that subject fs handled with great candour. In 1661, he was appointed archdeacon of Oxford, in the room of Dr. Barten Holiday, deceased but he was not installed till June 13, 1664, owing to a contest between him and Dr. Thomas Lamplugh about thut dignity, which, after having lasted some time, was at length decided in favour of Dr. Barlow, at the assizes held at Oxford, March 1, 1663-4. Being eminent for his skill in the civil and canon law, he was often applied to as a casuist, to resolve cases of conscience, about marriage, &c. And on one of these occasions, in 1671, he wrote” Mr. Cottington’s case of Divorce,“in which is discussed the validity of his marriage with a lady whose former husband was living and some years after, another case of marriage, inserted in his” Genuine remains.“Upon the death of Dr. W. Fuller, bishop of Lincoln, which happened April 22, 1675, he obtained, the same day, a grant of that bishopric, at the recommendation of some of the nobility, and chiefly through the interest of the two secretaries of state, Henry Coventry, esq. and sir Joseph Williamson, both some time of his college, and the first formerly his pupil. The 27th of June following, he was consecrated at Ely-house chapel. Archbishop Sheldon opposed his promotion, though the reasons of it are not assigned. After his advancement to this see, bishop Barlow wrote several curious things. They were generally short, and most of them by way of letter. The most considerable are these: In 1676,” The original of Sine Cures >“concerning” Pensions paid out of Churchlivings“and a” Survey of the numbers of Papists within the province of Canterbury” in 1679, “A letter concerning the Canon Law, allowing the whipping of heretics.” But he was most distinguished by his writings against popery the chief of which were, “Popery, or the principles and positions approved by the Church of Rome, &c. are very dangerous to all,” and “A discourse concerning the Laws ecclesiastical and civil, made against heretics by popes, emperors, and kings, provincial and general councils, approved by the Church of Rome,” evidently levelled against the duke of York. He expressed his zeal against the papists, not only in writing, but in action. For when, in 1678, after the discovery of the popish plot, a bill was brought into parliament, requiring all members of either house, and all such as might come into the king’s court, or presence, to take a test against popery our bishop appeared for that bill in the house of lords, and spoke in favour of it. Notwithstanding which we are told, that after king James II.'s accession to the throne, bishop Barlow took all opportunities to express his affection, or submission, to him for he sent up an address of thanks to him, for his first declaration for liberty of conscience, signed by six hundred of his clergy. He wrote reasons for reading that king’s second declaration for liberty of conscience he caused it to be read in his diocese , nay, he was prevailed upon to assert and vindicate the regal power of dispensing with penal laws, in an elaborate tract, with numerous quotations from canonists, civilians, and divines. And yet, after the revolution, he was one of those bishops who readily voted that king James had abdicated his kingdoms. He took the oaths to his successors and no bishop was more ready than he, to fill the places of such clergymen as refused to take the oaths to king William and queen Mary. There was nothing in this, however, inconsistent in one who held his sentiments *in favour of toleration. It is more doubtful that he was entirely addicted to the Aristotelian philosophy, and a declared enemy to the improvements made by the royal society, and to what he called in general the new philoso'phy. He was, however, a rigid Calvinist, and the school divinity was that which he most admired but when his attachment to Calvin’s notions engaged him in a public opposition to some of Mr. Bull’s works, he declined a public disputation on the subject. He has also been blamed for never appearing in his cathedral, nor visiting his diocese in person, but residing constantly at his manor of Bugden but against this he appears to have vindicated himself. His enemies are willing to allow that he was a good casuist, a man of very exten^ sive learning, an universal lover and favourer of learned me if, of what country or denomination soever, and a great master of the whole controversy between the Protestants and Papists. He died at Bugden, October 8, 1691, in the eighty-fifth year of his age; and was buried the llth of the said month, on the north side of the chancel belonging to that church, near the body of Dr. R. Sanderson, some time bishop of Lincoln, and, according to his own desire, in the grave of Dr. William Barlow, formerly bishop of the same see to whose memory, as well as his own, is erected a monument, with an inscription which he composed himself a few days before his death. He bequeathed to the Bodleian library, all such books of his own, as were not in that noble collection at the time of his death and the remainder he gave to Queen’s college in Oxford, on which the society erected, in 1694, a noble pile of buildings, on the west side of their college, to receive them. All his manuscripts, of his own composition, he left to his two domestic chaplains, William Otfley and Henry Brougham, prebendaries of Lincoln, with a particular desire that they would not make any of them public after his decease. Besides the works already mentioned, he wrote against popery, 1.'“Confutation of the infallibility of the church of Rome,” written in 167S. 2. “A letter to J. Evelyn, esq. concerning invocation of Saints, and adoration of the Cross,” London, 1679, 4 to. 3. The same year he reprinted in 8vo, “The Gun-powder Treason, with a discourse of the manner of its discovery, &c.” printed at first in 1606, and placed in the beginning of it, “A preface touching that horrid conspiracy, dated Feb. 1, 1678-9.” 4. “Brutum Fulmen, or the bull of pope Pius Sextus against queen Elizabeth,” 1681, 4tn. 5. “Whether the pope be Antichrist, &c.” 6. “A few plain reasons why a Protestant of the church of England should not turn Roman catholic,” 1688. Some sheets of this, not being licensed, were omitted. Besides these, he is the author of the following 7. “Pietas in Patrem, or a few tears upon the lamented death of his most dear and loving Father Richard Barlow, late of Langhill in Westmorland, who died December 29, 1636,” Oxford, 1637, 4to. 8. “A letter to Mr. John Goodwin, concerning Universal Redemption, by J. Christ,” 1651. 9. “For toleration of the Jews,” 3655. 10. “A letter to Mr. John Tombes in defence of Anabaptism, inserted in one of Tombes’s books.” 11. “A tract to prove that true grace doth not lie so much in the degree, as in the nature.” This also is inserted in a book, entitled Sincerity and Hypocrisy, &c. written by William Sheppard, esq. 12. “The Rights of the Bishops to judge in capital eases in parliament cleared, &c.” Lond. 1680. Dr. Barlow did not set his name to this, and it was by some ascribed to Tho. Turner of Gray’s-inn. 13. “A letter (to his clergy) for the putting in execution the Laws against Dissenters, written in concurrence to that which was drawn up by the justices of the peace of the county of Bedford, at the quarter-sessions held at Ampthill for the said county, Jan. 14, 1684.” After his decease, sir Peter Pett lisbed in 1692, 8vo, “Several miscellaneous and weighty cases of conscience, learnedly and judiciously resolved by the right rev. father in God, Dr. T ho. Barlow, late lord bishop of Lincoln.” Sir Peter published also in 1693, Lond. 8vo, 14. “The genuine Remains of that learned prelate, Dr. Thomas Barlow, late lord bishop of Lincoln, containing divers discourses, theological, philosophical, historical, &c. in letters to several persons of honour and quality.” But these two volumes being published without the knowledge or consent of the bishop’s two chaplains above-mentioned, to whom he had left all his manuscripts, with orders that they should not be published, they severely Reflected upon the publisher, for the unwarrantable liberty he had taken.

Baudius was a strenuous advocate for a truce betwixt the States and Spain: two orations he published on this subject, though without his name, had almost brought him into serious trouble, as prince Maurice was made to believe he was affronted in them, and the author was said to have been bribed by the French ambassador to write upon the truce. In consequence of these suspicions he wrote to the prince and his secretary, in order to vindicate himself, and laments his unhappy fate in being exposed to the malice of so many slanderers, who put wrong interpretations on his words: “It is evident (says he) that through the malignity of mankind, nothing can be expressed so cautiously by men of any character and reputation, but it may be distorted into some obnoxious sense. For what can be more absurd than the conduct of those men, who have reported that I have been bribed by the ambassador Jeannin, to give him empty words in return for his generosity to me? as if I, an obscure doctor, was an assistant to a man of the greatest experience in business.” Some verses, which he wrote in praise of the marquis of Spinola, occasioned him also a good deal of trouble: the marquis came to Holland before any thing was concluded either of the peace or truce; and though Baudius had printed the poem, yet he kept the copies of it, till it might be seen more evidently upon what account this minister came, and gave them only to his most intimate friends. It being known however that the poem was printed, he was very near being banished for it.

, a celebrated French geographer, was born at Paris the 28th of July, 1633. His father, Stephen Baudrand, was first deputy of the procurator-general of the court of aids, treasurer of France for Montauban, and master of the requests of his royal highness Gaston of France, and his mother’s name was Frances Caule. He began his studies in the year 1640. His inclination for geography was first noticed when he studied at the Jesuits college of Clermont under father Briet, who was famous for his geography, which was then printing, the proof sheets of which were corrected by our author. After he had finished his course of philosophy at the college of Lisieux under Mr. Desperier, cardinal Antonio Barberini took him as his secretary at Rome, and he was present with his eminence at the conclave, in which pope Alexander VII. was elected; and afterwards at thaHn which Clement IX. was chosen pope. Upon his return to France, he applied himself to the revisal of Ferrarius’s Geographical Dictionary, which he enlarged by one half, and published at Paris, 1671, fol. In the same year he attended the marquis of Dangeau, who was employed by the king in the management of his affairs in Germany, and also went to England with the duchess of York, who was afterwards queen of England. His travels were of great advantage to linn in furnishing him with a variety of observations in geography. He returned to France in 1677, and composed his geographical dictionary in Latin. In 1691 he attended the cardinal of Camus, who was bishop of Grenoble, to Rome, and went with him into the conclave on the 27th of March, where he continued three months ancha half, till the election of pope Innocent XII. on July 12th, the same year. Upon his return to Paris he applied himself to the completing of his French geographical dictionary, but he was prevented from publishing it by his death, which happened at Paris the 29th of May 1700. He had been prior of Rouvres and Neuf-Marche. He left all his books and papers to the Benedictine monks of the abbey of St. Germain des Prez.

, the fourth and youngest son of bishop Bayly, was educated at Cambridge, and having commenced B. A. was presented to the subdeanery of Wells by Charles I. in 1638. In 1644, he retired with other loyalists to Oxford, where, proceeding in his degrees he was created D. D. and two years after wle find him with the marquis of Worcester, in Ragland castle, after the battle of Naseby. When this was surrendered to the parliament army, on which occasion he was employed to draw up the articles, he travelled into France and other countries; but returned the year after the king’s death, and published at London, in 8vo, a book, entitled “Certamen Religiosum, or a conference between king Charles I. and Henry late marquis of Worcester, concerning religion, in Ragland castle, anno 1646.” But this conference was believed to have no real foundation, and considered as nothing else than a prelude to the declaring of himself a papist. The same year, 1649, he published “The Royal Charter granted unto kings by God himself, &c. to which is added, a treatise, wherein is proved, that episcopacy is jure dvvino” 8vo. These writings giving offence, occasioned him to be committed to Newgate whence escaping, he re^ tired to Holland, and became a zealous Roman catholic. During his confinement in Newgate, he wrote a piece entitled, “Herba Parietis, or the wall-flower, as it grows out of the stone-chamber belonging to the metropolitan prison; being an history, which is partly true, partly romantic, morally divine; whereby a marriage between reality and fancy is solemnized by divinity,” Lond. 1650, in a thin folio. Some time after, he left Holland, and settled at Douay where he published another book, entitled “The end to controversy between the Roman catholic and Protestant religions, justified by all the several manner of ways, whereby all kinds of controversies, of what nature soever, are usually or can possibly be determined,” Douay, 1654, 4to, and afterwards “Dr. Bayly’s Challenge.” At last this singular person went to Italy, where he lived and died extremely poor (although Dodd says that he died in cardinal Ottoboni’s family) for Dr. Trevor, fellow of Merton college, who was in Italy in 1659, told Mr. Wood several times, that Dr. Bayly died obscurely in an hospital, and that he had seen the place where he was buried.

The works above mentioned occasioned the following answers; “A vindication of the Protestant Religion against the marquis of Worcester’s last papers. By Christ Cartwright, JLond. 1652, 4to.” An answer to the marquis of Worcester’s papers relating to king Charles I.“by L'Esstrange, Load. 1651, 8vo.” Answer to Dr. Bayly’s Challenge,“an imperfect work, by Rob. Sanderson.” Animadversions on Certamen Religiosum, &c. by Peter Hey1m, who in 1649, 1650, and 1659, published a collection of papers entitled “Bibliotheca Regia.” In this, says Wood, is inserted the conference between king Charles I. and the marquis of Worcester at Ragland, which is by many taken to be authentic, because published by Heylin.

, an English actor and singer, born in 1717, was bred up in the king’s chapel, and was one of the singers in the duke of Chandos’s chapel at Cannons, where he performed in Esther, an oratorio composed by Mr. Handel. He appeared the first time on the stage at Drury-lane, Aug. 30, 1737, in sir John Loverule, in the “Devil to Pay.” He afterwards, on the 8th of Jan. 1739, married lady Henrietta Herbert, daughter of J&mes earl Waldegrave, and widow of lord Edward Herbert, second son of the marquis of Powis. She died 31st of May 1753. On his marriage he quitted the stage for a few years. He afterwards returned to Drury-lane, and in 1744 to Coventgarden, where he remained until 1758. In that year he engaged with Mr. Garrick, and continued with him until 1759, when having married a daughter of Mr. Rich, he was engaged at Covent-garden, where, on the death of that gentleman, he became manager. His first appearance there was on the 10th of Oct. 1759, in the character of Macheath, which, aided by Miss Brent in Polly, ran fifty-two nights. In 1768 he retired from the theatre, and died universally respected at the age of seventy-four, in 1791. His remains were deposited in the vault of the church at Hampton in Middlesex. He was long the deserved favourite of the public; and whoever remembers the variety of his abilities, as actor and singer, in oratorios and operas, both serious and comic, win 1 testify to his having stood unrivalled in fame and excellence. This praise, however, great as it -was, fell short of what his private merits acquired. He had one of the sincerest hearts joined to the most polished manners. He was a most delightful companion, whether as host or guest. His time, his pen, and purse, were devoted to the alleviation of every distress that fell within the compass of his power, and through life he fulfilled the relative duties of son, brother, guardian, friend, and husband, with the most exemplary truth and tenderness.

, 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.

, a French poet, born in 1528, at Nogent le llotrtm, lived in the family of Renatus of Lorraine, marquis of Elbeuf, general of the French gallies, and attended him in his expedition to Italy in 1557. This prince highly esteemed Belleau for his courage; and having also a high opinion of his genius and abilities, entrusted him with the education of his son Charles of Lorraine. Belleau was one of the seven poets of his time, who were denominated the French Pleiades. He wrote several pieces, and translated the odes of Anacreon into the French language; but in this he is thought not to have preserved all the natural beauties of the original. His pastoral pieces are in greatest esteem, and were so successful, that Ronsard styled him the painter of nature. He wrote also an excellent poem on the nature and difference of precious stones, which by some has been reputed his best performance; and hence it was said of him, that he had erected for himself a monument of precious stones. Belleau died at Paris, March 6, 1577. His poems were collected and published at Rouen, 1604, 2 vols. 12mo, with the exception, we believe, of a macaronic poem he wrote and published (without date) entitled “Dictamen metrificum de bello Huguenotico.”

, third duke of Portland, was born in 1738, and educated at Christchurch, Oxford, where he was created M. A. Feb. 1, 1757. He afterwards travelled for some time on the continent, and on his return was elected M. P. for Weobly, but in 1762 was called up to the house of peers on the death of his father. From that period, we find him generally dividing on important questions with the minority, and having connected himself with the late marquis of Rockingham, during that nobleman’s short-lived administration in 1765, he held the office of lord chamberlain. In 1767-8, his grace was involved in a long dispute with government respecting the grant of the forest of Inglewood to sir James Lowther, which had been part of the estates belonging to the duke’s ancestors, but by a decision of the court of exchequer in 1771, the grant was declared to be illegal. During the progress of the Ameiican war, his grace continued invariably to vote with the party who opposed the measures of administration, and became perhaps more closely united to them by his marriage with lady Dorothy Cavendish, sister to the duke of Devonshire. When the administration of lord North, which had conducted that unfortunate war, was dissolved in 1782, and replaced by the marquis of Rockingham, and his friends, the duke of Portland was appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland, but owing to the death of the marquis, he remained in this office only about three months. In consequence of the same event, some of the party were for earl Fitzwilliam, and some for the duke of Portland, as the ostensible head of the new arrangement, but in the mean time his majesty preferred the earl of Shelburne, Mr. Pitt, &c. The memorable coalition then took place between lord North and Mr. Fox, supported by many of the friends of the latter; but soon was not more unacceptable to his majesty than to the nation, whose confidence in public professions was shaken to a degree of indifference from which perhaps it has never since recovered. The coalition-ministry, however, having the voice of the house of commons in their favour, his majesty determined to appeal to the people by a general election, the issue of which was completely unfavourable to his grace’s friends; and Mr. Pitt, who had been appointed first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer, found a decided majority of the parliament and of the country on his side. An attempt was indeed made to engage Mr. Pitt and the duke in the same administration, but as the latter insisted as a preliminary, that Mr. Pitt should resign, the negociation was soon broken off.

, of Arragon, of the family of the Bentivoglios of Bologna, but only collaterally related to that of the cardinal, was born at Ferrara, about the middle of the sixteenth century. He bore the titles of a nobleman of Ferrara, Venice, and Bologna, was marquis of Magliano and count of Antignato. He studied first in Italy, and afterwards at Paris, and then embraced a military life, and served in the rank of captain, in Flanders, in 1588. On his return to Italy, he made the tour of the different courts, and being at that of Modena when the duke Francis was about to depart for the siege of Pavia, he went with him as colonel of cavalry, and distinguished himself. To the science of arms he joined those of literature, was well acquainted with Greek, Latin, several modern languages, music, and architecture, both civil and military. He is said likewise to have invented some ingenious machinery for the Italian stage, his turn being particularly to dramatic poetry; and he was also a member of various academies. He died at Ferrara, February 1, 1685. On the Ferrara stage he produced three dramas: “L'Annibale in Capoa,” “La Filli di Tracia,” and “L‘Achille in Sciro’;” the latter was printed at Ferrara, 1663, 12mo. He wrote also “Tiridate,” represented on the Venetian stage, and printed 1668, 12mo; and a comedy in prose, “Impegni per disgracia,” which was published after his death, at Modena, 1687, His lyric poems are in various collections, but principally in “Rime scelte de' poeti Ferraresi.”

, the author of a poem, in praise of printing, written in Latin hexameters and pentameters, has escaped tlfe researches of biographers as to much personal history. It is, however, conjectured, that his proper name was Arnold or Arnold i, and that he was called Bergellauus from his country. It is supposed also that he came to Mentz, and was employed there, either? as a workman, or as a corrector of the press. John Conrad Zeltner, who is of this last opinion, has accordingly asigned him a short article in his Latin history of the correctors of the press, p. 79, 80, where he calls him John Anthony, instead of John Arnold. Struvius (Introd. in not. rei litterariae, p. 892) considers Bergellanus as the first historian of printing, but in this he is mistaken. Mentel, in his “Paraenesis de vera origine Typographic, p. 52, says that Bergellanus’s poem was printed in 1510, which could not be the case, as mention is made in it of Charles V, who was not emperor until 1519. Walkius, who wrote in 1608, asserts that Bergellanus wrote or published his poem eighty years before, which brings us to 1528, but in tact it was not written or published until 1540 and 1541, as appears clearly by the author’s dedication to cardinal Albert, archbishop of Mentz and marquis of Brandebourg. There have been six editions of it, separate or joined to other works on the subject. The two last are by Prosper Marchand in his History of Printing, Hague, 1740, 4to, and by Woltius in his” Monumenta typographica."

In order to appreciate these editions, it is necessary to advert to the fate of this extraordinary work in the press. For about a century, it was circulated in manuscript, and liberties of every kind were taken at every transcription. At length it was printed for the first time, as has been supposed, in 1470, and run through various editions to the end of the fifteenth, and for more than sixty years of the sixteenth century. During this period it was prohibited by the popqs Paul IV. and Pius IV. who were in this respect more scrupulous than their twenty-five or twenty-six predecessors in the papal chair. Two grand dukes of Tuscany, Cosmo I. and Francis I. applied one after the other to two other popes, Pius V. and Gregory XIII. in consequence of which the academicians were employed to reform the Decameron important corrections were made, and many passages suppressed, and in this state various editions were permitted to be printed. But with respect to the ancient editions, it is now necessary to observe that there are two opinions, which we shall state, without attempting to reconcile. We have already noticed that the first edition has been supposed to have been printed in 1470, without a date but on the other hand, it is contended that the edition of 1471, by Valdarfer, is not only the first with a date (which those who maintain the existence of the edition of 1470 are disposed to allow), but that in fact there was no previous edition. Those who are of this latter opinion very naturally ask their antagonists to produce the edition of 1470, or an edition without date that can be supposed of that period. In England it is certain that no such edition is known but the French bibliographers seem to be of a different opinion. Ginguene 1 to whom we are indebted for the greater part of this life of Boccaccio, who has written the literary history of Italy, and is considered in France, we apprehend justly, as their first critic and bibliographer in Italian literature this writer speaks of the first edition without a date in the following terms “Elle est sans date et sans nom de lieu ni d'imprimeur, in-fol. en caracteres inegaux et mal formes.” (Hist. Litt. d'ltalie, vol. III. p. 129). It remains, therefore, for the reader to determine whether this is the language of a man who has seen the book, and describes what he has seen; and if this be decided in the affirmative, the existence of the edition is proved, as far as his authority goes. But it must be confessed Ginguene goes no fa ther. He says nothing of any library which possesses this treasure, nor of its supposed value but when he comes to speak of Valdarfer’s edition of 1471, he informs us that it- has been valued by bibliomaniacs (bibliomanes) at 3000 francs, or 125l. And this brings us to notice the copy of this edition recently sold from the duke of Roxburgh’s library, to the marquis of Blandford, for the immense (and with respect to the value of books, the unprecedented) sum of Two Thousand Two Hundred And Sixty Pounds. In the catalogue of this library, it is stated that “no other perfect copy is yet known to exist, after all the fruitless researches of more than three hundred years;” but, notwithstanding this, we find that the French bibliographers set a value on the edition, as if copies, however rare, were still occasionally to be found. We cannot suppose that the French booksellers or collectors would fix a price-current on an article which had not been seen, for three hundred years, still less that our authority is speaking of imperfect copies, the value of which can only be estimated by the quantum of imperfection. It remains also to be noticed that the French bibliographers speak precisely with the same familiarity of the Junti edition of Florence, 1527, 4to, which they value at 600 francs, or 25l. and which sold at the Roxburgh sale for 29 1. no great advance upon the French price. They certainly speak both of this edition, and of the 1471, as of rare occurrence, but by no means hint that the latter is of that extreme rarity imputed to it in this country .

After this he lived for some time in a retired manner, at his seat at Dunham-Massey; but matters being at length ripe for the revolution, he exerted himself in the promotion of that great event. Upon the prince of Orange’s landing, he raised, in a very few days, a great force in Cheshire and Lancashire, with which he marched to join that prince. On his first appearance in arms, besides assigning other reasons for his conduct, he is said to have made this declaration: “I am of opinion, that when the nation is delivered, it must be by force, or miracle: it would be a great presumption to expect the latter; and, therefore, our deliverance must be by force; and I hope this is the time for it.” After he had joined the prince, he was sent by his highness, together with the marquis of Halifax, and the earl of Shrewsbury, on the 17th of December, 1688, with a message to king James, intimating to him, that he must remove from Whitehall. Lord Delamer, though little attached to that prince in his prosperity, was too generous to insult him in his distress; and therefore, on this occasion, treated him with respect. And James was so sensible of this instance of his lordship’s civility to him, that, after his retirement into France, he said, that <c the lord Delamer, whom he had used ill, had then treated him with much more regard than the other two lords, to whom he had been kind, and from whom he might better have expected it."

, a celebrated French critic, was born at Paris in 1628; and has by some been considered as a proper person to succeed Malherbe, who died about that time. He entered into the society of Jesuits at sixteen, and was appointed to read lectures upon polite literature in the college of Clermont at Paris, where he had studied; but he was so incessantly attacked with the head-ach, that he could not pursue the destined task. He afterwards undertook the education of two sons of the duke of Longueville, which he discharged to the entire satisfaction of the duke, who had such a regard for him, that he would needs die in his arms; and the “Account of the pious and Christian death” of this great personage was the first work which Bouhours gave the public. He was sent to Dunkirk to the popish refugees from England; and, in, the midst of his missionary occupations, found time to compose and publish many works of reputation. Among these were “Entretiens d‘Ariste & d’Eugene,” a work of a critical nature, which was printed no less than five times at Paris, twice at Grenoble, at Lyons, at Brussels, at Amsterdam, at Leyden, &c. and embroiled him with a great number of critics, and with Menage in particular; who, however, lived in friendship with our author before and after. There is a passage in this work which gave great oifence in Germany, where he makes it a question, “Whether it be possible that a German could be a wit” The fame of it, however, and the pleasure he took in reading it, recommended Bouhours so effectually to the celebrated minister Colbert, that he trusted him with the education of his son, the marquis of Segnelai. The Remarks and Doubts upon the French language has been reckoned one of the most considerable of our author’s works; and may be read with great advantage by those who would perfect themselves in that tongue. Menage, in his Observations upon the French language, has given his approbation of jt in the following passage: “The book of Doubts,” says he, “is written with great elegance, and contains many fine observations. And, as Aristotle has said, that reasonable doubt is the beginning of all real knowledge; so we may say also, that the man who doubts so reasonably as the author of this book, is himself very capable of deciding. For this reason perhaps it is, that, forgetting the tide of his work, he decides oftener than at first he proposed.” Bouhours was the author of another work, “The art of pleasing in conversation,” of which M. de la Grose, who wrote the eleventh volume of the Bibliotheque Universelle, has given an account, which he begins with this elogium upon the author “A very little skill,” says he, “in style and manner, will enable a reader to discover the author of this work. He will see at once the nice, the ingenious, and delicate turn, the elegance and politeness of father Bouhours. Add to this, the manner of writing in dialogue, the custom of quoting himself, the collecting strokes of wit, the little agreeable relations interspersed, and a certain mixture of gallantry and morality which is altogether peculiar to this Jesuit. This work is inferior to nothing we have seen of father Bouhours. He treats in twenty dialogues, with an air of gaiety, of every thing which can find a way into conversation; and, though he avoids being systematical, yet he gives his reader to understand, that there is no subject whatever, either of divinity, philosophy, law, or physic, &c. but may be introduced into conversation, provided it be done with ease, politeness, and in a manner free from pedantry and affectation.” He died at Paris, in the college of Clermont, upon the 27th of May 1702; after a life spent, says Moreri, under such constant and violent fits of the head-ach, that he had but few intervals of perfect ease. The following is a list of his works with their dates: 1. “Les Entretiens d‘Ariste et d’Eugene,” 1671, 12ro. 2. “Remarques et Doutes sur la langue Franchise,” 3 vols. 12mo. 3. “La Manier de bien penser sur les ouvrages d' esprit,” Paris, 1692, 12mo. 4. “Pensees ingenieuses des anciens et des modernes,” Paris, 1691, 12mo. In this work he mentions Boileau, whom he had omitted in the preceding; but when he expected Boileau would acknowledge the favour, he coolly replied, “You have, it is true, introduced me in your new work, but in very bad company,” alluding to the frequent mention of some Italian and French versifiers whom Boileau despised. 5. “Pensees ingenieuses des Peres de l'Eglise,” Paris, 1700. This he is said to have written as an answer to the objection that he employed “too much of his time Oh profane literature. 6.” Histoire du grandmaitre d'Aubusson,“1676, 4to, 1679, and lately in 1780. 7. The lives of St. Ignatius, Paris, 1756, 12mo, and of St. Francis Xavier, 1682, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo. Both these are written with rather more judgment than the same lives by Ribadeneira, but are yet replete with the miraculous and the fabulous. The life of Xavier was translated by Dryden, and published at London in 1688, with a dedication to king James II. 's queen. Dryden, says Mr. Malone, doubtless undertook this task, in consequence of the queen, when she solicited a son, having recommended herself to Xavier as her patron saint. 8.” Le Nouveau Testament," translated into French from the Vulgate, 2 vols. 1697 1703, 12mo.

, third earl of Burlington and fourth earl of Cork, another branch of the illustrious family of Boyle, was born on the 25th of April, 1695; and was married on the 21st of March, 1720-1, to the lady Dorothy Savile, the eldest of the two daughters and co-heirs of William Savile, marquis of Halifax. By this lady he had three daughters, the youngest of whom, Charlotte, alone survived him. She was married to the duke of Devonshire, and was mother to the late duke, and grandmother to the present. On the 18th of June, 1730, the earl of Burlington was installed one of the knights’ companions of the most noble order of the garter; and in June 1731, he was constituted captain of the band of gentlemen pensioners. In 1732, being at the city of York, the lord mayor, aldermen, and corporation, sent a deputation to return their thanks to him for the favour he had done them in building their assembly-room, and for his other benefactions to the city, and to beg his acceptance of the freedom of it; which was, accordingly, presented to him in a gold box. In 1733, he resigned his place of captain of the band of pensioners. After this he lived retired, employing himself in adorning his gardens at Chiswick, and in constructing several pieces of architecture. Never, says lord Orford, were protection and great wealth more generously and more judiciously diffused than by this great person, who had every quality of a genius and artist, except envy. Though his own designs were more chaste and classic than Kent’s, he entertained him in his house till his death, and was more studious to extend his friend’s fame than his own. Nor was his munificence confined to himself, and his own houses and gardens. He spent great sums in contributing to public works, and was known to choose that the expence should fall on himself, rather than that his country should be deprived of some beautiful edifices. His enthusiasm for the works of Inigo Jones was so active, that he repaired the church of Covent-garden, because it was the production of that great master, and purchased a gate-way of his at Beaufort-garden in Chelsea, and transported the identical stones to Chiswick with religious attachment. With the same zeal for pure architecture, he assisted Kent in publishing the designs for Whitehall, and gave a beautiful edition of the antique baths from the drawings of Palladio, whose papers he procured with great cost. Besides his works on his own estate at Lanesborough in Yorkshire, he new fronted his house in Piccadilly, built by his father^ and added the grand colonnade within the court. It is recorded that his father being asked, why he built his house so far out of town? replied, because he was determined to have no building beyond him. This is now in the heart of that part of the town. Our nobility formerly wished for town-houses, and not for town-neighbourhoods, but the latter being now obtruded upon them is probably the cause of their paying so little attention to the keep of their London-palaces. Bedford-house has been levelled to the ground some years, and Burlington-house is likewise said to be doomed to destruction.

From Hamburgh he went to Brussels, where he continued for the most part till 1648, with sir Henry de Vic, the king’s president; constantly preaching every Sunday, and frequently administering the sacrament. In that year he returned to Ireland; from whence, after having undergone several difficulties, he narrowly escaped in a little bark: all the while he was there, his life was in continual danger. At Limerick he was threatened with death, if he did not suddenly depart the town. At Portumnagh, indeed, he afterwards enjoyed more freedom, and an allowance of the church service, umler the protection of the marquis of Clanrickard: but, at the revolt of Cork, he had a very narrow deliverance; which deliverance, however, troubled Cromwell so, that he declared he would have given a good sum of money for that Irish Canterburv, as he called him. His escape from Ireland is accounted wonderful: for the vessel he was in was closely chased hy two of the parliament frigates, and when they were come so near, that all hopes of escape vanished, on a sudden the wind sunk into a perfect calm, by which it happened wonderfully that his ship got off, while the frigates were unable to proceed at all. During this second time of being abroad, he had many disputes about religion with the learned of all nations, sometimes occasionally, at other times by appointment and formal challenge; and wrote several things in defence of the church of England. He likewise purposed to draw a parallel between the liturgy of the church of England, and the public forms of the protestant churches abroad; and with this view he designed to travel about. But he met with a very unexpected interruption in his first day’s journey: for he no sooner came into the house where he intended to refresh himself, but he was known and called by his name by the hostess. "While the bishop was wondering at his being discovered, she revealed the secret by shewing him his picture, and assured him there were several of them upon the road, that, being known by them, he might be seized; and that her husband, among others, had power to that purpose, which he would certainly make use of if he found him. The bishop saw evidently he was a condemned man, being already hanged in effigy; an'd therefore, making use of this intelligence, prudently withdrew into safer quarters.

, translator of the duke de Rohan’s Memoirs, was the younger brother of sir Thomas Bridges, of Keinsham abbey in Somersetshire, and son of Edward Bridges, esq. of the same place, by Philippa, daughter of sir George Speke, K. B. He died Jan. 1, 1677, and was buried in Keinsham church. His translation was entitled “The Memoirs of the Duke of Rohan or a faithful relation of the most remarkable occurrences iij France, especially those concerning the reformed churches there; from the death of Henry the Great until the peace made with them, in June 1629. Together with divers politic discourses upon several occasions. Written originally in French, by the duke of Rohan, and now Englished by George Bridges, of Lincoln’s-inn, esq.” London, 1660, 8vo. The translation is dedicated to James, marquis of Onnond, lord lieutenant of Ireland. The translator says he was principally induced to publish it in our language, by some passages tending to the vindication of Charles I. in the matter of relieving the inhabitants of Rochelle, during the memorable siege of that place. A very interesting account of the family of Mr. Bridges may be seen in our authority.

In 1763 she published a novel, entitled, “The History of Lady Julia Mandeville,” concerning the plan of which there were various opinions, though of the execution there seems to have been but one. It was read with much avidity and general approbation. It has been often, however, wished that the catastrophe had been less melancholy; and of the propriety of this opinion the authoress herself is said to have been satisfied, but did not choose to make the alteration. In the same year she published “Letters from Juliet lady Catesby to her friend lady Henrietta Campley,” translated from the French, 12mo. She soon afterwards went to Canada with her husband, who was chaplain to the garrison at Quebec; and there saw those romantic scenes so admirably painted in her next work, entitled, “The History of Emily Montagu,” 1769, 4 vols. 12mo. The next year she published “Memoirs of the Marquis of St. Forlaix,” in 4 vols. 12mo. On her return to England accident brought her acquainted with Mrs. Yates, and an intimacy was formed between them which lasted as long as that lady lived; and when she died, Mrs. Brooke did honour to her memory by a eulogium printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine. If we are not mistaken, Mrs. Brooke had with Mrs. Yates fora time some share in the opera-house. She certainly had some share of the libellous abuse which the management of that theatre during the above period gave birth to. We have already seen that her first play had been refused by Mr. Garrick. After the lapse of several years she was willing once -more to try her fortune at the theatre, and probably relying on the influence of Mrs. Yates to obtain its representation, produced a tragedy which had not the good fortune to please the manager. He therefore rejected it; and by that means excited the resentment of the authoress so much that she took a severe revenge on him in a novel published in 1777, entitled the “Excursion,” in 2 vols. 12mo. It is not certainly known whether this rejected tragedy is or is not the same as was afterwards acted at Covent-garden. If it was, it will furnish no impeachment of Mr. Garrick’s judgment. It ought, however, <to be added, that our authoress, as is said, thought her invective too severe; lamented and retracted it. In 1771 she translated “Elements of the History of England, from the invasion of the Romans to the reign of George II. from the abbe Millot,” in 4 vols. 12mo. In January 1781, the “Siege of Sinope,” a tragedy, was acted at Coventgarden. This piece added but little to her reputation, though the principal characters were well supported by Mr. Henderson and Mrs. Yates. It went nine nights, but never became popular; it wanted energy, and had not much originality; there was little to disapprove, but nothing to admire. Her next and most popular performance was “Rosina,” acted at Covent-garden in December 1782. This she presented to Mr. Harris, and few pieces have been equally successful. The simplicity of the story, the elegance of the words, and the excellence of the music, promise a long duration to this drama. Her concluding work was “Marian,” acted 1788 at Covent-garden with some success, but very much inferior to Rosina.

, one of the most learned English scholars of the eighteenth century, who adds a very illustrious name to the “Worthies of Devon,” was born at Plymouth in that county in 1715. His father held an office in the custom-house, but before his son arrived at his seventh year, was removed thence into Kent, a circumstance which may be mentioned as a proof of Mr. Bryant’s extraordinary memory; for, in a conversation with the late admiral Barrington, not long before his death, when some local circumstances in respect to Plymouth were accidentally mentioned, Mr. Bryant discovered so perfect a recollection of them, that his friend could scarcely be persuaded he had not been very recently on the spot, though he had never visited the place of his nativity after the removal of his father. Mr. Bryant received his grammatical education first under the rev. Sam. Thornton of Ludsdown in Kent, and afterwards at Eton, and undoubtedly was one of the brightest luminaries of that institution. The traditions of his extraordinary attainments still remain, and particularly of some verses which he then wrote. From Eton he proceeded to King’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of A. B. in 1740, and A. M. in 1744, obtained 3 fellowship, and was equally distinguished by his love of learning, and his proficiency in every branch of the academic course. He was afterwards first tutor to sir Thomas Stapylton, and then to the marquis of Blandford, now duke of Marlborough, and to his brother lord Charles Spencer, when at Eton school, which office, on account of an inflammation in his eyes, he quitted in 1744, and his place was supplied by Dr. Erasmus Saunders; but Mr. Bryant, after his recovery in 1746, again returned to his office, and in 1756 was appointed secretary to the late duke of Marlborough, when master-general of the ordnance, and ac-< companied him into Germany. His grace also promoted him to a lucrative appointment in the ordnance-office.

Mr. Burke’s fame as a writer was now established; and what added another wreath to this character were some pamphlets written before the peace of 1763. These introduced him to the acquaintance of the late Mr. Fitzherbert, father of the present lord St. Helen’s; a gentleman who esteemed and protected men of letters; and who possessed, with a considerable share of elegant knowledge, talents for conversation which were very rarely equalled. Through the medium of Mr. Fitzherbert, and owing to some political essays in the Public Advertiser, he became acquainted with the late marquis of Rockingham, and the late lord Verney; events which opened the first great dawn of his political life: and soon after his acquaintance with lord Rockingham, a circumstance took place which gave this nobleman an opportunity to draw forth Mr. Burke' s talents. The administration formed in 1763, under the honourable George Grenville, becoming unpopular from various causes, his majesty, through the recommendation of his uncle, the duke of Cumberland, appointed a new ministry, of which the duke of Grafton and general Conway were secretaries of state, and the marquis of Rockingham first lord of the treasury. In this arrangement, which took place in 1765, Mr. Burke was appointed private secretary to the marquis of Rockingham, and soon after, through the interest of lord Verney, was returned one of the representatives in parliament for the borough of Wendover in Buckinghamshire. On this he prepared himself for becoming a public speaker, by studying, still more closely than he had yet done, history, poetry, and philosophy; and by storing his mind with facts, images, reasonings, and sentiments. He paid great attention likewise to parliamentary usage; and was at much pains to become acquainted with old records, patents, and precedents, so as to render himself complete master of the business of office. That he might communicate without embarrassment the knowledge which he had thus acquired, he frequented, with many other men of eminence, the Robin Hood society; and, thus prepared, he delivered in the ensuing session his maiden speech, which excited the admiration of the house, and drew very high praise from Mr. Pitt, afterwards earl of Chatham. The proceedings of the administration with which Mr. Burke was connected, belong to history; and it may be sufficient here to notice, that the principal object which engaged their attention was the stamp-act, which had excited great discontents in America. Mr. Grenville and his party, under whose auspices this act was passed, were for inforcing it by coercive measures; and Mr. Pitt and his followers denied that the parliament of Great Britain had a right to tax the Americans. By Mr. Burke’s advice, as it has been said, the marquis of Rockingham adopted a middle course, repealing the act to gratify the Americans, and passing a law declaratory of the right of Great Britain to legislate for America in taxation, as in every other case. But by whatever advice such a measure was carried, it argued little wisdom, the repeal and the declaratory act being inconsistent with each other. The ministry were therefore considered as unfit to guide the helm of a great empire, and were obliged to give way to a new arrangement, formed under the auspices of Mr. Pitt, then earl of Chatham. This change created a considerable deal of political commotion; and the public papers and pamphlets of that day turned their satire against the newly-created earl of Chatham; they charged him with weakening and dividing an interest which the public wished to be supported; and lending his great name and authority to persons who were supposed to be of a party which had been long held to be obnoxious to the whig interest of the country. Though these charges were afterwards fully refuted by the subsequent conduct of the noble earl, the late ministry were entitled to their share of praise, not only for being very active in promoting the general interests of the state by several popular acts and resolutions, but by their uncommon disinterestedness; as they shewed, upon quitting their places, that they retired without a place, pension, or reversion, secured to themselves or their friends. This was a stroke which the private fortune of Mr. Burke could ill bear; but he had the honour of being a member of a virtuous administration; he had the opportunity of opening his great political talents to the public; and, above all, of shewing to a number of illustrious friends (and in particular the marquis of Rockingham) his many private virtues and amiable qualities, joined to a reach of mind scarcely equalled by any of his contemporaries.

The parliament being dissolved in 1768, Mr. Burke was re-elected for Wendover. The opposition to the duke of Graf ton’s administration consisted of two parties, that of the marquis of Rockingham, and that of Mr. Grenville, but these two parties had nothing in common except their dislike of the ministry. This appeared very strikingly in a pamphlet written by Mr. Grenville, entitled “The present state of the Nation,” which was answered by Burke, in “Observations on the present state of the Nation.” One of the first subjects which occupied the attention of the new parliament was the expulsion of Wilkes for various libels, and the question, whether, after being so expelled, he was eligible to sit in the same parliament. Burke, on this occasion, endeavoured to prove that nothing but an act of the legislature can disqualify any person from sitting in parliament who is legally chosen, by a majority of electors, to fill a vacant seat. It is well known that his friend Dr. Johnson maintained a contrary doctrine in his “False Alarm;” but in this as well as other occasions during the American war, difference of opinion did not prevent a cordial intercourse between two men whose conversation during their whole lives was the admiration and ornament of every literary society. The question itself can hardly be said to have ever received a complete decision. All that followed was the expulsion of Wilkes during the present parliament, and the rescinding of that decision in a future parliament, without argument or inquiry, in order to gratify those constituents who soon after rejected Wilkes with unanimous contempt. The proceedings on this question gave rise to the celebrated letters signed Junius, which appeared in the Public Advertiser, and had been preceded by many other anti-ministerial letters by the same writer, under other signatures. They were at that time, and have often since been attributed to Mr. Burke, and we confess we once, and indeed for many years, were strongly of this opinion, but after the recent publication of these celebrated Letters, with Junius’s private correspondence with Mr. Henry Woodfall, the printer of the Public Advertiser, and with Mr. Wilkes r it is as impossible to attribute them to Burke, as it is at present to discover any other gentleman to whom they may, from any reasonable grounds, be ascribed. It may be added too, that in a confidential conversation with Dr. Johnson, he spontaneously denied them, which, as the doctor very prpperly remarks, is more decisive proof than if he had denied them on being asked the question.

In 1770, the duke of Grafton, unable to resist the opposition within and without doors, resigned, and was succeeded by lord North, whose measures Mr. Burke uniformly opposed, particularly on the great questions agitated, and measures adopted with regard to America. So determined was he in his opposition to that minister, as to ridicule the proposition for a repeal of the obnoxious laws of the preceding administration, retaining only the duty on tea, as a mark of the authority of parliament over the colonies; although this, if wrong, could not be more so than a similar measure which he supported, and, as already noticed, some say he advised, during the marquis of Rockingham’s administration. The most brilliant of his speeches were made in the course of this disastrous war, during which, although the attempt has been made, we are totally at a loss to reconcile his principles with what he adopted on a subsequent occasion, nor are we of opinion that the question can be decided by selecting detached passages from his speeches (the most important of which he published); but from a consideration, not only of the general tendency of the whole towards the welfare of the state, and the sentiments of the nation, but on the actual effects produced. And it must not be omitted that his opposition to government continued after all Europe had leagued against Great Britain, a conduct consistent enough with the character of a partizan, but which has little in it of true independent patriotism. Much of Burke’s ardour in the course of this long political warfare has been thus accounted for by his old friend Gerard Hamilton: “Whatever opinion Burke, from any motive, supports, so ductile is jiis imagination, that he soon conceives it to be right.” We apprehend also, that Burke was more accustomed to philosophize on certain questions than is usually supposed, and that by revolving the question in every possible light, his mind was often as full of arguments on one side as on the other, neither of which he could on all occasions conceal; and hence it is that men of quite opposite opinions have been equally desirous to quote his authority; and that there are in his works passages that may be triumphantly brought forward by almost any party. Burke’s judgment, had he given it full play, would have rendered him an oracle^ to whom all parties would have been glad to appeal; but his political attachments were unfortunately strong while they lasted, and not unmixed with ambition, which frequently brought the independence of his character into suspicion. No opinion was ever more just than that of his friend Goldsmith, that Burke “gave up to party” what “was meant for mankind.”

The Spring of 1782 opened a new scene of great political importance. The American war had continued seven years, and having been unsuccessful, not only the people, but very nearly a majority of the parliament, became tired of it. The minister was now attacked with great force, and the several motions which the opposition introduced, relative to the extinction of the war, were lost only by a very small minority. Finding the prospect of success brightening, the opposition determined to put the subject at issue. Accordingly on the 8th of March, lord John Cavendish moved certain resolutions, recapitulating the failures, the misconduct, and the expences of ‘the war, the debate on which lasted till two o’clock in the morning, when the house divided on the order of the day. which had been moved by the secretary at war, and which was carried only by a majority often. This defection on the side of administration gave heart to the minority, and they rallied with redoubled force and spirits on the 15th of March, when a motion of sir John Rous, “That the house could have no further confidence in the ministers who had the direction of public affairs,” was negatived only by a majority of nine. The minority followed their fortune, and on the 20th of the same month (the house being uncommonly crowded) the earl of Surrey (now duke of Norfolk) rose to make his promised motion, when lord North spoke to order, by saying, “he meant no disrespect to the noble earl; but as notice had been given that the object of the intended motion was the removal of his majesty’s ministers, he meant to have acquainted the house, that such a motion was become unnecessary, as he could assure the house, on authority, that the present administration was no more! and that his majesty had come to a full determination of changing his ministers; and for the purpose of giving the necessary time for new arrangements, he moved an adjournment,” which was instantly adopted. During this adjournment a new administration was formed under the auspices of the marquis of Rockingham, on whose public principles and private virtues the nation seemed to repose, after the violent struggle by which it had been agitated, with the securest and most implicit confidence. The arrangements were as follow: The marquis of Rockingham first lord of the treasury, the earl of Shelburne and Mr. Fox joint secretaries of state, lord Camden president of the council, duke of Grafton privy seal, lord John Cavendish chancellor of the exchequer, and Mr. Burke (who was at the same time made a privy counsellor) paymaster-general of the forces.

Upon the meeting of parliament after the recess, the new ministry, which stood pledged to the country for many reforms, began to put them into execution. They first began with the affairs of Ireland; and as the chief ground of complaint of the sister kingdom was the restraining power of the 6th of George the First, a bill was brought in to repeal this act, coupled with a resolution of the house, “That it was essentially necessary to the mutual happiness of the two countries tha& a firm and solid connection should be forthwith established by the consent of both, and that his majesty should be requested to give the proper directions for promoting the same.” These passed without opposition, and his majesty at the same time appointed his grace the duke of Portland lord lieutenant of that kingdom. They next brought in bills for disqualifying revenue officers for voting in the election for members of parliament; and on the 15th of April, Mr. Burke brought forward his great plan of reform in the civil list expenditure, by which the annual saving (and which would be yearly increasing) would amount to 72,368l. It was objected by some members that this bill was not so extensive as it was originally framed; but Mr. Burke entered into the grounds of those omissions which had been made either from a compliance with the opinions of others, or from a fuller consideration of the particular cases; at the same time he pledged himself, that he should at all times be ready to dbey their call, whenever it appeared to be the general sense of the house and of the people to prosecute a more complete system of reform. This bill was followed by another for the regulation of his own office; but the lateness of the season did not afford time for the completion of all plans of regulation and retrenchment, which were in the contemplation of the new ministry, and indeed all their plans were deranged by the death of the marquis of Rockingham July 1, 1782. On this event it was discovered that there was not that perfect union of principles among the leaders of the majority, to which the country had looked up; for, lord Shelburne (afterwards marquis of Lansdowne) being appointed first lord of the treasury, a statesman who had incessantly and powerfully co-operated with the party in opposition to the late war, except in the article of avowing the independence of America, this gave umbrage to the Rockingham division of the cabinet, who were of opinion that “by this change the measures of the former administration would be broken in upon.” Mr. Fox, therefore, lord John Cavendish, Mr. Burke, and others, resigned their respective offices, and Mr. Pitt, then a very young man, succeeded lord George Cavendish as chancellor of the exchequer, lord Sidney succeeded Mr. Fox as secretary of state, and colonel Barre Mr. Burke as paymaster of the forces, lord Sherburne retaining his office as first minister.

, a most ingenious and learned writer, was born at Croft, in Yorkshire, about the year 1635. His first education was at the free-school of North-­Alverton, in that county, from whence he was removed in June 1651, to Clare-hall in Cambridge, where he had Dr. Tillotson for his tutor. Dr. Cud worth was at that time master of Clare-hall, but removed from it to the mastership of Christ’s college, in 1654; and thither our author followed him. Under his patronage he was chosen fellow in 1657, commenced M. A. in 1658, and became senior proctor of the university in 1661; but it is uncertain how long after ward she continued his residence there. He was afterwards governor to the young earl of Wiltshire, son of the marquis of Winchester, with whom he travelled abroad ^ and gave such satisfaction, that, soon after his return to England, he was invited and prevailed on by the first duke of Ormond, to travel in the same capacity with the young earl of Ossory, his grace’s grandson and heir-apparent. These honourable connections introduced him into what may properly be called the world: in which he afterwards confirmed the reputation he already had for talents ad learning, by the publication of his “Telluris theoria sacra, orbis nostri originem & mutationes generales, quas olim subiit et subiturus est, complectens.” This Sacred Theory of the Earth was originally published in Latin, in 2 vols. 4to, the two first books concerning the deluge, and paradise, 1681; the two last, concerning the burning of the world, and the new heavens and new earth, in 1689. The uncommon approbation this work met with, and the particular encouragement of Charles II. who relished its beauties, induced the author to translate it into English. Of this translation he published the two first books in 1684, folio, with an elegant dedication to the king; and the two last in 1689, with a no less elegant dedication to queen Mary. “The English edition,” he tells us, “is the same in substance with the Latin, though, he confesses, not so properly a translation, as a new composition upon the same ground, there being several additional chapters in it, and several new moulded.”

, duke of Ormond, an eminent statesman, the son of Thomas Butler, esq. a branch of the Ormond family, was born at Newcastle house, in Clerkenwell, 1610. Oh the decease of Thomas, earl, of Ormond, his grandfather Sir Walter Butler, of Kilcash, assumed the title, and his father was styled by courtesy viscount Thurles. After the death of his father, in 1619, who left a widow and seven children in embarrassed circumstances, this title devolved upon him. In 1620 he was sent over to England by his mother, and educated partly at a school at Finchtey, in Middlesex, but king James claiming the wardship of him, he was put under the tuition of. archbishop Abbot, who instilled in him that love for the protestant religion which he afterwards displayed on so many occasions. On the death of king James he was taken home by his grandfather the carl of Ormond; and in 1629 he married his cousin, lady Elizabeth Preston, a match which terminated some disputes that had long been agitated between the families. In 1630 he purchased a troop of horse in Ireland, and two years after succeeded, by the death of his grandfather, to the earldom of Ormond. During the earl of Stratford’s viceroyalty in Ireland, his talents were much noticed by that nobleman, who predicted his future fame. On the commencement of the rebellion in Ireland in 1641, he was appointed lieutenant-generaJ and commander in chief of an army of only 3000 men, but with this inconsiderable force, and a few additional troops raised by himself, he resisted the progress of the rebels, and in 1642 dislodged them from the Naes near Dublin, raised the blockade of Drogheda, and routed them at Kiirush. His exertions, however, being impeded by the jealousies of the lords justices and of the lord lieutenant, the king, that he might act without controui, gave him an independent commission under the great seal, and created him marquis of Ormond. In 1643 he obtained a considerable victory with a very inferior force over the rebels under the command of the Irish general Preston, but for want of suitable encouragement, he was under a necessity of concluding a cessation of hostilities, for which measure he was much blamed in England; though he availed himself of it by sending over troops to the assistance of the king, who was then at war with the parliament. His majesty, however, duly appreciating his services, appointed him lord lieutenant of Ireland, in the room of the earl of Leicester, in the beginning of the year 1644; but in the exercise of this office, he had to contend both with the rebellious spirit of the old Irish, and the machinations of the English parliament, and after maintaining an unsuccessful struggle for three years, he was, in 1647, obliged to sign a treaty with the parliament’s commissioners, and to come over to England, where he waited on 'the king at Hampton-court, and obtained his majesty’s full approbation of all his proceedings; but in the hazardous state of public affairs he thought it most prudent to provide for his own safety by embarking for France.

In December 1757, sir Julius Cæsar’s collection of manuscripts, which had long been preserved in the family, was sold by public auction by Sam. Paterson. By the lapse of time and the decay of the family, they had fallen into the hands of some uninformed persons, and were on the point of being sold by weight to a cheesemonger, as waste-paper, for the sum often pounds; but some of them happened to be shewn to Mr. Paterson, who instantly discovered their value. He then digested a masterly catalogue of the whole collection, and distributing it in several thousands of the most singular and interesting heads, caused them to be sold by auction, which produced 356l. Many of them were in the library of the late marquis of Lansdowne, and are now, consequently, in the British museum.

When he arrived at Rome, he learned to design and engrave first with Giulio Parigii, and afterwards with Philip Thomassin of Troyes in Champagne, who had settled in that city; but this latter having a beautiful wife, who paid some marked attentions to Callot, a disagreement took place, and our young artist removed to Florence, where the great duke employed him with several other excellent workmen. Callot at that time began to design in miniature, and had so happy a genius for it, that he became incomparable in that way. He quitted his graver, and used aquafortis, because this was both the quickest way of working, and gave more strength and spirit to the performance, After the great duke’s death, he began to think of returning to his own country; and about that time, prince Charles, coming through Florence, and being uncommonly struck with some of his curious pieces, persuaded Callot to go along with him to Lorrain, and promised him a good salary from his father-in-law Henry, the reigning duke. Callot attended him, and had a considerable pension settled upon him; and, being in his 32d year, he took a wife, who was a woman of family. His reputation was now spread all over Europe, and the infanta of Spain sent for him to Brussels, when the marquis of Spinola was laying siege to Breda, that he might first draw, and afterwards, engrave, as he did, the s:ege of that town. He went to France in 1628, when Louis XIII. made him design and engrave the siege of Rochelle and the isle of Roe*. Aftec he had been amply recompensed by that monarch, he returned to Nancy; where he continued to follow the business of engraving so assiduously, that he is said to have left 1500 pieces of his own an incredible number for so short a life as his! When the duke of Orleans, Gaston of France, withdrew into Lorrain, he made him engrave several silver stamps, and went to his house two hours every day to learn to draw. In 1031, when the king of France had reduced Nancy, he sent for Callot to engrave that new conquest, as he had done Rochelle; hut Callot begged to be excused, because that being a Lorrainer he could not do any thing so much against the honour of his prince and country. The king was not displeased at his answer, but said, “The duke of Lorrain was very happy in having such faithful and affectionate subjects.” Some of the courtiers insinuated, that he ought to be forced to do it; to which Callot, when it was told him, replied with great firmness, “That he would sooner disable his right hand than be obliged to do any thing against his honour.” The king then, instead of forcing him, endeavoured to draw him into France, by offering to settle upon him a pension of 3000 livres; to which Callot answered, “That he could not leave his country and birth-place, but that there he would always be ready to serve his majesty.” Nevertheless, when he afterwards found the ill condition Lorrain was reduced to by the taking of Nancy, he projected a scheme of returning with his wife to Florence; but was hindered from executing it by his death, which happened on the 28th of March, 1636, when he was only 43 years of age. He was buried in the cloister of the cordeliers at Nancy, where his ancestors lay; and had an epitaph inscribed upon a piece of black marble, on which was engraved a half portrait of himself. He left an excellent moral character behind him, and died with the universal esteem of men of taste.

, 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.”

, an Italian poet and governor of Atri in the kingdom of Naples, was born at Perugia in ]530. He wrote a satirical poem on courts and courtiers, which procured him much reputation, while his circle of friends- and admirers was greatly enlarged by. the vivacity and pleasantry of his conversation. Among the number of his patrons was Ascanio, marquis of Coria, at whose house he died in 1601. He wrote also some poems of the romantic class, as his “Life of Maecenas,” left unfinished, and two comedies, viz. “Lo Seiocco,” and “La Ninnetta,” published at Venice in 1605. A collection -of his poems, with the observations of his son Charles, was published at Venice in 1656 and 1662.

, 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.

, a musical composer and poet, once of great popular reputation, was an illegitimate son of George Savile, marquis of Halifax, who had the honour of presenting the crown to William III. Carey is said to have received an annuity from a branch of that family till the day of his death, and he annexed the name of Savile to the Christian names of all the male part of his own family. At what period he was born is not known. His first lessons in music he had from one Lennert, a German, and had somje instructions also from Roseingrave and Gecniniani, but he never attained much depth in the science. The extent of Jlis abilities seerns to have been the composition of a ballad air, or at most a little cantata, to which he was just able to set a bass yet if mere popularity be the test of genius, Carey was one of the first in his time. His chief employment was teaching the boarding-schools, and among people of middling rank in private families, before tradesmen’s daughters, destined to be tradesmen’s wives, were put under the tuition of the first professors.

, a learned Chronologer in the seventeenth century, and great nephew of sir George Cary, knt. lord deputy of Ireland in queen Elizabeth’s reign, was born at Cockinton, in the county of Devon, about the year 1615; being the second son of George Cary, esq. and“Elizabeth, daughter of sir Edward Seymour, of Berry-castle, bart. When he was well-grounded in school -learn ing, he went to Oxford, and was admitted sojourner of Exeter college, on the 4th of October 1631, aged sixteen. Having continued there about three years, he was, in October 1634, chosen scholar of Corpus Christi college in the same university. The next year, on December the 3d, he was admitted bachelor of arts; and the 23d of February 1638-9, proceeded master of arts: and it is probable, that he was also chosen fellow of his college, though Mr. Wood professes he did not know. On Nov. 4, 1644, he was created doctor of laws, by virtue of mandatory letters from the chancellor, William marquis of Hertford, who was his kinsman. Some time after, he travelled into Fiance, the Low Countries, and other foreign parts. At his return, he was presented by the marquis of Hertford, to the rectory of Portlemouth, near Kingsbridge in Devonshire, a living of very good value. There he settled, and lived in good repute: and being distinguished by his birth, degrees, and learning, the presbyterian ministers of those times made him moderator of that part of the second divisional* the county of Devon, which was appointed to meet at Kingsbridge; yet he was never zealous in their interest: for, upon the restoration of Charles II. he was one of the first that congratulated that king upon his return. For this, he was soon after preferred to the archdeaconry of Exeter, which he was installed into August 18, 1662. But he was in a little while, namely, in 1664, affrighted and ejected out of it by some great men then in power: who taking advantage of some infirmities, or perhaps imprudences, of his, resolved to throw him out, in order to raise a favourite upon his ruin. Being thus deprived of his archdeaconry, he retired to his rectory at Portlemouth, where he spent the remainder of his days in a private, cheerful, and contented condition in good repute with his neighbours and as much above content as he was below envy. He died at the parsonage-house of Portlemouth, and was buried in his own church there, on the 19th of September, 1688, without any funeral monument. He was a man very perfect in curious and critical learning, particularly in chronology; of which he gave a full testimony, in the excellent book he published, entitled” Palaelogia Chronica, a chronological account of ancient time, in three parts, 1. Didactical. 2. Apodeictical. 3. Canonical," Lond. 1677, folio. He was also in his younger years well skilled in poetry, as well Latin as English; though he published nothing in this kind but those hymns of our church, that are appointed to be read after the lessons, together with the creed, &c. These being translated by him into Latin verse, were printed on the flat sides of two sheets in folio. In person he was of a middle stature, sanguine complexion, and in his elder years somewhat corpulent. In his carriage he was a gentleman of good address, free and generous, and courteous and obliging.

A little before this misfortune, the marquis of Mantua sent him to Leo X. as his ambassador; and after the death of Leo he continued at Rome in that capacity, under Hadrian VI. and Clement VII. Clement sent him to the emperor Charles the Fifth’s court in quality of legate; where affairs were to be transacted of the highest importance, not only to the pontifical see, but to all Italy. He went into Spain, Oct. 1524; and in his negotiations and transactions not only answered the pope’s expectations, but also acquired the good-will of the emperor, by whom he was soon received as a favourite counsellor and friend, as well as an ambassador. Among other marks of affection which the emperor shewed Castiglione, one was rather singular, that being then at war with Francis I. of FVance, he always desired him to be present at the military councils of that war and, when it was supposed that the war would be ended by a single combat between Charles V. and Francis I. with only three knights attending them, the emperor chose Castiglione to be one of the number. He also made him 'a free denizen of Spain; and soon alter nominated him to the bishopric of Avila. And because this happeped at the juncture of the sacking of Rome, some took occasion to reflect upon Castiglicwie, as if he had neglected the affairs of the court of Rome, for the sake of gratifying the inclinations of the emperor; at least such was indeed the current opinion at Rome; but Castiglione defended himself from the imputation in his letter to Clement VII. It is probable that there were no real grounds for it, since Clement himself does not appear to have given the least credit to it. Paul Jovius says, that if Castiglione had lived, the pope intended to have made him a cardinal; and after his death, in two of his holiness" briefs, both of condolence to his mother, there are the strongest expressions of his unblemished fidelity and devotion to the see of Rome. The imputation, however, affected Castiglione so sensibly, that it was supposed in some measure to have contributed to his death. His constitution was already impaired with the continual fatigues, civil as well as military, in which he had always been engaged; and falling at length sick at Toledo, he died Feb. 2, 1529. The emperor, who was then at Toledo, was extremely grieved, and commanded all the prelates and lords of his court to attend his corpse to the principal church there; and the funeral offices were celebrated by the archbishop with such solemnity and pomp as was never permitted to any one before, the princes of the blood excepted. Sixteen months after, his body was removed by his mother from Toledo to Mantua, and interred in a church of her own building; where a sumptuous monument was raised, and a Latin epitaph inscribed, which was written by cardinal Bern bo.

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.

In the case of sir John Fenwick, though he had a conviction of his guilt, yet he was so averse to any extraordinary judicial proceedings, that he opposed the bill, as he did likewise another bill for the resumption of the forfeited estates in Ireland. At the accession of queen Anne, he was confirmed in all his offices. April 1705 he attended her majesty to Cambridge, and was there created LL. D. In 1706, himself and his son the marquis of Harrington were in the number of English peers appointed commissioners for concluding an union with Scotland; this was the last of his public employments. He died August 18, 1707. His mien and aspect were engaging and commanding: his address and conversation civil and courteous in the highest degree. He judged right in the supreme court; and on any important affair his speeches were smooth and weighty. As a statesman, his whole deportment came up to his noble birth and his eminent stations: nor did he want any of what the world call accomplishments. He had a great skill in languages; and read the Roman authors with great attention: Tacitus was his favourite. He was a true judge of history, a critic in poetry, and had a fine hand in music. He had an elegant taste in painting, and all politer arts; and in architecture in particular, a genius, skill, and experience beyond any one person of his age; his house at Chatsworth being a monument of beauty and magnificence that perhaps is not exceeded by any palace in Europe. His grace’s genius for poetry shewed itself particularly in two pieces that are published, and are allowed by the critics to be written with equal spirit, dignity, and delicacy. 1. “An Ode on the Death of queen Mary.” 2. “An allusion to the bishop of Cambray’s supplement to Homer.” He married the lady Mary, daughter of James duke of Ormond, by whom he had three sons and a daughter.

, 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.

, duchess of Newcastle, and second wife of the preceding, was born at St. John’s, near Colchester in Essex, about the latter end of the reign of James I. Her father, of whom she was the youngest daughter, was sir Charles Lucas, a gentleman of a very ancient and honourable family, and who was himself a man of great spirit and fortune. Dying young, he left the care of his children to his widow, a lady of exquisite beauty and admirable accomplishments, who took upon herself the education of her daughters, and instructed them in needlework, dancing, music, the French tongue, and other things that were proper for women of fashion. As, however, she had from her infancy an inclination for literature, and spent much of her time in study and writing, her biographers have lamented that she had not the advantage of an acquaintance with the learned languages, which might have improved her judgment, and have been of infinite service to her in the numerous productions of her pen. In 1643 she obtained permission from her mother to go to Oxford, where the court then resided, and where she could not fail of meeting with a favourable reception, on account of the distinguished loyalty of her family, as well as of her own accomplishments. Accordingly, she was appointed one of the maids of honour to Henrietta Maria, the royal consort of Charles I.; and in that capacity accompanied her majesty to France, when the queen was obliged by the civil war to quit England. At Paris Miss Lucas first saw the marquis of Newcastle, then a widower, who admiring her person, disposition, and ingenuity, was married to her at that place, in 1645. The marquis had heard of the lady’s character before he met with her in France; for having been a friend and patron of her gallant brother lord Lucas, he took occasion one day to ask his lordship in what respect he could promote his interest. To this his lordship replied, that he was not solicitous about his own affairs, as being prepared to suffer either exile or death in the royal cause; but that he was chiefly concerned for his sister, on whom he could bestow no fortune, and whose beauty exposed her to danger. At the same time, he represented her other amiable qualities in so striking a light, as raised the marquis’s curiosity to see her. After their marriage, the marquis and marchioness of Newcastle went from Paris to Rotterdam, where they resided six months, and from that to Antwerp, which they fixed upon as the place of their residence during the time of their exile. In this city they enjoyed as quiet and pleasant a retirement as their ruined fortunes would permit. Though the marquis had much respect paid him by all men, as well foreigners as those of his own country, he principally confined himself to the society of his lady, who, both by her writings and her conversation, proved a most agreeable companion to him during his melancholy recess. The exigency of their affairs obliged the marchioness once to come over to England. Her view was to obtain some of the marquis’s rents, in order to supply their pressing necessities, and pay the debts they had contracted; but she could not procure a grant from the rulers of those times, to receive one penny out of her noble husband’s vast inheritance: and had it not been for the seasonable generosity of sir Charles Cavendish, she and her lord must have been exposed to extreme poverty. At length, however, having obtained a considerable sum from her own and the marquis’s relations, she returned to Antwerp, where she continued with him till the restoration, and employed herself in writing several of her works.

When, upon the restoration, the marquis of Newcastle came back to his native country, he left his lady some little time abroad, to dispatch his affairs there, after which she followed her consort to England. The remaining part of her life was principally employed in composing and writing letters, plays, poems, philosophical discourses, and orations. It is said, that she was of a very generous turn of mind, and kept a number of young ladies about her person, who occasionally wrote what she dictated. Some of them slept in a room contiguous to that in which her grace lay, that they might be ready at the call of her bell to rise at any hour of the night, to take down her conceptions, lest they should escape her memory. The task of these young ladies was not very pleasant; and there can be no doubt but that they frequently wished that their lady’s poetical and philosophical imagination had been less fruitful; especially as she was not destitute of some degree of peevishness. If the duchess’s merit as an author were to be estimated from the quantity of her works, she would have the precedence of all female writers ancient or modern, for she produced no less than thirteen folios, ten of which are in print. The life of the duke her husband, is the most estimable, of her productions; although it abounds in trifling circumstances. The touches on her own character arc curious: she says, “That it pleased God to command his servant Nature to indue her with a poetical and philosophical genius even from her birth, for she did write some books even in that kind before she was twelve years of age.” But though she had written philosophy, it seems she had read none; for at nearly forty years of age, she informs us that she applied to the perusal of philosophical authors “in order to learn the terms of art.” But what gives one, continues Mr. Walpole, the best idea of her unbounded passion for scribbling, was her seldom revising the copies of her works, “lest it should disturb her following conceptions.”

The queen was so sensible of the great importance of Cecil’s service on this occasion, that, however sparing of her honours, she raised him to the peerage by the title of Baron of Burleigh in February 1571, when he had not much to support his rank, for in a confidential letter written about this time, he calls himself “the poorest lord in England.” The queen’s favour did not in other respects add to his comfort, nor protect him from new attempts to destroy him. A conspiracy of the private kind was now formed against his life: and the two assassins, Barney and Matter, charged it, at their execution, on the Spanish ambassador, for which and other offences the ambassador was ordered to quit the kingdom. As a consolation, however, for these dangers, he was honoured with the order of the garter in June 1572; and in September following, on the death of the marquis of Winchester, was appointed lord high treasurer.

, a lawyer and Latin poet, was born of the noble family of Alba in Lombardy, in 1485, and died in 1541. He composed a heroic poem in three books, entitled “De Virginitate,” Paris, 1629; and a long “Epithalamium” of 555 verses on the marriage of William IX. marquis of Montferrat with Anne of Alen9011 in 1508, of which there have been several editions. Scaliger and Baillet speak highly of him as a Latin poet, but according to their account his style was too lofty and pompous, as he was apt to describe a fly in as solemn terms as he would a hero. His works are in the “Delicise Poetarum Ital.” but were more recently published separately by Vernazza in 1778, with a life of the author.

, a celebrated French poet, called Chapelle from the place of his nativity, a village between Paris and St. Denys, was born in 1621. He was the natural son of Francis Lullier, a man of considerable rank and fortune, who was extremely tender of him, and gave him a liberal education. He had the celebrated Gassendi for his master in philosophy; but he distinguished himself chiefly by his poetical attempts. There was an uncommon ease in all he wrote; and he was excellent in composing with double rhymes. We are obliged to him for that ingenious work in verse and prose, called “Voyage de Bachaumont,” which he wrote in conjunction with Bachaumont. Many of the most shining parts in Moliere’s comedies it is but reasonable to ascribe to him: for Moliere consulted him upon all occasions, and paid the highest deference to his taste and judgment. He was intimately acquainted with all the wits of his time, and with many persons of quality, who used to seek his company: and we learn from one of his own letters to the marquis of Chilly, that he had no small share in the favour of the king, and enjoyed, probably from court, an annuity of 8000 livres. He is said to have been a very pleasant, but withal a very voluptuous man. Among other stories in the Biographia Gallica, we are told that Boileau met him one day; and as he had a great value for Chapelle, ventured to tell him, in a very friendly manner, that “his inordinate love of the bottle would certainly hurt him.” Chapelle seemed very seriously affected; but this meeting happening unluckily by a tavern, “Come,” says he, “let us turn in here, and I promise to attend with patience to all that you shall say.” Boileau led the way, in hopes of converting him, but both preacher and hearer became so intoxicated that they were obliged to be sent home in separate coaches. Chapelle died in 1686, and his poetical works and “Voyage” were reprinted with additions at the Hague in 1732, and again in 1755, 2 vols. 12mo.

, a learned writer of the sixteenth century, descended from an ancient family in the Isle of Wight, was born at Cambridge, June 16, 1514, being the son of Peter Cheke, gent, and Agnes, daughter of Mr. Dufford of Cambridgeshire. After receiving his grammatical education under Mr. John Morgan, he was admitted into St. John’s college, Cambridge, in 1531, where he became very eminent for his knowledge in the learned languages, particularly the Greek tongue, which was then almost universally neglected. Being recommended as such, by Dr. Butts, to king Henry VIII. he was soon after made kind’s scholar, and supplied by his majesty with money for his education, and for his charges in travelling into foreign countries. While he continued in college he introduced a more substantial and useful kind of learning than what had been received for some years; and encouraged especially the study of the Greek and Latin languages, and of divinity. After having taken his degrees in arts he was chosen Greek lecturer of the university. There was no salary belonging to tnat place: but king Henry having founded, about the year 1540, a professorship of the Greek tongue in the university of Cambridge, with a stipend oi forty pounds a year, Mr. Cheke, though but twenty-six years of age, was chosen the first professor. This place he held long after he left the university, namely, till October 1551, and was highly instrumental in bringing the Greek language into repute. He endeavoured particularly to reform and restore the original pronunciation of it, but met with great opposition from Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, chancellor of the university, and their correspondence on the subject was published. Cheke, however, in the course of his lectures,- went through all Homer, all Euripides, part of Herodotus, and through Sophocles twice, to the advantage of his hearers and his own credit. He was also at the same time universityorator. About the year 1543 he was incorporated master of arts at Oxford, where he had studied some time. On the 10th of July 1544 he was sent for to court, in order to be school- master, or tutor, for the Latin tongue, jointly with sir Anthony Cooke, to prince Edward and, about the same time, as an encouragement, the king granted him, being then, as it is supposed, in orders, one of the canonries in his new- founded college at Oxford, now Christ Church but that college being dissolved in the beginning of 1545, a pension was allowed him in the room of his canonry. While he was entrusted with the prince’s education, he made use of all the interest he had in promoting men of learning and probity. He seems also to have sometimes had the lady Elizabeth under his care. In 1547, he married Mary, daughter of Richard Hill, serjeant of the wine-cellar to king Henry VIII. When his royal pupil, king Edward VI. came to the crown, he rewarded him for his care and pains with an annuity of one hundred marks; and also made him a grant of several lands and manors . He likewise caused him, by a mandamus, to be elected provost of King’s college, Cambridge, vacant by the deprivation of George Day, bishop of Chichester. In May 1549, he retired to Cambridge, upon some disgust he had taken at the court, but was the same Summer appointed one of the king’s commissioners for visiting that university. The October following, he was one of the thirty-two commissioners appointed to examine the old ecclesiastical law books, and to compile from thence a body of ecclesiastical laws for the government of the church; and again, three years after, he was put in a new commission issued out for the same purpose. He returned to court in the winter of 1549, but met there with great uneasiness on account of some offence given by his wife to Anne, duchess of Somerset, whose dependent she was. Mr. Cheke himself was not exempt from trouble, being of the number of those who were charged with having suggested bad counsels to the duke of Somerset, and afterwards betrayed him. But having recovered from these imputations, his interest and authority daily increased, and he became the liberal patron of religious and learned men, both English and foreigners. In 1550 he was made chief gentleman of the king’s privy -chamber, whose tutor he still continued to be, and who made a wonderful progress through his instructions. Mr. Cheke, to ground him well in morality, read to him Cicero’s philosophical works, and Aristotle’s Ethics; but what was of greater importance, instructed him in the general history, the state and interest, the laws and customs of England. He likewise directed him to keep a diary of all the remarkable occurrences that happened, to which, probably, we are indebted for the king’s Journal (printed from the original in the Cottonian library) in Burnett’s History of the Reformation. In October, 1551, his majesty conferred on him the honour of knighthood; and to enuhle him the better to support that rank, made him a grant, or gift in fee simple (upon consideration of his surrender of the hundred marks abovementioned), of the whole manor of Stoke, near Clare, exclusively of the college before granted him, and the appurtenances in Suffolk and Essex, with divers other lands, tenements, &c. all to the yearly value of 145l. 19$. 3d. And a pasture, with other premises, in Spalding; and the rectory, and other premises, in Sandon. The same year he held two private conferences with some other learned persons upon the subject of the sacrament, or transubstantiation. The first on November the 25th, in -secretary Cecil’s house, and the second December 3d the same year, at sir Richard Morison’s. The auditors were, the lord Russel, sir Thomas Wroth of the bed-chamber, sir Anthony Cooke, one of the king’s tutors, Throgmorton, chamberlain of the exchequer, Mr. Knolles, and Mr. Harrington, with whom were joined the marquis of Northampton, and the earl of Rutland, in the second conference. The popish disputants for the real presence were, Feckenham, afterwards dean of St. Paul’s, and Yong; and at the second disputation, Watson. The disputants on the other side were, sir John Cheke, sir William Cecil, Horn, dean of Durham, Whitehead, and Grindal. Some account of these disputations is still extant in Latin, in the library of Mss. belonging to Bene't college, Cambridge and from thence published in English by Mr. Strypein his interesting Life of sir John Cheke. Sir John also procured Bucer’s Mss. and the illustrious Leland’s valuable, collections for the king’s library but either owing to sir John’s misfortunes, or through some other accident, they never reached their destination. Four volumes of these collections were given by his son Henry Cheke, to Humphrey Purefoy, esq. one of queen Elizabeth’s council in the north, whose son, Thomas Purefoy, of Barvvell in Leicestershire, gave them to the famous antiquary, William Burton, in 1612 and he made use of them in his description of Leicestershire. Many years after, he presented them to the Bodleian library at Oxford, where they now are. Some other of these collections, after Cheke’s death, came into the hands of William lord Paget, and sir William Cecil. The original of the “Itinerary,” in five volumes, 4to, is in the Bodleian library; and two volumes of collections, relating to Britain, are in the Cottonian.

On his return to England, he found the queen’s council already divided; some being for carrying on the war as auxiliaries only, others for declaring against France and Spain immediately, and so becoming principals at once. The earl of Marlborough joined with the latter; and these carrying their point, war was declared May 4, 1702, and approved afterwards by parliament, though the Dutch at that time had not declared. The earl took the command June 20; and discerning that the States were made uneasy by the places which the enemy held on their frontiers, he began with attacking and reducing them. Accordingly, in this single campaign, he made himself master of the castles of Gravenbroeck and Waerts, the towns of Venlo, Ruremond, and Stevenswaert, together with the city and citadel of Liege; which last was taken sword in hand. These advantages were considerable, and acknowledged as such by the States; but they had like to have been of a very short date: for, the army separating in the neighbourhood of Liege, Nov. 3, the earl was taken the next day in his passage by water, by a small party of thirty men from the garrison at Gueldres; but it being towards night, and the earl insisting upon an old pass given to his brother, and now out of date, was suffered to proceed, and arrived at the Hague, when they were in the utmost consternation at the accident which had befallen him. The winter approaching, he embarked for England, and arrived in London Nov. 28. The queen had been complimented some time before by both houses of parliament, on the success of her arms in Flanders; in consequence of which there had been a public thanksgiving Nov. 4, when her majesty went in great state to St. Paul’s. Soon after a committee of the house of commons waited upon him with the thanks of the house; and Dec. 2, her majesty declared her intention in council of creating him a duke: which she soon did, by the title of marquis of Blandford, and duke of Marlborough. She likewise added a pension of 5000l. per annum out of the post-office, during her own life, and sent a message to the house of commons, signifying her desire that it might attend the honour she had lately conferred; but with this the house would not Comply, contenting themselves, in their address to the queen, with applauding fyer manner of rewarding public service, but declaring their inability to make such a precedent for alienating the revenue of the crown.

He was on the point of returning to Holland, when, Feb. S, 1703, his only son, the marquis of Blandford, died at Cambridge, at the age of 18, and was interred in the magnificent chapel of King’s college. This very afflicting accident did not however long retard him; but he passed over to Holland, and arrived at the Hague March 6. The nature of our work will not suffer us to relate all the military acts in which the duke of Marlborough was engaged: it is sufficient to say, that, numerous as they were, they were all successful. The French had a great army this year in Flanders, in the Netherlands, and in that part of Germany which the elector of Cologn had put into their hands; and prodigious preparations were made under the most experienced commanders: but the vigilance and activity of the duke baffled them all. When the campaign was over, his grace went to Dusseldorp to meet the late emperor, then styled Charles III. king of Spain, who made him a present of a rich sword from his side, with very high compliments; and then returning to the Hague, after a very short stay, came over to England. He arrived Oct. 13, 1703; and soon after king Charles, whom he had accompanied to the Hague, came likewise over to England, and arrived at Spithead on Dec. 26; upon which the dukes, of Somerset and Marlborough were immediately sent down to receive and conduct him to Windsor. In January the States desired leave of the queen for the duke to come to the Hague; which being granted, he embarked on the 15th, and passed over to Rotterdam. He went immediately to the Hague, where he communicated to the pensionary his sense of the necessity there was of attempting something the next campaign for the relief of the emperor; whose affairs at this time were in the utmost distress, having the Bavarians on one side, and the Hungarian malcontents on the other, making incursions to the very gates of Vienna, while his whole force scarce enabled him to maintain a defensive war. This scheme being, approved of, and the plan of it adjusted, the duke returned to England in the middle of February.

His advice was of great use in concerting those measures by which the rebellion in 1715 was crushed; and this advice was the last effort he made in respect to public affairs; for his infirmities increasing with his years, he retired from business, and spent the greatest part of his time, during the remainder of his life, at one or other of his countryhouses. During his last years he suffered a decay of his mental faculties, which terminated in his death June 16, 1722, in his 73d year, at Windsor-lodge; and his corpse, on Aug. 9, was interred with the highest solemnity in Westminster-abbey. Besides the marquis of Bland ford, whom we have already mentioned, he had four daughters, who married into the best families of the kingdom.

, an eminent artist, claimed by the English school, from England being so long the theatre of his art, was born at Pistoia, about the year 1727. He received his first instructions from an English artist of the name of Heckford (who had settled in that city), and afterwards went under the tuition of Gabbiani, by the study of whose works he became a vigorous designer. Italy possesses few of his pictures, but Lanzi mentions two, painted for the abbey of St. Michele, in Pelago, in the neighbourhood of Pistoia; the one of St. Tesauro, the other of Gregory VII. In 1750 he went to Rome, where he had much employment, but chiefly in drawing; and in August 1755 came to England with Mr. Wilton and sir William Chambers, who were then returning from the continent. His reputation having preceded him, he was patronized by lord Tilney, and the late duke of Richmond, and other noblemen. When, in 1758, the duke of Richmond opened the gallery at his house in Privy- garden as a school of art, Wilton and Cipriani were appointed to visit the students the former giving them instructions in sculpture, and the latter in painting; but this scheme was soon discontinued. At the foundation of the Royal Academy, Cipriani was chosen one of the founders, and was also employed to make the design for the diploma, which is given to the academicians and associates at their admission. For this work, which he executed with great taste and elegance, the president and council presented him with a silver cup, “as an acknowledgment for the assistance the academy received from his great abilities in his profession.” The original drawing of this diploma was purchased at the marquis of Lansdowne’s sale of pictures, drawings, &c. in 1806 for thirty-one guineas by Mr. G. Baker.

, marquis of Segnelai, one of the greatest statesmen that France ever had, was born at Paris in 1619, and descended from a family that lived at Rheirns in Champaigne, originally from Scotland (the Cuthberts), but at that time no way considerable for its splendour. His grandfather is said to have been a winejuerchant, and his father at first followed the same occupation but afterwards traded in cloth, and at last in silk. Our Colbert was instructed in the arts of merchandize, and afterwards became clerk to a notary. In 1648 his relation John Baptist Colbert, lord of S. Pouange, preferred him to the service of Michael le Tellier, secretary of state, whose sister he had married; and here he discovered such diligence and exactness in executing all the commissions that were entrusted to his care, that he quickly grew distinguished. One day his master sent him to cardinal Mazarine, who was then at Sedan, with a letter written by the queen mother; and ordered him to bring it back after that minister had seen it. Colbert carried the letter, and would not return without it, though the cardinal treated him roughly, used several arts to deceive him, and obliged him to wait for it several days. Some time after, the cardinal returning to court, and wanting one to write his agencte or memoranda, desired le Tellier to furnish him with a fit person for that employment; and Colbert being presented to him, the cardinal had some remembrance of him, and desired to know where he had seen him. Colbert was afraid of putting him in mind of Sedan, lest the remembrance of his behaviour in demanding the queen’s letter should renew his anger. But the cardinal was so far from disliking him for his faithfulness to his late master, that he received him on condition that he should serve him with the like zeal and fidelity.

, an English officer and statesman, the second son of Francis, first lord Conway, was born in 1720, and appeared first in public life in 1741 as one of the knights for the county of Antrim, in the parliament of Ireland; and in the same year was elected for Higham Ferrers, to sit in the ninth parliament of Great Britain. He was afterwards chosen for various other places from 1754 to 1780, when he represented St. Edmund’s Bury. In 1741 he was constituted captain-lieutenant in the “first regiment of foot-guards, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel; and in April 1746, being then aid-de-camp to the duke of Cumberland, he got the command of the xorty-eighth regiment of foot, and the twenty-ninth in July 1749. He was constituted colonel of the thirteenth regiment of dragoons in December 1751, which he resigned upon being appointed colonel of the first, or royal regiment of dragoons, Septembers, 1759. In January 1756 he was advanced to the rank of major-general; in March 1759, to that of lieutenant-general; in May 1772, to that of general; and in October 12, 1793, to that of field marshal. He served with reputation in his several military capacities, and commanded the British forces in Germany, under prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, in 1761, during the absence of the marquis of Granby. He was one of the grooms of the bed-chamber to George II. and likewise to his present majesty till April 1764, when, at the end of the session of parliament, he resigned that office and his military commands, or, more properly speaking, was dismissed for voting against the ministry in the question of general warrants. His name, however, was continued in the list of the privy counsellors in Ireland; and William, the fourth duke of Devonshire, to whom he had been secretary when the duke was viceroy in Ireland, bequeathed him at his death, in 1764, a legacy of 5000l. on account of his conduct in parliament. On the accession of the Rockingham administration in 1765, he was sworn of the privy council, and appointed joint- secretary of state with the duke of Grafton, which office he resigned in January 1768. In February following, he was appointed colonel of the fourth regiment of dragoons; in October 1774, colonel of the royal regiment of horse-guards; and in October 1772, governor of the island of Jersey. On March 30, 1782, he was appointed commander in chief of his majesty’s forces, which he resigned in December 1783. He died at his seat at Park-place, near Henley upon Thames, July 9, 1795. General Conway was an ingenious man, of considerable abilities, but better calculated to be admired in the private and social circle, than to shine as a great public character. In politics, although we believe conscientious, he was timid and wavering. He had a turn for literature, and some talent for poetry, and, if we mistake not, published, but without his name, one or two political pamphlets. In his old age he aspired to the character of a dramatic writer, producing in 1789, a play, partly from the French, entitled” False Appearances," which was not, however, very successful. His most intimate friend appears to have been the late lord Orford, better known as Horace Walpole, who was his cousin, and addressed to him a considerable part of those letters which form the fifth volume of his lordship’s works. This correspondence commenced in 1 7-1-0, when Walpole was twenty-three years old, and Mr. Couway twenty. They had gone abroad together with the celebrated poet Gray in 1739, had spent three months together at Rheims, and afterwards separated at Geneva. Lord Orford’s letters, although evidently prepared for the press, evince at least a cordial and inviolable friendship for his correspondent, of which also he gave another proof in 3 letter published in defence of general Couway when dismissed from his offices; and a testimony of affection yet more decided, in bequeathing his fine villa of Strawberry Hill to Mrs. Darner, general Con way’s daughter, for her life.

In 1674, he published the translation of the “Fair One of Tunis,” a French novel; and of the “Commentaries of Blaise de Montluc,” marshal of France; and in 1675, “The Planter’s Manual,” being instructions for cultivating all sorts of fruit-trees. In 1678 appeared his most celebrated burlesque performance, entitled “Scarronides, or Virgil Travestie a mock poem, on the First and Fourth Books of Virgil’s Æneis, in English burlesque.” To this was afterwards added, “Burlesque upon Burlesque, or the Scoffer scoffed; being some of Lucian’s Dialogues newly put into English fustian.” In 1681, he published “The Wonders of the Peak,” an original poem, which, however, proved that he had not much talent for the descriptive branch of poetry. His next employment was a translation of Montaigne’s Essays, which was highly praised by the marquis of Halifax, and has often been reprinted, as conveying the spirit and sense of the original with great felicity. His style at least approaches very closely to the antiquated gossip of that “old prater.” Besides these he wrote “An elegie upon the Lord Hastings,” signed with his name, in the “Lachrymae Musarum,” published on that nobleman’s death, London, 1649, 8vo; and in 1660, he published a folio of about forty leaves, entitled “A Panegyrick to the King’s most excellent majesty.'” This last is in the British Museum. His father has also a copy of verses in the “Lachrymae Musarum,” on the death of lord Hastings, published by Richard Brome.

He died at Durham-house in the Strand on the 14th of January, 1639-40, and was interred in the church of Croome d'Abitot on the 1st of March following, after he had continued in his post of lord-keeper with an universal reputation for his exact administration of justice, for the space of about sixteen years; which was another important circumstance of his felicity, that great office being of a tenure so precarious, that no man had died in it before for near the space of forty years; nor had his successors for some time after him much better fortune. And he himself had made use of all his strength to preserve him-­self from falling by two attacks; the one hy the earl Portland, lord high treasurer of England; the other by the marquis of Hamilton, who had the greatest power over the affections of the king of any man of that time. Whitelocke indeed tells us, that he was of “no transcendant parts or fame;” and sir Anthony Weldon, an author, whose very manner of writing weakens the authority of whatever he advances, asserts, that if his actions had been scanned by a parliament, he had been found as foul a man as ever lived. But our other historians represent him in a much more advantageous light. Mr. Lloyd observes, that he had a venerable aspect, but was neither haughty nor ostentatious; that in the administration of justice, he escaped even the least reproach or suspicion; that he served the king most faithfully; and the more faithfully, because he was a zealous opposer of all counsels which were prejudicial to his majesty, and highly disliked those persons who laboured to stretch the prerogative. But lord Clarendon’s character of him seems entitled to higher respect, not only as a faithful portrait, but a useful lesson. “He was,” says that noble writer, " a man of wonderful gravity and wisdom and not only understood the whole science and mystery of the law, at least equally with any man who had ever sat in his post, but had likewise a clear conception of the whole policy of the government both of church and state; which, by the unskilfulness of some well-meaning men, jostled each other too much. He knew the temper, disposition, and genius of the kingdom most exactly; saw their spirits grow every day more sturdy, inquisitive, and impatient; and therefore naturally abhorred all innovations, which he foresaw would produce ruinous effects. Yet many, who stood at a distance, thought he was not active and stout enough in opposing those innovations. For though by his place he presided in all public councils, and was most sharp-sighted in the consequence of things, yet he was seldom known to speak in matters of state, which he well knew were, for the most part, concluded before they were brought to that public agitation; never in foreign affairs, which the vigour of his judgment could well have comprehended; rior indeed freely in any thing, but what immediately and plainly concerned the justice of the kingdom; and in that, as much as he could, he procured references to the judges. Though in his nature he had not only a firm gravity, but a severity, and even some moroseness; yet it was so happily tempered, and his courtesy and affability towards all men so transcendent, and so much without affectation, that it marvellously recommended him to men of all degrees; and he was looked upon as an excellent courtier, without receding from the natural simplicity of his own manners. He had in the plain way of speaking and delivery, without much ornament of elocution, a strange power of making himself believed (the only justifiable design of eloquence) so that though he used very frankly to deny, and would never suffer any man to depart from him with an opinion that he was inclined to gratify, when in truth he was not; holding that dissimulation to be the worst of lying: yet the manner of it was so gentle and obliging, and his condescension such, to inform the persons whom he could not satisfy, that few departed from him with illwill and ill-wishes.

He was well received in England: the marquis of Blandford made him a present of fifty pounds, and he obtained a pension of one hundred pounds a year from the court. In 1729 he published, at Amsterdam, in two vols. 12mo, “Relation Historique et Apologetique des sentimens et de la conduite du P. le Courayer, chanoine regulier de Ste. Genevieve: avec les preuves justificatives des faits avancez dans l'ouvrage.” In this work he entered into a farther justification of his sentiments and of his conduct, and shewed the necessity that he was under of quitting France, from the virulence and power of his enemies. In 1733 he was at Oxford, and was present in the theatre at the public act that year, and made a speech there upon the occasion, which was afterwards printed both in Latin and English. In 1726 he published at London, in two vols. folio, a translation, in French, of “Father Paul’s History of the Council of Trent;” with notes critical, historical, and theological. He dedicated this work to queen Caroline, and speaks of it as having been undertaken by her command; and he expresses, in the strongest terms, his gratitude to her majesty for her patronage, and for the liberality which she liad manifested towards him. A list of subscribers is prefixed, in which are found the names of the prince of Wales, the duke of Cumberland, the prince and princess of Orange, the princesses Amelia and Caroline, the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord Chancellor, lord Hardwicke, then chief Justice of the King’s Bench, sir Robert Walpole, and many of the nobility, andother persons of distinction. By the sale of this work he is said to have gained fifteen hundred pounds, and the queen also raised his pension to two hundred pounds per annum. He gave sixteen hundred pounds to lord Feversham, for an annuity of one hundred pounds per annum, which he enjoyed forty years. By these means he came into very easy circumstances, which were rendered still more so by the reception which his agreeable and instructive conversation procured him, among persons of rank and fortune, with many of whom it was his custom to live for several months at a time. He wrote some other works in French, besides those that have been mentioned; and, in particular, he translated into that language Sleidan’s “History of the Reformation.” His exile from his own country was probably no diminution of his happiness upon the whole; for he appears to have passed his time in England very agreeably, and he lived to an uncommon age. Even in his latter years, he was distinguished for the cheerfulness of his temper and the sprightliness of his conversation. He died in Downingstreet, Westminster, after two days illness, on the 17th of October, 1776, at the age of ninety-five. Agreeably to his own desire, he was buried m the cloister of Westminsterabbey, by Dr. Bell, chaplain to the princess Amelia. In his will, which was dated Feb. 3, 1774,* he declared, “That he died a member of the Catholic church, but without approving of many of the opinions and superstitions which have been introduced into the Romish church, and taught in their schools and seminaries, and which they have insisted on as articles of faith, though to him they appeared to be not only not founded in truth, but also to be highly improbable.” It is said, that soon after he came to England, he went to a priest of the Romish church for confession, and acquainted him who he was. The priest would not venture to take his confession, because he was excommunicated, but advised him to consult his superior of Genevieve. Whether he made any such application, or what was the result, we are not informed bat it is certain that, when in London, he made it his practice to go to mass; and when in the country, at Ealing, he constantly attended the service of the parish-church, declaring, at all times, that he had great satisfaction in the prayers of the church of England. In discoursing on religious subjects he was reserved and cautious, avoiding controversy as much as possible. He left 500l. to the parish of St. Martin; and gave, in his life-time, his books to the library there, founded by archbishop Tenison. He bequeathed 200l. to the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, and a handsome sum of money to the poor of Vernon, in Normandy; and, after many legacies to his friends in England, the remainder to two nephews of his name at Vernon. During his lifetime, he was occasionally generous to some of his relations in France, and in England was very liberal to the poor. He had two sisters, who were nuns; and a brother at Paris, in the profession of the law, to whom he gave a handsome gold snuff-box, which had been presented to him by queen Caroline.

, an English poet, was the son of the rev. William Crashaw, a divine of some note in his day, and preacher at the Temple church, London. He published several volumes on points controverted between the Roman catholics and protestants, either original or translated; and in 1608, a translation of the Life of Galeacius Caracciolo, marquis of Vico, an Italian nobleman, who was converted by the celebrated reformer Peter Martyr, and forsook all that rank, family, and wealth could yield, for the quiet enjoyment of the reformed religion. Mr. Crashaw also translated a supposed poem of St. Bernard’s, entitled “The Complaint or Dialogue between the Soule and the Bodie of a damned man,” 1616, and in the same year published a “Manual for true Catholics, or a handfull or rather a heartfull of holy Meditations and Prayers.” All these show him to have been a zealous protestant; but, like his son, somewhat tinctured with a love of mystic poetry and personification.

With such arts and qualities as these, joined to his great military skill and reputation, we may account for all his successes, and that prodigious authority to which he raised himself, without having-recourse to that contract of his with the devil, of which, as Echard pretends, colonel Lindsey was eye and ear-witness. In the course of his life he was temperate and sober, and despised those who were not so. In his family he shewed great kindness, but without any diminution of his authority. He was very respectful to his mother, and very tender to his wife; yet neither had any influence over him. He expressed a deep sense of the concern which the former discovered for his danger, heard whatever she said to him patiently, but acted as he thought proper, and, in respect to her burial, directly against her dying request. His wife is said to have made a proposition tending to restore the king; but he rejected it unmoved, as he had shewn himself before, when his son Richard threw himself at his feet, to dissuade him from taking the king’s life. He did not seem offended at applications of the same kind from other persons, as from Whitlocke, though that gentleman thought he lost his confidence by it; from the marquis of Hertford, whom he treated very respectfully; and from Dr. Brownrig, bishop of Exeter, to whom he shewed more kindness than to any other man of his rank and profession. Asking advice once of this prelate, “My advice,” said he to him, “must be in the words of the Gospel: ' Render to Citsar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s:” to which Cromwell made no reply. He shewed a great respect for learning and learned men, without affecting to be learned himself. His letters, however, are the best testimonies of his parts; for they are varied in their style in a wonderful manner, exactly adapted to the purposes for which they were written, and the persons to whom they were addressed. A great number of them are to be found in Thurloe’s and Nichols’s collections, as well as in Rushworth and Whitlocke. His public speeches were long, dark; and perplexed; and though mixed with the cant of the times, yet have sentiments in them which shew a superiority of understanding. Several of these are in Whitlocke’s “Memorials.” In his conversation he was easy and pleasant, and could unbend himself without losing his dignity. He made an excellent choice in those he cmployed, but trusted none of them farther than was necessary.

Soon after his arrival home in 1765, discoveries in the South Sea being a favourite object of Mr. Dalrymple’s researches, he communicated his col -m that subject to the secretary of state, lord Shelburne, late marquis of Lans^ downe, who expressed a strong desire to employ him on these discoveries. Afterwards, when the royal society proposed to send persons to observe the transit of Venus, in 1769, Mr. Dalrymple was approved of by the admiralty, as a proper person to be employed in this service, as well as to prosecute discoveries in that quarter; but from some differences of opinion, partly owing to official etiquette, respecting the employment of any person as commander of a vessel who was not a naval officer, and partly owing to Mr. Dalrymple’s objections to a divided command, this design did not take place. In that year, however, the court of directors of the East India company gave Mr. Dalrymple 5000l. for his past services, and as an equivalent to the emoluments of secretary at Madras, which he had relinquished in 1759, to proceed on the eastern voyage. As the various proceedings concerning Balambangan were published in 1769, it may be sufficient to notice in this place that the court of directors appointed Mr. Dalrymple chief of Balambangan, and commander of the Britannia; but some unhappy differences arising with the directors, he was removed from the charge of that intended settlement, and another person appointed in his stead. In 1774, however, the court of directors being dissatisfied with this person’s conduct, had it in contemplation to send a supervisor thither. On this occasion Mr. Dalrymple made an offer of his services to redeem the expedition from destruction, without any emolument except defraying his expences, on condition that a small portion of the clear profits of the establishment should be granted to him and his heirs, &c. But this offer was not accepted, and soon after the settlement of Balambangan was lost to the company.

His first political work was, “An Essay upon Ways and Means of supplying the War,” 1695. In this treatise he wrote with so much strength and perspicuity upon the nature of funds, that whatever pieces came abroad from the author of the Essay on Ways and Means, were sufficiently recommended to the public; and this was the method he usually took to distinguish the writings he afterwards published. 2. “An Essay on the East-India Trade,” 1697. This was nothing more than a pamphlet, written in form of a letter to the marquis of Normandy, afterwards duke of Buckinghamshire. 3. “Discourses on the public revenues, and of the trade of England. Part I. To which is added, a discourse upon improving the revenue of the state of Athens, written originally in Greek by Xenophon, and now made English from the original, with some historical notes by another hand,” 1698. This other hand was Walter Moyle, esq. who addressed his discourse to Dr. Pavenant. There is a passage in it which shews, that there were some thoughts of sending over our author in quality of director-general to the East-Indies; and is also a clear testimony what that great man’s notions were, in regard' to the importance of his writings. It is this: “The great trade to the East-Indies, with some few regulations, might be established upon a bottom more consistent with the manufactures of England; but in all appearance this is not to be compased, unless some public-spirited man, with a masterly genius,” meaning Dr. Davenant himsrlf, “be placed at the head of our affairs in India. And though we, who are his friends, are loth to lose him, it were to be wished for the good of the kingdom, that the gentleman, whom common fame and the voice of the world have pointed out as the ablest man for such a station, would employ his excellent judgment and talents that way, in the execution of so noble and useful a design.” 4. “Discourses on the Public Revenues, and on the Trade of England, which more immediately treat of the foreign traffic of this kingdom. Part II.” 1698. 5. “An Essay on the probable Method of making the people gainers in the Balance of Trade,” 1699. 6. “A Discourse upon Grants and Resumptions: shewing, how our ancestors have proceeded with such ministers as have procured to themselves grants of the crown revenue; and that the forfeited estates ought to be applied to the payment of public debts,” 1700. 7. “EsMiys upon the Balance of Power; the right of making War, Peace, Alliances; Universal Monarchy. To which is added, an Appendix, containing the records referred to in the second essay,” 1701. It was in this book that our author was carried away by his zeal to treat the church, or at least some churchmen, in so disrespectful a manner, as to draw upon himself a censure from one of the houses of convocation. 8. “A picture of a Modern Whig, in two parts,” 1701. There is, however, nothing but general report, founded upon the likeness of style and other circumstantial evidence, to prove that this bitter pamphlet fell from the pen of our author; and, if it did, he must be allowed to have been the greatest master of invective that ever wrote in our language; others have attributed it to Defoe. 9. “Essays upon Peace at Home and War Abroad, in two parts,” 1704. This is the first piece our author published after the time that he is supposed to have reconciled himself to the ministry; it was suspected to be written at the desire of lord Halifax, and was dedicated to the queen. It drew upon him the resentment of that party, by whom he had been formerly esteemed, but who now bestowed upon him as ill language, or rather worse, than he had received from his former opponents. 10. “Reflections upon the Constitution and Management of the Trade to Africa, through the whole course and progress thereof, from the beginning of the last century to this time,” &c. 1709, fol. in 3 parts. 11. “A Report to the honourable the Commissioners for putting in execution the Act, entitled, an Act for the taking, examining, and stating the Public Accounts of the Kingdom, from Charles Davenant, LL. D. inspector-general of the exports and imports,” 1712, part I. 12. “A Second Report to the Honourable the Commissioners,” &c. 1712. It may be necessary to observe, that several of the above-recited pieces were attacked in the warmest manner, at the time they were published; but the author seems to have satisfied himself in delivering his sentiments and opinions, without shewing any further concern to defend and support them against the cavils of party zeal and contention. Most of his political works were collected and revised by sir Charles Whitworth, 1771, in 5 vols. 8vo.

He published: 1. “Primitive Sacrse, the reflections of a devout solitude, consisting of Meditations and Poems on divine subjects,” London, 1701 and 1703, 8vo. 2. “Flora,” in admiration of the Gardens of Rapin, and the translation of Mr. Gardiner, written in 1705, prefixed to Subdean Gardiner’s translation of “Rapin of Gardens,” the third edition of which was published 1728, 8vo. 3. “An Essay upon the Execution of the Laws against Immorality and Profaneness. With a Preface addressed to her Majesty’s justices of the peace,” London, 1708 and 1710, 8vo. His portrait is prefixed to several copies on large paper. 4. “A Second Essay upon the Execution of the Laws against Immorality and Profaneness. Wherein the case of giving informations to the magistrate is considered, and objections against it answered. By John Disney, esq. With a Preface addressed to grand juries, constables, and churchwardens,” London, 1710, 8vo. The preface to this second essay was afterwards printed in a small size by itself, in order to distribute it among those whom it more particularly concerned. 5. “Remarks upon a Sermon preached by Dr. Henry Sacheverell, at the assizes held at Derby, Aug. 15, 1709. In a Letter to himself. Containing a just and modest defence of the Societies for Reformation of Manners, against the aspersions cast upon them in that Sermon,” London, 1711, 8vo. 6. Proposals for the publication of his great work, entitled “Corpus Legum de Moribus Reformandis,” dated Lincoln, 1713; a single sheet, and republished in the “View of ancient laws.” 7. “The Genealogy of the most serene and most illustrious House of Brunswick Lunenburgh, the present royal family of Great Britain; drawn up from the best historical and genealogical writers,” 1714. Dedicated to his majesty, king George I. and engraved by J. Sturt, on two sheets of imperial paper. N. B. A mistake in this Genealogical Table is corrected in the “Acta Regia,” 1716, 8vo, vol. I. p. 102. Rymer says, that “Albert Great Duke of Brunswick married Adelhard, daughter to Henry the magnanimous duke of Brabant; whereas, Mr. Disney makes Adelhard daughter of the marquis of Montserrat, 8.” A Sermon, preached in the parish church of St. Botolph’s, Aldgate, London, on Sunday, Nov. 22, 1719,“London, 1720, 8vo. 9 14. Six other occasional Sermons. 15.” A View of ancient laws against Immorality and Profaneness, under the following heads lewdness profane swearing, cursing, and blasphemy perjury; profanation of days devoted to religion contempt or neglect of divine service drunkenness gaming, idleness, vagrancy, and begging; stage-plays and players; and duelling. Collected from the Jewish, Roman, Greek, Gothic, Lombard, and other Laws, down to the middle of the eleventh century.“Dedicated to lord King, lord high chancellor,” Cambridge, 1729, fol.

In 1753 he received orders; and, being now settled in London, soon became a very popular and celebrated preacher. He obtained several lectureships that of West- Ham and Bow, that of St. James Garlickhithe, and that of St. Olave Hart-street; and was appointed to preach a course of lady Moyer’s lectures and he advanced his theological character greatly, by an almost uninterrupted publication of sermons and tracts of piety. And farther to keep up the profession of sanctity, and increase his popularky, he was very zealous in promoting and assisting at charitable institutions, and distinguished himself much in. regard to the Magdalen hospital, which was opened in August 1758: he became preacher at the chapel of this charity, for which he was allowed yearly I Oo/. But, notwithstanding his apparent attention to spiritual concerns, he was much more in earnest, and indeed in earnest only in cultivating his temporal interests; but all his expedients were not successful, and his subservient flattery was sometimes seen through. In 1759 he published in 2 vols. 12mo, bishop Hall’s Meditations, and dedicated them to Miss Talbot, who lived in the family of archbishop Seeker; and, on the honour the marquis of Granby acquired in Germany, addressed an ode to the marchioness. His dedication to Miss Talbot was too extravagant a piece of flattery not to miss its aim, and gave such offence to the archbishop, that, after a warm epistolary expostulation, his grace insisted on the sheet being cancelled in all the remaining copies.

Lord Melcombe is allowed to have been generous, magnificent, and convivial, but more respected as a private gentleman than as a politician. In the one character he was free, easy, and engaging; in the other intriguing, close, and reserved. His reigning passion was to be well at court, and to this object he sacrificed every circumstance of his life. Lord Orford says of him that he was “ostentatious in his person, houses, and furniture, and wanted in his expences the taste he never wanted in his conversation. Pope and Churchill treated him more severely than he deserved, a fate that may attend a man of the greatest wit, when his parts are more suited to society than to composition. The verse remains, the bon-mots and sallies are forgotten.” He was handsome, and of a striking figure, but in his latter days was probably singular in his dress. Churchill ridicules his wig, and Hogarth has introduced it in one of his “orders of periwigs.” His patronage of learned men descended from Young, Thomson, and Glover, to the meaner political hirelings who frequented the prince’s court. And among his intimate friends, besides Young, Thomson, and Glover, were Fielding, Bentley, Voltaire, Lyttelton, lord Chesterfield, lord Peterborough, Dr. Gregory Sharpe, &c. and among his lower associates, Ralph, Paul Whitehead, and a Dr. Thomson, a physician without practice or manners, served to add to the hilarity of his table. Most of his biographers have reported that he was a single man, but he certainly was married, as in his letters he frequently speaks of Mrs. Dodington, whose heart was placed in an urn at the top of an obelisk which he erected at Hammersmith. When she died we know not, but as she left no family, he is reported to have used some singular expedients for procuring an heir, which were as unsuccessful as immoral and foolish. He bequeathed his whole property, a few legacies excepted, to the late Thomas Wyndham, esq. of Hammersmith. The mansion which he built at Eastbury came, as already observed in the note, to the marquis of Buckingham, and was taken down a few years ago. Part of the offices were left standing, and have been converted into a very convenient house by J. Wedgewood, esq. who purchased the estate of the marquis of Buckingham. His villa at Hammersmith became a few years ago the property of the margrave of Anspach.

, lieutenant-general and K. B. was educated at Eton, and at King’s college, Cambridge; and, preferring the military profession, went to the EastIndies in the company’s service; where, in 1760, he received the privilege of ranking as a colonel in the army, with Lawrence and Clive, and returned home that year. In 1761 he was promoted to the rank of brigadier in the expedition to Belleisle. In 1763, he, with admiral Cornish, conducted the expedition against Manila. They sailed from Madras Aug. 1, and anchored Sept. 27, in Manila bay, where the inhabitants had no expectation of the enemy. The fort surrendered Oct. 6, and was preserved from plunder by a ransom of four millions of dollars; half to be paid immediately, and the other half in a time agreed on. The Spanish governor drew on his court for the first half, but payment was never made. The arguments of the Spanish court were clearly refuted by colonel Draper in a letter to the earl of Halifax, then premier. Succeeding administrations declined the prosecution of this claim from reasons of state which were never divulged; and the commander in chief lost for his share of the ransom 25,000l. The colours taken at this conquest were presented to King’s college, Cambridge, and hung up in their beautiful chapel, and the conqueror was rewarded with a red ribband. Upon the reduction of the 79th regiment, which had served so gloriously in the East-Indies, his majesty, unsolicited by him, gave him the 16th regiment of foot as an equivalent. This he resigned to colonel Gisborne, for his half pay, 1200l. Irish annuity. In 1769 the colonel appeared, and with much credit, in a literacy character, drawing his pen against that of Junius, in defence of his friend the marquis of Granby, which drew a retort on himself, answered by him in a second letter to Junius, on the refutations of the former charge against him. On a republication of Junius’s first letter, sir William renewed his vindication of himself; and was answered with great keenness by his famous antagonist. Here the controversy dropped for the present, but he is supposed to have entered the lists once more, under the signature of Modestus, with that extraordinary and still concealed writer, in defence of general Gansel, who had been arrested for debt, and was rescued by a party of soldiers. In Oct. 1769 he retired to South Carolina, for the recovery of his health, and took the opportunity to make the tour of North America. That year he married miss de Lancy, daughter of the chief justice of New York, who died in July 1778, and by whom he had a daughter born Aug. 18, 1773. May 29, 1779, sir William, being then in rank a lieutenant-general, was appointed lieutenant-governor of Minorca, on the unfortunate surrender of which important place he exhibited 29 charges against the late governor, general Murray, Nov. 11, 1782. Of these 27 were deemed frivolous and groundless and for the other two the governor was reprimanded. Sir William was then ordered to make an apology to general Murray, for having instituted the trial against him; in which he acquiesced. From this time he appears to have lived in retirement at Bath till his decease, which happened the 8th of January 1787. Many particulars respecting his controversy with Junius, as well as the controversy itself, may be seen in the splendid edition of “Junius’s Letters,” published by Mr. Woodfall in 1812.

pains to conquer his native pronunciation, which, as it frequently provoked a smile from his hearers, would have proved of the greatest disadvantage in the heat and acrimony of debate, had he not evinced by the fluency and acuteness of his arguments that he was deserving of serious attention, and was an opponent not to be despised. For declamatory speaking, and addresses to the passions, he had neither taste nor talent; his mind was intent on the practical part of every measure, and in every debate that concerned what maybe termed business, he had few equals, and his speeches were perhaps the more attended to, as he made it a point to reserve them for such occasions. During lord North’s administration he was introduced to no ostensible station; but when that nobleman and his colleagues were obliged to retire in 1782, and a few months after, by the death of the marquis of Rockingham, their successors were obliged to resign, Mr. Dundas joined the young minister, Mr. Pitt, and was sworn into the privy council, and appointed treasurer of the navy. During Mr. Pitt’s first administration the general peace was concluded, which, however necessary, did not add much popularity to the ministry, and lord North and Mr. Fox, with their respective friends, or the greater part of them, having formed what was termed the coalition, Mr. Pitt’s administration was obliged to give way to a host of opponents, which was considered as invincible. On this occasion, in 1783, Mr. Dundas was deprived of his offices as treasurer of the navy, and lord advocate for Scotland.

Previous to this, however, in 1766, he was chosen recorder of the city of Bristol, a place that scarcely pays the expences of the half-yearly visitation, but which has always been considered as an honourable preferment. On Dec. S3, 1767, he was appointed solicitor-general in the room of Edward Willes, esq. then promoted to the King’s-bench. In this office he continued until May 1770, when he resigned it, along with his friend and patron lord Shelburne, afterwards marquis of Lansdowne, and returned to his original situation at the bar, without any distinction from the rest of his brethren but what he was entitled to from the time of his admission into the profession. In 1771, he was presented with the freedom of the city of London, a favour which he acknowledged in a letter written with elegance, yet caution. From the period of his resignation he was considered as adhering to the party in opposition to the administration which conducted the American war, and distinguished himself by many able speeches in parliament, of which he was first chosen member for Calne in 1768, and continued to represent the same borough until he was called to the peerage.

As a senator, the late duke of Bridgewater did not take an active part; and was not constant in his attendance on his parliamentary function-. In 1762, however, his name is to be found in the division, on a motion to withdraw the British troops from Germany and on the loss of that motion, he joined in a protest. When the repeal of the American stamp act was in agitation, his grace was a strong opposer of that measure; and in 1784, when powerful interest was made use of to prevent Mr. Fox’s India-bill from passing into a law, the duke was active therein. In general his politics were guided by that of his noble brother-inlaw the marquis of Stafford.

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

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

It was time, indeed, for Elizabeth now to turn her attention towards Spain. Hearing that Philip was secretly preparing a great navy to attack her, she sent sir Francis Drake with a fleet to intercept his supplies, to pillage his coast, and destroy his shipping. Drake sailed with four capital ships of the queen’s, and twenty-six great and small, with which the London merchants, in hopes of sharing the plunder, had supplied him. Having learned that a Spanish fleet, richly laden, was lying at Cadiz, he boldly made an attack, forced six gallies to take shelter under the forts, burned about an hundred vessels laden with ammunition and naval stores; and destroyed a great ship belonging to the marquis of Santa Croce. Thence he set sail for Cape Vincent, and took by assault the castle situated on that promontory, with three other fortresses. After insulting Lisbon, he took a rich carrack. and by this short expedition, the English seamen learned to despise the unwieldy ships of the enemy; the intended hostilities against England were retarded for a twelvemonth, and the queen had leisure to take more secure measures against that formidable invasion.

Philip, however, proceeded with unremitting diligence, and every part of his dominions resounded with the noise of armaments. The marquis of Santa Croce, a sea-officer of great reputation and experience, was destined to command the fleet. In all the ports of Sicily, Naples, Spain, and Portugal, artizans were employed in building vessels of uncommon size and force naval stores were bought at a great expence armies were levied, and quartered along the maritime parts of Spain and every thing threatened the most formidable naval enterprize that Europe ever beheld. The duke of Parma was to conduct the landforces, twenty-thousand of whom were on board the fleet, and thirty-four thousand more were assembled in the Netherlands, ready to be transported into England. The most renowned nobility, and princes of Italy and Spain were ambitious of sharing in the honour of this great enterprize, and the Spaniards, ostentatious of their power, already denominated their navy the Invincible Armada.

Before concluding our article, it may be necessary to advert to some particulars of Mr. Evelyn’s history, which are interspersed in his “Sylva,” and could not well be incorporated in our sketch. From that work we learn, that the true signification of his surname, Evelyn, written anciently Avelan or Evelin, was filberd, or rather hazel, which gives him occasion to remark, that these trees are commonly produced where quarries of free-stone lie underneath, as at Hazelbury in Wiltshire, Haslingfield in Cambridgeshire, and Haslemere in Surrey. He more than once remarks, that his grandfather was a great planter and preserver of timber, as it seems were the ancient possessors of the place where he lived, whence it acquired its name of Wotton (i. e.) Woodtown, from the groves and plantations that were about it. He farther remarks, that there was an oak felled by his grandfather’s order, out of which there was a table made, measured by himself more than once, of five feet in breadth, nine and a half in length, and six inches thick, all entire and clear. It was set up in brick-work for a pastry-board; and, to fit it for that use, it was shortened by a foot, being originally ten feet and a half, as appeared from an inscription cut in one of its sides, whence it appeared to have lain there above one hundred years, when pur author wrote this description. When his grandfather’s woods were cut down, which consisted entirely of cak, they sprang up again, not oaks but beeches; and when these too in their turn felt the axe, there arose spontaneously a third plantation, not of oak or beech, but of birch, which he does not set down as a thing singular in itself, but because it happened under his own eye. He is a declared enemy to iron works, on account of their destroying woods; yet he observes, from the prudential maxims prevailing in his own family, they had quite a contrary effect, as being one principal cause of their making such large plantations, and taking so much pains about them. It was a relation of his that sold Richmond new park to kiug Charles I. after planting many fine trees there. Our author carried this disposition with him to Sayes-court, where he must have shewn it very early, since be assures us that the marquis of Argyle presented him with the cones of a peculiar kind of fir, which he takes to be the Spanish pinaster, or wild pine, and gives a very particular account of the manner in which they grew in the marquis’s county in Scotland. He informs us, that it was the lord chancellor Bacon who introduced the true plane tree, which he planted originally about Verulam, whence he had his title. Mr. Evelyn takes to himself the honour of having propagated the alaternus from Cheshire to Cumberland, which was before reputed an inhabitant only of the green-house, but is found very capable not only of living without doors, but of standing unhurt by the rigour of our severest winters. He mentions a most glorious and impenetrable holly-hedge which he had at Sayes-court^ four hundred feet in length, nine feet high, and five in diameter, which occasions his dropping a hint, that the fine gardens he had raised there were wholly ruined by the tzar of Muscovy, who it seems lived there for the sake of being near the yard. He recommended Mr. Gibbons, the carver, to king Charles II. by whom some exquisite works were performed in St. Paul’s cathedral. He was likewise consulted by the Bedford family about preserving their fine trees, so long as the gardens were kept up about Bedford-house, which, before the last edition of his book, were demolished, to make way for the new buildings about Bloomsbury. He takes notice of an admirable remedy for a dysentery, which had been otherwise, in all probability, buried in oblivion; and this is the fungous substance separated from the lobes of walnut kernels, powdered and given in a glass of wine, which, he affirms, relieved the English soldiers in the famous Dundalk campaign in Ireland, soon after the revolution, when all other remedies failed. He was acquainted with the conde Mellor, a Portuguese nobleman, who resided some time at the court of king Charles II. when an exile from his own, by whom he was informed, that his father, when prime-minister, as himself had likewise been, received in a case a collection of plants of china oranges, of which only one escaped, and was with difficulty recovered; and yet from this plant came all the china oranges that ever were seen in Europe, which, our author observes, is a most noble and wonderful instance of what industry may do from the slightest and least promising beginnings. One instance of the vast advantages derived from woods we shall borrow, because the facts are notorious and indisputable. “Upon the estate of George Pitt, esq. of Stratfield-Say, in the county of Southampton, a survey of timber being taken in 1659, it came to ten thousand three hundred pounds, besides near ten thousand samplers not valued, and growing up naturally. Since this there hath been made by several sales, five thousand six hundred pounds, and there has been felled for repairs, building, and necessary uses, to the value, at the least, of twelve hundred pounds; so as the whole falls of timber amount to six thousand eight hundred pounds. The timber upon the same ground being again surveyed anno 1677, appears to be worth above twenty-one thousand pounds, besides eight or nine thousand samplers and young trees to be left standing, and not reckoned in the survey. But, what is yet to be observed, most of this timber abovementioned being oak, grows in hedge-rows, and so as that the standing of it does very little prejudice to the plough or pasture.” To conclude: this worthy person, who was born in a town famous for wood, who derived from his ancestors an affection for plantations, who wrote the most correct treatise of forest-trees extant in our own, or perhaps in any language, and who was himself a most eminent planter, had a strong desire, after the example of sir William Temple, who directed his heart to be deposited in his garden, to have his corpse also interred in the like manner; but very probably he was prevailed upon to alter his mind afterwards, notwithstanding what he had expressed upon that subject in his book; which shews how warm and lasting that passion for improvement was in his own breast, which, with so much learning, eloquence, and success, he laboured to excite in the bosoms of his countrymen.

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

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

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

was one of the most celebrated of the Provengal poets or troubadours. He had a fine figure, abundance of wit, and a pleasing address, and was much encouraged by the princes o his time. By representing his comedies, he soon acquired considerable riches, which his vanity and his love of debauchery and expence did not suffer him to keep. From a miserable state of poverty he was relieved by the liberality of Richard Cacur de Lion, who had a strong taste for the Provencal poetry. After the death of this protector, he returned to Aix, where he married a young woman of distinguished wit and beauty; but she did not long survive her marriage with this profligate husband. He died soon after, in 1220, at what age is not exactly known, but certainly early in life. Among the many pieces which he wrote, the following are mentioned: I. A poem on the death of his benefactor, Richard I. 2. “The palace of Love,” imitated afterwards by Petrarch. 3. Several comedies, one of which, entitled “Heregia dels Prestes,” the heresy of the priests, a satirical production against the corruptions of the church, was publicly acted at the castle of Boniface, marquis of Montserrat.

, archbishop of Cambray, and author of Telemachus, was of an ancient and illustrious family, and born at the castle of Fenelon, in the province of Perigord, August 6, 1651. At twelve years of age, he was sent to the university of Cabors; and afterwards went to finish his studies at Paris, under the care of his uncle Anthony marquis of Fenelon, lieutenant-general of the king’s armies. He soon made himself known at Paris, and at nineteen preached there with general applause: but the marquis, who was a very wise and good man, fearing that the good disposition of his nephew might be corrupted by this early applause, persuaded him to be silent for some years. At twenty-four be entered into holy orders, and commenced the functions of his ministry in the parish of St. Sulpice, under the abbe Tron^on, the superior of that district, to whose care he had been committed by his uncle. Three years after, he was chosen by the archbishop of Paris, to be superior to the newly-converted women in that city. In 1686, which was the year after the edict of Nantes was revoked, the king named him to be at the head of those missionaries, who were sent along the coast of Saintonge, and the Pais de Aunis, to convert the protestants. These conversions had been hitherto carried on by the terrors of the sword, but Fenelon declared against this mode, but said, that if allowed to proceed by more rational and gentle means, he would cheerfully become a missionary; and after some hesitation, his request was granted, but his success was not remarkable.

, in Latin Ferrettus, one of the learned civilians in the sixteenth century, was born at Castello Franco in Tuscany, Nov. 14th, 1489. At twelve years old he was sent to Pisa, where he studied the civil and canon law for three years; he spent two other years in the university of Sienna, after which he went to Rome, and was made secretary to cardinal Salviati. He was admitted an advocate at the age of nineteen years, after a public disputation before a numerous audience of cardinals and bishops. He then left his Christian name of Dominicus, and took that of Æmilius, according to a custom very prevalent among the literati of Italy. Having accepted of the chair of law-professor, he explained so learnedly the law de Rebus creditis (of things with which persons are trusted) that it gained him the title of secretary to Leo the Xth. He exercised that office for some years, after which he regigned it voluntarily, and retired into his native country. He left it again at the end of two years, his father having been killed there, and went to Tridino in the dukedom of Montferrat, where he married; and having continued there four years, he attended the marquis of Montferrat to Rome and to Naples, that marquis commanding part of the French army. This expedition of, the French proving unsuccessful, Ferreti endeavoured to return into his native country, but he was taken by the Spaniards, and could not obtain his liberty but by paying a ransom. He went into France, and taught the law at Valencewith so much reputation, that Francis I. made him counsellor in the parliament of Paris, and sent him as envoy to the Venetians, and to the Florentines. He acquitted himself so well of that employment, that it determined the marquis of Montferrat to send him to the court of Charles V. after he had obtained Francis I.'s consent for that journey. Ferreti attended the emperor in the expedition of Africa; and as soon as he was returned into France, the king sent him to the Florentines during the war in which they were engaged against the emperor. He went back to France when they were subdued, and followed the court to Nice, where the pope, Charles V. and the king of France had an interview: having afterwards resigned the post of counsellor in the parliament, he went to Lyons, and thence to Florence, where he was admitted a citizen. He was sent for to Avignon to teach the law there. His yearly stipend was at first 550 crowns, then 800, and then 1000; a sum that had never been given to any professor in that university. He gained the love both of the inhabitants and of the students, who shewed it in a very remarkable manner after his death; for when his successor Craveta began his lectures by strictures upon Ferreti, the scholars shewed their attachment to their old master by hissing and driving him from the place. He died at Avignon July 14, 1552. Ferreti was a man of general learning, and well acquainted with classical literature. He gave an edition of the principal orations of Cicero, printed at Lyons by Gryphius, 8vo, “M. T. Ciceronis Orationes Verrinae ac Philippics,” dedicated to cardinal Salviati. His “Opera Juridica” were published in 1553, and 1598, 4to. An epitaph written for him by Antonius Goveanus, speaks of him in the most extravagant terms of encomium.

, son of Isaac, and grandson of the preceding Manasses de Pas, was born in 1648, but did not greatly signalize himself by his military talents till he was forty years old, when, in Germany, he performed so extraordinary services, at the head of only 1000 horse, that in the ensuing year, 1689, he was advanced to the rank of mareschal-de-camp. He then distinguished himself greatly in Italy, and was promoted to be a lieutenant-general in 1693, in which capacity he served till his death in 1711. Before his death he wrote to solicit the protection of Louis XIV. for his only son, and was successful in his application. The marquis of Feuquieres was an excellent officer, of great theoretical knowledge, but of a severe and censorious turn, and rendered not the less so by being disappointed of the mareschal*s staff. It was said by the wits, “that he was evidently the boldest man in Europe, since he slept among 100,000 of his enemies,” meaning his soldiers, with whom he was no favourite. His “Memoirs,” are extant in 4to, and in four volumes 12mo. They contain the history of the generals of Louis XIV. and except that the author sometimes misrepresents, for the sake of censuring, are esteemed as among the best books on the art military. The clearness of the style, the variety of the facts, the freedom of the reflections, and the sagacity of the observations, render these Memoirs well worthy of the attention, not only of officers, but of all enlightened students and politicians.

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

Under his name are published, 1. Several speeches and discourses in the trial of the judges of Charles I. in the book entitled “An exact and most impartial account of the Indictment, Arraignment, Trial, and Judgment (according to law) of twenty-nine regicides, &c. 1660,” 4to, 1679, 8vo. 2. “Speeches to both Houses of Parliament, 7th Jan. 1673; 13th of April and 13th of Oct. 1675; 15th of Feb. 1676; 6th of March, 1678; and 30th of April, 1679.” These were spoken while he was lord keeper and chancellor. 3. “Speech at the Sentence of William Viscount Stafford, 7th Dec. 1680,” printed in one sheet, folio; and in the Trial of the said Viscount, p. 212. 4. “Answers by his Majesty’s command, upon several Addresses presented to his majesty at Hampton Court, the 19th of May, 1681,” in one sheet, in folio. 5. “His Arguments; upon which he made the Decree in the cause between the honourable Charles Howard, esq. plaintiff, Henry late duke of Norfolk, Henry lord Mowbray his son, Henry marquis of Dorchester, and Richard Marriott, esq. defendants; wherein the several ways and methods of limiting a trust of term for years are fully debated, 1615,” folio, 6, “An Argument on the claim of the Crown to pardon on Impeachment,” folio. He also left behind him, written with his own hand, “Chancery Reports,” ms. in folio, and notes on Coke’s Institute.

His other dramatic pieces are, “Ermina, or the Chaste Lady f” Love’s Dominion;“and,” The Marriage of Oceanus and Britannia.“The second of these performances, was printed in 1654, and dedicated to the lady Elizabeth Claypole; to whom the author insinuates the use of plays, and begs her mediation to gain a licence for acting them. It was afterwards republished in 1664, under the title of” Love’s Kingdom,“and dedicated to the marquis of Newcastle. The author then with great pains introduced it on the stage, but it was condemned by the audience, which Flecknoe styles the people, and calls them judges without judgment. He owns that his play wants much of the ornaments of the stage; but that, he says, may be easily supplied by a lively imagination. His other works consist of, 1.” Epigrams and Enigmatical Characters,“usually bound up with his” Love’s Dominion;“but there is a separate edition in 1670, 8vo,” by Richard Flecnoe, priest.“2.” Miscellanea, or poems of all sorts, with divers other pieces,“1653, 12mo. 3.” Diarium, or the Journal, divided into twelve jornadas, in burlesque verse,“Lond. 1656, 12mo. Mr. Harris mentions also a book in the catalogue of the Bodleian library written by one Rich. Flecknoe, entitled” The Affections of a pious soul unto Christ,“1640, 8vo. He thinks it probable this was the same person, and that he wrote it in his younger years,” before his principles were debauched by the world.“Flecknoe died in the summer of 1678, according to Mr. Malone, who speaks with as much contempt of Flecknoe as if he were personally interested in Dryden’s antipathies. Mr. Southey, in his” Omniana," has a faf more favourable opinion of our poet, and confirms it by extracts from his works, some of which refute Mr. Harris’s opinion of Flecknoe’s principles being debauched. He indeed every where expresses an abhorrence of immorality.

Upon his brother-in-law Richard Cromwell’s succeeding to the title of protector, he signed the order for his proclamation; but soon discovered his enmity to that succession, being disappointed of the protectorship, which he had expected, and determined that no single person should be his superior. He joined therefore with the discontented officers of the army in deposing Richard, after he had persuaded him to dissolve his parliament; and invited the members of the long parliament, who had continued sitting till April 20, 1653, when they were dissolved by Oliver Cromwell, to return to the exercise of their trust. Upon their meeting in May 1659, he was chosen one of the council of state, and the next month made lieutenant general of the forces; which post he held till Oct. 12 following, when he was appointed one of the commissioners to govern all the forces; and on the 17th of that month was nominated by the general council of state, commander in chief of all the forces. But in December 1659, finding that his interest declined in the army, who were now zealous to have the parliament sit again in honour, freedom, and safety, and that this, concurring with the general temper of the nation, would evidently restore the king, he was advised by Whitelocke to send immediately some person of trust to his majesty at Breda, with offers of restoring him to his rights, and by that means anticipate Monk, who had undoubtedly the same design. Fleetwood in return asked Whiteiocke, whether he was willing to undertake that employment; who consenting, it was agreed that he should prepare himself for the journey that evening or the^ next morning, while the general and his friends should draw up instructions for him. But sir Henry Vane, general Disbrowe, and col. Berry, coming in at that critical moment, diverted Fleetwood from this resolution; who alledged, that those gentlemen had reminded him of his promise, not to attempt any such affair without general Lambert’s consent; while Whitelocke, on the other hand, represented to him that Lambert was at too great a distance to give his assent to a business which must be immediately acted, and was of the utmost importance to himself and his friends. He appears, indeed, before that time, to have entertained some design of espousing the king’s interests, if he had had resolution to execute it; for lord Mordaunt, in a letter to the king, dated from Calais, October 11, 1659, asserts, that Fleetwood then 1 looked upon his majesty’s restoration as so clearly his interest as well as his duty, that he would have declared himself publicly, if the king or the duke of York had landed; and that although that engagement failed, he was still ready to come in to his majesty, whensoever he should attempt in person. Sir Edward Hyde likewise, in a letter to the marquis of Ormonde from Brussels of the same date, rves, that the general made then great professions of being converted, and of his resolution to serve the king upon the first opportunity. But the same noble writer, in his “History of the Rebellion,” represents Fleetwood as “a weak man, though very popular with all the praying part of the army, whom Lambert knew well how to govern, as Cromwell had done Fairfax, and then in like manner to lay him aside;” and that amidst tbo several desertions of the soldiers from the interests of their officers to the parliament in December 1659, he remained still in consultation with the “committee of safety;” and when intelligence was brought of any murmur among the soldiers, by which a revolt might ensue, and he was desired to go among them to confirm them, he would fall upon his knees to his prayers, and could hardly be prevailed with to go to them. Besides, when he was among them, ancj in the middle of any discourse, he would invite them all to prayers, and put himself upon his Icnees before them. And when some of his friends importuned him to appear more vigorous in the charge he possessed, without which they must be all destroyed, they could get no other answer from him than that “God had spit in his face, and would not hear him.” So that it became no great wonder why Lambert had preferred him to the office of general, and been content with the second command for himself.

, marquis of Belle-Isle, wag born in 1615. His father was a counsellor of state; his mother, Mary de Meaupeou, was almost canonized for her charities, and lived to the age of 91 (1681). Nicolas Foucquet was early distinguished for talents, and early advanced. At the age of twenty he was master of requests, at thirty-five procurator-general of the parliament of Paris, and at thirty-eight superintendant of the finances, at a time when they were much in want of management, in consequence of wars, and the peculation of Mazarin. Foucquet, however, was not the proper person to restore them; for he squandered the public money for his own use with so little remorse, that he expended near 36 millions of livres (150,000l.) to build and adorn his house at Vaux. This profusion raised suspicions of dangerous designs; and an attempt to rival his master, Louis XIV. in the affections of madame de la Valliere, contributed to irritate that monarch against him. His ruin was completed, like that of Wolsey, by his magnificence and pride. The king visited him at Vaux, and there saw a feast more splendid than he was used to give himself, and a place, more beautiful than St. Germain, or Fontainbleau. His motto and device were also offensive: the latter was a, squirrel pursued by a snake, (coleuvrc, the arms of Colbert), with these words, “Quo non ascendam” “Whither shall I not rise” From this moment his disgrace was fixed. The entertainment was given late in August 1661, and he was arrested at Nantes early in September. He was tried after a time by commissaries appointed for the purpose, and, in 1664, condemned to perpetual banishment; but the sentence was changed to perpetual imprisonment. He was confined in the citadel of Pignerol, where he is supposed to have died in March 1680, at the age of 65, a memorable example of the folly and danger of extravagance and ambition. It has been pretended by some authors, that he died in private, among his own family, but in the utmost obscurity. His best quality was that of liberality, during his elevation, to men of letters, some of whom he pensioned, who did not forget him, such, as Fontaine and Pelisson, which last has greatly extolled his resignation after his disgrace.

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

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

, marquis of St. Aubin, a French author, born in 1687, was first counsellor in the parliament of Paris, afterwards master of requests, and died in 1746. He wrote, I. “A Treatise on Opinion,” 1733, 8 vols. 12mo, which has been twice reprinted with additions. It contains a collection of historical examples, illustrating the influence of opinion in the different sciences. The work is well written; and though it displays more erudition than genius, contains many sound remarks to clear up facts, and remove errors. 2. “Antiquities of the Royal Family of France;” a work in which he displays a system of his own on the origin of the dynasties of that country, but not with sufficient success to subvert the opinions of others.

, a dramatic and poetical writer of the minor order, was born in Ireland, October 23, 1728, and received his education at Dublin. At the age of fifteen he obtained a commission in the same regiment with his father, who likewise belonged to the army; but, making an exchange to a new-raised company, he was dismissed the service on his regiment being reduced at the conclusion of the war in 1748. On this event he indulged his inclination for the stage, and appeared at Dublin in the character of Aboan, in the play of Oroonoko. Notwithstanding an unconsequential figure, and uncommon timidity, he says he succeeded beyond his most sanguine expectations; but, having some property, and hearing that a legacy had been left him by a relation, he determined to come to London, where it appears he dissipated what little fortune he possessed. He then engaged to perform at the theatre in Bath, and remained there some time. From thence he went to Edinburgh, and afterwards belonged to several companies of actors at Manchester, Liverpool, Chester, and other places. Growing tired of a public -life, he settled at Malton, a market-town about twenty miles from York, where he married, and had some expectation of being provided for by the marquis of Granby, to whom he was recommended by a gentleman who had known his father. With this hope he removed to London, but soon had the mortification to find all his prospects clouded by the sudden death of his patron. In 1770 he performed at the Hay-market, under the management of Mr. Foote, and continued with him three seasons, during which time, and afterwards, he wrote some of his dramatic pieces and poems. He returned to his native country probably about 1777, and struggled for the remainder of his life under sickness and want, from which death at last relieved him Dec. 21, 1784. The editor of the “Biographia Dramatica” enumerates fifteen dramatic pieces, either written or altered for the stage by him, none of which are now remembered, or had originally much success. He wrote also “Characters, an Epistle,” 1766, 4to, and “Royal Fables,” 1766, 8vo, poetical productions of very considerable merit. But his best performance was the “Dramatic Censor,” 1770, 2 vols. 8vo, in which he criticises about fifty of the principal acting plays, and the chief actors of his time, with much impartiality and judgment. The latter, however, seems entirely to have forsaken him when he became editor of Shakspeare’s plays, published by Bell in 1774-5, unquestionably the worst edition that ever appeared of any English author.

During his service in the militia, he revolved several subjects for historical composition, and by the variety of them, it does not appear that he had any particular purpose to serve, or preconceived theory to which facts were to bend. Among the subjects he has enumerated, we find the expedition of Charles VIII. of France into Italy the crusade of Richard I. the barons 1 wars against John and Henry III. the history of Edward the Black Prince the lives, with comparisons of Henry V. and the emperor Titus the life of sir Philip Sidney, and that of the marquis of Montrose. These were rejected in their turns, but he dwelt with rather more fondness on the life of sir Walter Raleigh; and when that was discarded, meditated either the history of the Liberty of the Swiss; or that of the republic of Florence under the house of Medicis.

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

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

In the mean time, he was far from neglecting the duties of his ministerial function; on the contrary, he distinguished himself so remarkably by his discourses from the pulpit, that he was frequently desired to preach upon public and extraordinary occasions, and several of these sermons were printed in a collection after his death. But in justice to his memory we must not omit to mention one which was never printed. His old antagonist Stubbe, going from Bath on a visit to Bristol, had the misfortune on his return to fall from his horse into a river, which, though shallow, proved sufficient to drown him: his corpse being interred in the abbey-church, our rector paid an honourable tribute to his memory, in a funeral sermon on the occasion. He also wrote an “Essay concerning Preaching,” for the use of a young divine; to which he added, “A seasonable Defence of Preaching, and the plain way of it.” This was chiefly levelled against that affectation of wit and fine speaking which began then to be fashionable. This essay was published in 1678, and the same year he was collated by his majesty to a prebend in the church of Worcester. This promotion was procured by the marquis of Worcester, to whom his wife was related and it was the more easily obtained, as he had been chaplain to the king ever since 1672 in which year he exchanged the vicarage of Frome for the rectory of Street, with the chapel of Walton annexed, in Somersetshire, an exchange which was easily accomplished, since both the livings were in the patronage of sir James Thynne.

Besides these larger works, some small poems are preserved in a ms. of Trinity college, Cambridge; but, possessing little or no merit, are likely to remain in obscurity. Mr. Warton speaks more highly of a collection contained in a volume in the library of the marquis of Stafford, of which he has given a long account, with specimens. They are sonnets in French, and certainly are more tender, pathetic, and poetical than his larger poems. As an Ecglish poet, however, his reputation must still rest on the “Confessio Amantis;” but, although he contributed in some degree to bring about a beneficial revolution in our language, it appears to be the universal opinion of the critics that he has very few pretensions to be ranked among inventors. It seems to have been his ambition to crowd all his erudition into his “Confessio,” and therefore the most interesting parts are his stories brought as moral examples from various authors.

, was an illustrious personage of the blood royal of England by both parents: her grandmother on her father’s side, Henry Grey marquis of Dorset, being queen-consort to Edward IV.; and her grandmother on her mother’s side, lady Frances Brandon, being daughter to Henry VII. queen-dowager of France, and mother of Mary queen of Scots. Lady Jane was born, 1537, at Bradgate, her father’s seat in Leicestershire, and very early gave astonishing proofs of the pregnancy of her parts; insomuch that, upon a comparison with Edward VI. who was partly of the same age, and thought a kind of miracle, the superiority has been given to her in every respect. Her genius appeared in the works of her needle, in the beautiful character in which she wrote; besides which, she played admirably on various instruments of music, and accompanied them with a voice exquisitely sweet in itself, and assisted by all the graces that art could bestow. These, however, were only inferior ornaments in her character; and, as she was far from priding herself upon them, so, through the rigour of her parents in exacting them, they became her grief more than her pleasure.

Her father had himself a tincture of letters, and was a great patron of the learned. He had two chaplains, Harding, and Aylmer afterwards bishop of London, both men of distinguished learning, whom he employed as tutors to his daughter; and under whose instructions she made such a proficiency as amazed them both. Her own language she spoke and wrote with peculiar accuracy: the French, Italian, Latin, and it is said Greek, were as natural to her as her own. She not only understood them, but spoke and wrote them with the greatest freedom: she was versed likewise in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Arabic, and all this while a mere child. She had also a sedateness of temper, a quickness of apprehension, and a solidity of judgment, that enabled her not only to become the mistress of languages, but of sciences; so that she thought, spoke, and reasoned, upon subjects of the greatest importance, in a manner that surprized all. With these endowments, she had so much mildness, humility, and modesty, that she set no value upon those acquisitions. She was naturally fond of literature, and that fondness was much heightened as well by the severity of her parents in the feminine part of her education, as by the gentleness of her tutor Aylmer in this: when mortified and confounded by the unmerited chicling of the former, she returned with double pleasure to the lessons of the latter, and sought in Demosthenes and Plato, who were her favourite authors, the delight that was denied her in all other scenes of life, in which she mingled but little, and seldom with any satisfaction. It is true, her alliance to the crown, as well as the great favour in which the marquis of Dorset her father stood both with Henry VIII. and Edward VI. unavoidably brought her sometimes to court, and she received many marks of Edward’s attention; yet she seems to have continued for the most part in the country at Bradgate.

Among the papers left by sir William at his death, are found more than fifty memoirs directed by Father Anthony to the marquis of Sambuca, soliciting his patronage for the great work of the manuscripts, to which solicitations that minister seemed to be deaf. Numberless other memoirs of the kind were also presented to several persons in the royal service, and they met with no better success. The consequence was, that Father Anthony at last put himself under the protection of sir William, and tendered his services for any information which the latter might wish concerning the Museum. The propriety of accepting this offer may be questioned. It was considered, however, by one who was not particularly acquainted with the administration of the establishment, as too important not to meet with an immediate compliance: a treaty was concluded, that sir William should grant to Father Anthony a pension of 600 ducats a year (100l.), and the latter should regularly send to him every week a sheet of original information; and in order to elude any ministerial inquisition, it was also agreed that the correspondence should be carried on in cyphers. This correspondence lasted till the death of Father Anthony in 1798; and, if we except a want of delicacy, and perhaps also a breach of trust in the monk, we may presume that, in the main object, it proved satisfactory to both parties: sir William was indeed so satisfied, that, some years after the commencement of the treaty, he procured for Father Anthony an additional pension, of the same sum of 600 ducats a year (100l.), from his royal highness the Prince of Wales; and Father Anthony, on his side, seemed also so sensible of the favours he had received, that on his death, he bequeathed all his manuscripts and papers of every kind to his patron.

, an English bishop, was born in London, and educated at Eton, whence he was admitted of King’s college, Cambridge, in 1688, and took his degree of A. B. in 1692, and of A. M. 1696. He afterwards became tutor in the college, and in that capacity superintended the education of the celebrated Anthony Collins, who was fellow-commoner there. He had also the tuition of the marquis of Blandford, only son of the illustrious duke of Marlborough, who appointed him chaplain-general to the army; but this promising young nobleman died in 1702, and was buried in King’s college chapel. The inscription on his monument is by our author. In 1708 Mr. Hare took his degree of D. D. obtained the deanery of Worcester, and in 1726 the deanery of St. Paul’s. In Dec. 1727, he was consecrated bishop of St. Asaph, where he sat about four years, and was translated, Nov. 25, 1731, to the bishopric of Chichester, which he held with the deanery of St. Paul’s to his death. He was dismissed from being chaplain to George I. in 1718, by the strength of party prejudices, in company with Dr. Moss and Dr. Sher-r lock, persons of distinguished rank for parts and learning. About the latter end of queen Anne’s reign he published a remarkable pamphlet, entitled “The difficulties and discouragements which attend the Study of the Scriptures, in the way of private judgment;” in order to shew, that since such a study of the scriptures is an indispensable duty, it concerns all Christian societies to remove, as much as possible, those discouragements. This work was thought to have such a direct tendency to promote scepticism, and a loose way of thinking in matters of religious concern, that the convocation judged it right to pass a severe censure on it; and Whiston says, that, finding this piece likely to hinder preferment, he aimed to conceal his being the author. The same writer charges him with being strongly inclined to scepticism that he talked ludicrously of sacred matters and that he would offer to lay wagers about the fulfilling of scripture prophecies. The principal ground for these invidious insinuations some suppose to be, that, though he never denied the genuineness of the apostolical constitutions (of which he procured for Whiston the collation of two Vienna Mss.), yet “he was not firm believer enough, nor serious enough in Christianity, to hazard any thing in this world for their reception.” He published many pieces against bishop Hoadly, in the Bangorian controversy; and also other learned works, which were collected after his death, and published in four volumes, 8yo. 2. An edition of “Terence,” with notes, in 4to. 3. “The Book of Psalms, in the Hebrew, put into the original poetical metre,” 4to. In this last work he pretends to have Discovered the Hebrew metre, which was supposed to be irretrievably lost. But his hypothesis, though defended by some, yet has been confuted by several learned men, particularly by Dr. Lowth in his “Metrics Hareaue brevis confutatio,” annexed to his lectures “De Sacra Poesi Hebreeorum.” He was yet more unfortunate in the abovementioned edition of Terence, which sunk under the reputation of that of Dr. Bentley, of whom he was once the warm admirer, and afterwards the equally warm opponent. During their friendship the emendations on Menander and Philemon were transmitted through Hare, who was then chaplain-general to the army, to Burman, in 1710; and Bentley’s “Remarks on the Essay on Freethinking” (supposed to be written by Collins) were inscribed to him in 1713. As soon as the first part of these were published, Hare formally thanked Dr. Bentley by name for them, in a most flattering letter called “The Clergyman’s Thanks to Phileleutherus,” printed the same year; but, in consequence of the rupture between them, not inserted in the collection of Hare’s works. This rupture took place soon after the above-mentioned date, and Bentley in the subsequent editions of his “Remarks” withdrew the inscription. Hare was excessively piqued at the utter annihilation of his Terence and Phoedrus, the one soon after its birth, the other before its birth, by Bentley’s edition of both together in 1726, who never once names Hare.

On April 17, 1704, he was sworn of her majesty’s privy council; and, May 18th following, sworn in council one of the principal secretaries of state, being also speaker of the house of commons at the same time. In 1706 he was appointed one of the commissioners for the treaty of union with Scotland, which took effect; and resigned his place of principal secretary of state in February 1707-8. August 10, 1710, he was constituted one of the commissioners of the treasury, also chancellor and under-treasurer of the exchequer. On the 8th of March following he was in great danger of his life; the marquis of Guiscard, a French papist, then under examination of a committee of the privy council at Whitehall, stabbing him with a penknife, which he took up in the clerk’s room, where he waited before he was examined. Guiscard was imprisoned, and died in Newgate the 17th of the same month: and an act of parliament passed, making it felony, without benefit of clergy, to attempt the life of a privy counsellor in the execution of his office; and a clause was inserted “To justify and indemnify all persons, who in assisting in defence of Mr. Harley, chancellor of the exchequer, when he was stabbed by the sieur de Guiscard, and in securing him, did give any wound or bruise to the said sieur de Guiscard, whereby he received his death.” The wound Mr. Harley had received confined him some weeks; but the house being informed that it was almost healed, and that he would in a few days come abroad, resolved to congratulate his escape and recovery; and accordingly, upon his attending the house on the 26th of April, the speaker addressed him in a very respectful speech, to which Mr. Harley returned as respectful an answer. They had before addressed the queen on this alarming occasion.

The time of our poet’s birth has not been settled. A writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine fixes it about 1707, but an earlier date will correspond better with circumstances. If he was born in 1707, his lines to lady Hertford must have been written at eleven, which is highly improbable, yet there is some difficulty in adjusting the date of this poem. In Lintot’s edition, it is subscribed Sept. 30, 1725; but Francis, the late marquis of Hertford, was born in 1719, a year after his father’s marriage, and when Mr. Harte, according to the above account, could have been only eleven years of age. We have his own authority that all the poems published in this volume were written when he was under nineteen, consequently the date of 1725 must be an error, especially if Collins’s account of the Hertford family be correct But here, too, there is something that requires explanation, as the title of Beauchamp was not conferred on the family for many years after the publication of these poems.

, a German divine, and one of the propagators of the reformation, was born at Nuremberg in 1521. He was educated in the principles of the reformed religion by his father, and happened to be at school at Ulm, when Erasmus’s Colloquies were prohibited, as containing too many reflections on the papists; but Heerbrand continued to read them privately, and imbibed their spirit. After a classical education at Ulm, his father sent him to Witteniberg in 1538, to hear Luther and Melanctbon, Bugenhagius, and other divines; and in 1540 he commenced M. A. After five years* study here, he was ordained deacon at Tubingen, where he prosecuted his studies, and where in 1547 he married. The year following, as he objected to the Interim, he was banished from Tubingen, but was soon recalled, and made pastor of Herenberg. In 1550 he took his degree of D. D. and this being about the time of the council of Trent, he endeavoured to make himself master of the controversy between the Roman catholic and reformed church, by a careful study of the Fathers. In 1559 he was invited by Charles, marquis of Baden, to assist in the reformation in his dominions; and while here he prescribed a form for the ordination of ministers. Very soon after, he was chosen divinitvprofessor at Tubingen, and expounded the Pentateuch in his lectures, and preached statedly. In this city, likewise, he wrote his answer to Peter Soto, “De Ecclesia, pa'.ribus, et conciliis,” which was afterwards printed. In 1557 he was chosen successively rector and chancellor of the university, and pastor and superintendant of the church. Having rejected some valuable offers to remove to other universities, he fixed his final residence at Tubingen, where prince Christopher giving him some land, he built a house; and when old age obliged him to remit his labours, a stipend was allowed him. He died at Tubingen, of a lethargic complaint in 1600. He was a man of great learning, and happil > adapted to the times in which he lived and appears to have been consulted in difficult emergencies by many of the German princes and noblemen. Of his works, which are numerous, both in German and Latin, the principal are, “Compendium Theologian,” and Hiany theological dissertations and lives.

All this sufficiently shews that his attainments were of no common kind; but unfortunately the praises he received, and the favour into which he was admitted, inspired him with ambition to rise at court. His predecessors in the office of public orator, sir Robert Nanton and sir Francis Nethersole, had both risen to places of distinction in the state; and he being at this time a favourite with the king, and “not meanly valued and loved by the most eminent and most powerful of the court nobility,” began to cherish hopes of similar success. With this view he frequently left Cambridge to attend the king, wheresoever the court was and the king having given him a sinecure worth about 120l. a year, he devoted himself yet more to court-attendance, and seldom visited Cambridge, unless the king was there. But, as Walton says, “God, in whom there is an unseen chain of causes,” terminated his hopes of rising at court, by the deaths of the duke of Richmond and the marquis of Hamilton, his chief patrons, and about the same time, by that of king James.

In 1650 was published at London a small treatise by Hobbes entitled “Human Nature,” and another, “De corpore politico, or, of the Elements of the Law.” The latter was presented to Gassendi, and read by him a few months before his death; who is said first to have kissed it, and then to have delivered his opinion of it in these words: tl This treatise is indeed small in bulk, but in my judgment the very marrow of science.“All this time Hobbes had been digesting with great pains his religious, political, and moral principles into a complete system, which he called the” Leviathan,“and which was printed in English at London in that and the year following. He caused a copy of it, very fairly written on vellum *, to be presented to Charles II.; but after that monarch was informed that the English divines considered it as a book tending to subvert both religion and civil government, he is said to have withdrawn his countenance from the author, and by the marquis of Ormond to have forbidden him to come into his presence. After the publication of his” Leviathan," Hobbes returned to England, and passed the summer commonly at his patron the earl of Devonshire’s seat in Derbyshire, -and his

, son of the former by his first wife, was born at Altdorf in 1653; and sent to school at Herszpi uck, where having acquired a competent knowledge of the Greek and Latin tongues, he returned to his father at Altdorf at the age of sixteen, and studied first philosophy, and then physic. He went afterwards to Francfort upon the Oder, and proposed to visit the United Provinces and England; but being prevented by the wars, he went to Padua, where he studied two years. Then making a tour of part of Italy, he returned to Altdorf, in 1674, and was admitted to the degree of M. D. He spent two years in adding to the knowledge he had acquired; and then, in 1677, was made professor extraordinary in physic, which title, in 1681, was changed to that of professor in ordinary. He how applied himself earnestly to the practice of physic; and in time his fame was spread so far, that he was sought by persons of the first rank. George Frederic, marquis of Anspach, of the house of Brandenbourg, chose him in 1695 for his physician; and about the latter end of the year, Hoffman attended this prince into Italy, and renewed his acquaintance with the learned there. Upon the death of his father in 1698, he was chosen to succeed him in his places of botanic professor and director of the physic garden. He was elected also the same year rector of the university of Altdorf; a post which he had occupied in 1686. He lost his great friend and patron, the marquis of Apspach, in 1703; but found the same kindness from his successor William Frederic, who pressed him so earnestly to come nearer him, and made him such advantageous otFers, that Hoffman in 1713 removed from Altdorf to Anspach, where he died in 1727. He had married a wife in 16I, by whom he bad 6ve cbildren. He left several works of repute: viz. two dissertations on anatomy and physiology; one on what has since been called morbid anatomy, entitled “Disquisitio corporis human! Anatomico-Pathologica;” ibid. 1713. “Acta Laboratorii chemici Altdorffini,” 1719. “Syntagma Pathologico-therapeuticum,” 1728, in 2 vols. 4to, and “Sciagraphia Institutionum Medicarum,” a posthumous publication. He also continued his father’s “Florre Altdorffinae.”

If it be said that Surrey’s age is not exactly known, and therefore allowing 1536, the date of his travels, to be erroneous, it is possible that he might have been enamoured of Geraldine long before this, and it is possible that his travels might have commenced in 1526, or any other period founded on this new conjecture. This, however, is as improbable as all the rest of the story, for it can be decidedly proved that there was no time for Surrey’s gallantries towards Geraldine, except the period which his biographers, however absurdly, have assigned, namely, when he was a married man. The father of lady Elizabeth, the supposed Geraldine, married in 1519, one of the daughters of Thomas Grey, marquis of Dorset, and by her had five children, of whom Elizabeth was the fourth, and therefore probably not born before 1523 or 1524. If Surrey’s courtship, therefore, must be carried farther back, it must be carried to the nursery; for even in 1536, when we are told he was her knight-errant, she could not have been more than eleven or twelve years old. Let us add to this a few particulars respecting Geraldine’s husband. She married Edward lord C'linton. He was born in 1512, was educated in the court, and passed his youth in those magnificent and romantic amusements which distinguished the beginning of Henry VIII.'s reign, but did not appear as a public character until 1544, when he was thirty-two years of age, Geraldine about twenty-four, and Surrey within two years of his death, and most probably a widower. This earl of Lincoln had three wives; the date of his marriage with any of them is not known, nor how long they lived, but Geraldine was the third, the only one by whom he had no children, and who survived his death, which took place in 1584, thirty-eight years after the death of Surrey. Mr. Warton, in his earnest desire to connect her with Surrey, insinuates that she might have been either cruel, or that her “ambition prevailed so far over her gratitude as to tempt her to prefer the solid glories of a more splendid title and ample fortune, to the challenges and the compliments of so magnanimous, so faithful, and so eloquent a lover.” On this it is only necessary to remark, that the lady’s ambition might have been as highly gratified by marrying the accomplished and gallant Surrey, the heir of the duke of Norfolk, as by allying herself to a nobleman of inferior talents and rank. But of his two conjectures, Mr. Warton seems most to adhere to that of cruelty^ for he adds, that “Surrey himgelf outlived his amorous vows, and married the daughter of the earl of Oxford.” This, however, is as little deserving of serious examination, as the ridiculous story of Cornelius Agrippa showing Geraldine in a glass, which Anthony Wood found in Drayton’s “Heroical Epistle,” or probably, as Mr. Park thinks, took it from Nash’s fanciful “Life of Jack Wilton,” published in 1594, where, under the character of his hero, he professes to have travelled to the emperor’s court as page to the earl of Surrey. But it is unfortunate for this story, wheresoever borrowed, that Agrippa was no more a conjurer than any other learned man of his time, and that he died at Grenoble the year before Surrey is said to have set out on his romantic expedition. Drayton has made a similar mistake in giving to Surrey, as one of the companions of his voyage, the great sir Thomas More, who was beheaded in 1535, a year likewise before Surrey set out. Poetical authorities, although not wholly to be rejected, are of all others to be received with the greatest caution, yet it was probably Drayton’s “Heroical Epistle” which led Mr. Warton into so egregious a blunder as that of our poet being present at Flodden-field, in 1513. Dr. Sewell, indeed, in the short memoirs prefixed to his edition of Surrey’s Poems, asserts the same; tut little credit is due to the assertion -of a writer who at the same time fixes Surrey’s birth in 1520, seven years after that memorable battle was fought.

Hoelianae,“or the letters of James History of Poetry, vol. IV. p. 54. Howell, a great traveller, an intimate Hi 1660, with several additions. 24.” History of the Wars of Jerusalem epitomised.“25.” Ah, Ha; Tumulus, Thalamus two Counter- Poems the first an Elegy on Edward late earl of Dorset: the second an Epithalamium to the Marquis of Dorchester,“1653. 26.” The German Diet: or Balance of Europe, &c.“1653, folio, with the author’s portrait, at whole length. 27.” Parthenopeia: or, the History of Naples, &c.“1654. 28.” Londinopolis,“1657: a short discourse, says Wood, mostly taken from Stowe’s” Survey of London,“but a work which in onr time bears a high price, and is worth consulting, as containing particulars of the manners of Loodon in his days. 29.” Discourse of the Empire, and of the Election of the King of the Romans,“1658. 3O.” Lexicon Tetraglotton an English-French-Italian-Spanish Dictionary, &c.“1660, 31.” A Cordial for the Cavaliers,“1661. Answered immediately by sir Roger L'Estrange, in a book entitled” A Caveat for the Cavaliers:“replied to by Mr. Howell, in the next article, 32.” Some sober Inspections made into those ingredients that went to the composition of a late Cordial for the Cavaliers,“1661. 33.” A French Grammar, &c.“34.” The Parley of Beasts, &c.“1660. 35.” The second Part of casual Discourses and Interlocutions between Patricius and Peregrin, &c.“1661. 36.” Twelve Treatises of the hite Revolutions,“1661. 37.” New English Grammar ifor Foreigners to learn English: with a Grammar for the Spanish and Castilian Tongue, with special Remarks on the Portuguese Dialect, for the service of her Majesty,“1662. 38.” Discourse concerning the Precedency of Kings,"

In 1742, he printed, with more success, the first part of his “Essays.” In 1745, he lived with the marquis of Annandale, the state of that nobleman’s mind and health requiring such an attendant: the emoluments of the situation must have been his motive for undertaking such a charge. He then received an invitation from general St. Clair, to attend him as a secretary to his expedition; which was at first meant against Canada, but ended in an incursion upon the coast of France. Next year, 1747, he attended the general in the same station, in his military embassy to the courts of Vienna and Turin: he then wore the uniform of an officer, and was introduced to these courts as aid-de-camp to the general. These two years were almost the only interruptions which his studies received during the course of his life: his appointments, however, had made him in his own opinion “independent; for he was now master of near 1000l.”

Hyde withdrew to the king at York, having first obtained the great seal to be sent thither on May 20, 1642: and, upon his arrival, was admitted into the greatest confidence, though he was not under any official character in the court for some months. But, towards the latter end of the year, upon the promotion of sir John Colepepper to be master of th,e rolls, he succeeded him in the chancellorship of the exchequer, and the same year was knighted, and made a privy-counsellor. With these characters he sat in the parliament assembled at Oxford, Jan. 1643; and, in 1644, was one of the king’s commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge. Not long after, the king sending the prince of Wales into the West, to have the superintendency of the affairs there, sir Edward Hyde was appointed to attend his highness, and to be of his council; where he entered, by his majesty’s command, into a correspondence with the marquis of Ormond, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland. Upon the declension of the king’s cause, he with the lords Capel and Colepepper sailed from Pendennis castle in Cornwall to Scilly, and thence to Jersey, where he arrived in March 1645; but being greatly disgusted at the prince’s removal thence the following year to France, he obtained leave to stay in that island. His opinion respecting the prince’s removal into France, is warmly expressed in the following letter to the duke of Ormond:

, earl of Clarendon, eldest son of the chancellor, was born in 1638. Having received the rudiments of education, he early entered into business; for his father, apprehending of what fatal consequence it would be to the king’s affairs, if his correspondence should be discovered by unfaithful secretaries, engaged him, when very young, to write all his letters in cypher; so that he generally passed half the day in writing in cypher, or decyphering, and was so discreet, as well as faithful, that nothing was ever discovered by him. After the restoration, he was created master of arts, at Oxford, in 1660; and, upon settling the queen’s household, appointed chamberlain to her majesty. He was much in the queen’s favour; and, his father being so violently prosecuted on account of her marriage, she thought herself bound t. protect him in a particular manner. He so highly resented the usage his father met with, that he united himself eagerly to the party which opposed the court, and made no inconsiderable iigure in the list of speakers. Mr. "Grey has preserved a great number of his speeches. On his father’s death in 1674, he took his seat in the House of Lords; still continued his opposition, and even signed a protest against an address voted to the king on his speech. He still, however, held his post of chamberlain to the queen; and afterwards, shewing himself no less zealous against the bill of exclusion, was taken into favour, and made a privycounsellor, 1680. But he soon fell under the displeasure of the prevailing party in the House of Commons; who, unable to carry the exclusion bill, shewed their resentment against the principal opposers of it, by voting an address to the king, to remove from his presence and councils, the marquis of Worcester, and the earls of Halifax, Feversham, and Clarendon.

, an English poet, born in 1678, was the son of Christopher Jeffreys, esq. of Weldron in Northamptonshire, and nephew to James the eighth lord Chandos. He was educated at Westminster school under Dr. Busby, and was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1694, where he took the degrees in arts, was elected fellow in 1701, and presided in the philosophyschools as moderator in 1706. He was also sub-orator for. Dr. Ayloffe, and not going into orders within eight years, as the statutes of that college required, he quitted his fellowship in 1709. Though Mr. Jeffreys was called to the bar, he never practised the law, but, after acting as secretary to Dr. Hartstronge bishop of Derry, at the latter end of queen Anne’s and the beginning of George the First’s reign, spent most of the remainder of his life in the families of the two last dukes of Chandos, his relations. In 1754 he published, by subscription, a 4to volume of “Miscellanies, in verse and prose,” among which are two tragedies, “Edwin,” and “Merope,” both acted at the theatre-royal in Lincoln’s- inn- fields, and “The Triumph of Truth,” an oratorio. “This collection,” as the author observes in his dedication to the late duke of Chandos, then marquis of Carnarvon, “includes an uncommon length of time, from the verses on the duke of Gloucester’s death in 1700, to those on his lordship’s marriage in 1753.” Mr. Jeffreys died in 1755, aged seventy-seven. In sir John Hawkins’s “History of Music,” his grandfather, George, is recorded as Charles the First’s organist at Oxford, in 1643, and servant to lord Hatton in Northamptonshire, where he had lands of his own; and also his father, Christopher, of Weldron in Northamptonshire, as “a student of Christ church, who played well on the organ.” The anonvmous verses prefixed to “Cato,” were by this gentleman, which Addison never knew. The alterations in the Odes in the “Select Collection” are from the author’s corrected copy.

In 1776, Mr. Kelly received an invitation from the Episcopal congregation at Air, in North Britain, to become their pastor. On this title he was ordained by the bishop of Carlisle, before whom he preached the ordination sermon. From that time lip continued to reside at Air till 1779, when he was engaged by his grace the duke of Gordon as tutor to his son the marquis of Huntley. The studies of this gallant young nobleman Mr. K. continued to direct at Eton and Cambridge; and afterwards accompanied him on a tour to the Continent. After his return, in 1791, by the interest of his noble patron, Mr. K. obtained from the chancellor the presentation to the vicarage of Ardl< igh near Colchester, which preferment he continued to hold till 1807. Being presented by the chancellor to the more valuable rectory of Copford in the same neighbourhood, Dr. Kelly had the satisfaction of being enabled to resign his vicarage of Ardleigh in favour of his friend and brother-in-law the rev. Henry Bishop.

Whatever offence this sermon might give to others, it did not offend the succeeding duke of Devonshire, to whom it was dedicated, who, on the contrary, recommended the doctor to the queen for the deanery of Peterborough, which he obtained in 1707. In 1709, he published “A Vindication of the Church and Clergy of England from some ]ate Reproaches rudely and unjustly cast upon them” and, “A true Answer to Dr. SacheverelPs Sermon before the Lord-Mayor, November 5 of that year.” In 1710, he was greatly reproached, for not joining in the London clergy’s address to the queen. When the great point in SacheverelPs trial, the change of the ministry, was gained, and addresses succeeded, an address was prepared from the bishop and clergy of London, so worded that they, who would not subscribe it, might be represented as enemies to the queen and her ministry. Dr. Kennet, however, refused to sign it, which was announced in one of the newspapers, Dyer’s Letter of Aug. 4, 1710. This zealous conduct in Kennet, in favour of his own party, raised so great an odium against him, and made him so very obnoxious to the other, that very uncommon methods were taken to expose him; and one, in particular, by Dr. Weiton, rector of WhitechapeL In an altar-piece of that church, which was intended to represent Christ and his twelve apostles eating the passover and the last supper, Judas, the traitor, was drawn sitting in an elbow-chair, dressed in a black garment, between a gown and a cloak, with a black scarf and a white band, a short wig, and a mark in his forehead between a lock and a patch, and with so much of the countenance of Dr. Kennet, that under it, in effect, was written “the dean the traitor.” It was generally said, that the original sketch was designed for a bishop under Dr. Welton’s displeasure, which occasioned the elbow-chair, and that this bishop was Burnet: but the painter being apprehensive of an action of Scandalum Magnatum, leave was given him to drop the bishop, and make the dean. Multitudes of people came daily to the church to admire the sight; but it was esteemed so insolent a contempt of all that is sacred, that, upon the complaint of others, (for the dean never saw or seemed to regard it, the bishop of London obliged those who set the picture up to take it down again. But these arts and contrivances to expose him, instead of discouraging, served only to animate him; and he continued to write and act as usual in the defence of that cause which he had espoused and pushed so vigorously hitherto. In the mean time, he employed his leisure-hours in things of a different nature; but which, he thought, would be no less serviceable to the public good. In 1713, he made a large collection of books, charts, maps, and papers, at his own expence, with a design of writing “A full History of the Propagation of Christianity in the English American Colonies;” and published a catalogue of all the distinct treatises and papers, in the order of time as they were first printed or written, under this title, “Bibliothecae Americanae primordia.” About the same time he founded “an antiquarian and historical library” at Peterborough; for which purpose he had long been gathering up pieces, from the very beginning of printing in England to the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign. In the rebellion of 1715, he published a sermon upon “the witchcraft of the present Rebellion;” and, the two following years, was very zealous for repealing the acts against occasional conformity and the growth of schism. He also warmly opposed the proceedings in the convocation against Hoadly, then bishop of Bangor which was thought to hurt him so as to prove an effectual bar to his farther advancement in the church nevertheless, he was afterwards promoted to the see of Peterborough, November 1718. He continued to print several things after his last promotion, which he lived to enjoy something above ten years; and then died in his house in James’s-street, December 19, 1728. His numerous and valuable ms collections, which were once in the collection of Mr. West, were purchased by the earl of Shelburne, afterwards marquis of Lansdowne, and sold with the rest of his lordship’s Mss. to the British Museum, where they are now deposited. Among these are two volumes in a large Atlas folio, which were intended for publication under the following comprehensive title “Diptycha Ecclesise Anglicanae sive Tabulae Sacrse in quibus facili ordine recensentur Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, eorumque Suffraganei, Vicarii Generales, et Cancellarii; Ecclesiarum insuper Cathedralium Priores, Decani, Thesaurarii, Praecentores, Cancellarii, Archidiaconi, & melioris notae Canonici, continua serie deducti a Gulielmi I. Conquestu, ad auspicata Gul. III. tempora.”

Little or nothing is known of his life. His works are numerous, and therefore he must have lived long; for they are of so highly finished a quality that he must have given much time to them. In the various collections among the nobility in England, works of his shine with almost unrivalled lustre; and are not very uncommon. At the marquis of Stafford’s is a very fine one of the landing of prince Maurice at Dort. There are also several others of great merit.

The followers of Labadie, who were now distinguished by the title of Labadists, became so numerous, and so many persons of each sex abandoned the reformed to close with them, that the French church in the United Provinces set themselves in earnest to stop the desertion, which was daily increasing. But Labadie, perceiving their designs against him, aimed to ward off the blow, by turning it upon them. Mr. de Wolzogue, professor and minister of the Walloon church at Utrecht, had lately published a piece, several passages of which had given great offence to the protestants . Labadie therefore took this opportunity to accuse him of heterodoxy, in the name of the Walloon church at Middleburgh, to a synod which was held at Naerden. But, upon hearing the matter, Wolzogue was unanimously declared orthodox, the church of Middleburg censured, and Labadie condemned to make a public confession before the synod, and in the presence of Wolzogue, that he had been to blame in bringing the accusation, by which he had done him an injury. This judgment reaching the ears of Labadie, he resolved not to hear it pronounced and, lest it should be signified to him, he withdrew privately from Naerden and, returning to Middleburgh, raised such a spirit against the synod in his church as even threatened no less than a formal schism. Several synods endeavoured, by their decrees, to cut up the mischief by the root but in some of these Labadie refused to appear he disputed the authority of others, and appealed from the definitive sentences which they pronounced against him. At length commissaries were nominated by the synod, to determine the affair at Middleburgh, but they had no sooner arrived than the people rose against them, possessed themselves of the assemblyhouse, and locked the church-doors to keep them out. The magistrates supported Labadie, and the estates of the province contented themselves with proposing an accommodation; which being haughtily rejected by Labadie, the states were so provoked, that they confirmed the sentence passed by the commissaries, by which he was forbidden to preach, &c. And because Labadie exclaimed loudly against being condemned without a hearing, the decision of the synod to be held at Dort was sent to him, summoning him to appear there. Labadie was deposed by this synod, and cut off from all hopes of mercy on any other condition, except that of thorough repentance, of which he never gave any proofs. On the contrary, he procured a crowd of devotees to attend him to Middleburgh, where they broke open the church-doors; which done, he preached, and distributed the eucharist to such as followed him. The burgo- masters, apprehensive of consequences, sent him an order to quit the town and the boundaries of their jurisdiction. He obeyed the order, and withdrew to Ter-Veer, a neighbouring town, where he had some zealous partisans, among the rich merchants and traders, who had settled, and drawn a large share of commerce thither. They received him joyfully, and procured him a protection from the magistrates. However, the states of Zealand, being resolved to drive him from this fort, made an order to expel him the province. The magistrates of Ter-Veer took his part against the states, alledging three reasons in his favour: first, that he lived peaceably in their town, and had done nothing worthy of banishment secondly, that it was enough to interdict him from preaching in public and lastly, that they had reason to apprehend danger from the populace, who would not quietly be deprived of so edifying a person. The province was obliged to have recourse to the prince of Orange, who was marquis of Ter-Veer; and who ordered Labadie to submit, forbidding at the same time any of the inhabitants to harbour him.

, an ingenious French lady, was daughter of a master of the accounts, and born at Paris in 1647. She lost her father at three years old; and her mother re-married to the ingenious Bachaumont, who took a singular pleasure in cultivating the happy talents of his daughter-in-law. She was married to Henry Lambert, marquis of S. Bris, in 1666, and lost him in 1686. After this, she had long and painful law- suits, concerning her property, which being at length decided in her favour, she settled in Paris, and kept a house, to which it was thought an honour to be admitted. All the polite among the lettered tribe resorted thither, for the sake of conversation for hers was almost the only house that was free from the malady of gaming and Fontenelle has taken notice, that the delinquents in this way would frequently glance a stroke at madame de Lambert’s. This lady died in 1733, aged eighty-six; having been the authoress of some very pleasing productions, indicative of good sense and elegant manners, which were collected and printed in 2 vols. 12mo, and of which there is an English translation. The principal are, 1. “Avis d'une mere a son fils, & (Tune mere a sa fille.” 2. “Nouvelles Reflexions sur les f* imes.” 3. “Traite de l'Amiti.” “Her treatise upon friendship (says Voltaire) shews that she deserved to have friends.” 4. “Traite de la Veillesse.” These two last were published in English in 1780. 5. “La Femme Hermite;” and several small pieces of morality and literature. In 1808, a new edition of her works appeared at Paris, with a collection of her letters, of which our authority speaks with indifference.

Upon the lord-chancellor Kllesmere’s decline, in 1610, Laud s interest began to rise at court, so that, in November that year, the king gave him the deanery of Gloucester; and as a farther instance of his heing in favour, he was selected to attend the king in his journey to Scotland, in 1617. Some royal directions were by his procurement sent to Oxford, for the better government of the university, before he set out on that journey, the design of which was to bring the church of Scotland to an uniformity with that of England; a favourite scheme of Laud and other divines: but the Scotch were resolute in their adherence to the presbyterian form of church government, and the only fruit of this expensive journey was, that the king found his commands nugatory, and his authority contemned. Laud, however, seems to have advanced in favour with his majesty, for on his return from Scotland, Aug. 2, 1617, he was inducted to the rectory of Ibstock, in Leicestershire; and Jan. 22, 1620-1, installed into a prebend of Westminster. About the same time, there was a general expectation at court, that the deanery of that church would have been conferred upon him; but Dr. Williams, then dean, wanting to keep it in commendam with the bishopric of Lincoln, to which he was promoted^ procured that Laud should be promoted to the bishopric of St. David’s. The day before his consecration, he resigned the presidentship of St. John’s, in obedience to the college-statute; but was permitted to keep his prebend of Westminster in corrimendam, through the lord-keeper Williams’s interest, who, about a year after, gave him a living of about 120l. a year, in the diocese of St. David’s, to help his revenue; and in January 1620, the king gave him also the rectory of Creeke, in Northamptonshire. The preachers of those times introducing in their sermons discussions on the doctrines of predestination and election, and even the royal prerogative, the king published, August 1622, directions concerning preachers and preaching, in which L;iud was said to have a hand, and which, being aimed at the puritans and lecturers, occasioned great clamour among them, and was one of the first causes of Laud’s unpopularity. This year also, our prelate held his famous conference with Fisher the Jesuit, before the marquis of Buckingham and his mother, in order to confirm them both in the protestant religion, in which they were then wavering. The conference was printed in 1624, and produced an intimate acquaintance between him and the marquis, whose special favourite he became at this time, and to whom he is charged with making himself too subservient; the proof of which is said to be, that Buckingham left him his agent at court, when he went with the prince to Madrid, and frequently corresponded with him.

In July 1754-, probably as a reward for the distinguished ability displayed in his “Praelectiones,” he received the degree of D. D. conferred by the university in the most honourable manner in their power, by diploma; and in 1755 he went t > Irela d as first chaplain to Uie marquis of Harrington (afterwards duke of Devonshire, and then) lord lieutenant. In consequence of this appointment he had the offer of the bishopric of Limeric, but this * he exchanged with Dr Lesl.e, prebendary of Durham, and rector of Sedgefiild, near that place, for these preferments, which were accordingly given to him by Dr. Trevor, bishop of Durham, who was not a little pleased to rank among his clergy a gentleman of such rare accomplishments.

Upon this, he embarked for England; and in the way, at Mi.lford-Comb, found by the public news, that sir Charles Coote had exhibited a charge of high treason against him. On his arrival at London, he took his place in the house; and, obtaining a copy of his charge, moved to be heard in his defence, but the approach of general Monk gave a new turn to public affairs. Ludlow, who waited upon him, was so far deceived as to believe that Monk was inclined to a republic. On learning Monlc’s real design, however, he first applied to sir Arthur Haslerig, to draw their scattered forces together to oppose Monk; and that proposal not being listened to, he endeavoured, with the other republicans, to prevent the dissolution of the Rump, by ordering writs to be issued to fill up the vacant seats; but the speaker refused to sign the warrants. He also pressed very earnestly to be heard concerning the charge of high treason, lodged against him from Ireland, to no purpose; so that when the members secluded in 16448 returned to the house, with Monk’s approbation, he withdrew himself from it, until being elected for the borough of Hindon, (part of his own estate) in the convention parliament, which met the 24th of April, 1660, he took his seat in the House of Commons in pursuance of an order he had received, tQ attend his duty there. He now also sent orders to collect his rents, and dispose of his effects in Ireland; but was prevented by sir Charles Coote, who seized both, the stock alone amounting to 1500l.; and on the vote in parliament, to apprehend all who had signed the warrant for the king’s execution, he escaped by shifting his abode very frequently. During his recess, the House was busy in preparing the bill of indemnity, in which he was, more than once, very near being inserted as one of the seven excepted persons; and a proclamation being issued soon after the king’s return, for all the late king’s judges to surrender themselves in fourteen days time, on pain of being left out of the said act of indemnity, he consulted with his friends, whether he should not surrender himself according to the proclamation. Several of these, and even sir Harbottle Grimston, the speaker, advised him to surrender, and engaged for his safety; but he chose to follow the more solid and friendly opinion of lord Ossory, son to the marquis of Ormond, and determined to quit England. He instantly took leave of his friends, and went over London bridge in a coach, to St. George’s church, in the borough of Southwark; where he took horse, and travelling all night, arrived at Lewes, in Sussex, by break of day the next morning. Soon after, he went on board a small open vessel prepared for him; but the weather being very bad, he quitted that, and took shelter in a larger, which had been got ready for him, but struck upon the sands in going down the river, and lay then a-ground. He was hardly got a-board this, when some persons came to search that which he had quitted, without suspecting any body to be in the boat which lay a-shore, so that they did not examine it, by which means he escaped; and waiting a day and a night for the storm to abate (during which the master of the vessel asked him, whether he had heard that lieutenant-general Ludlow was confined among the rest of the king’s judges), the next morning he put to sea, and landed at Dieppe that evening, before the gates were shut.

The deputies having received this answer, drew up an act of appeal, and caused it to be presented to the emperor; which enraged him so extremely, that he confined them to their lodgings, and forbade them to write into Germany upon pain of death. One of the deputies, who happened to be absent when this order was given, wrote immediately to the senate of Nuremberg an account of what had passed; and this was transmitted to the elector of Saxony, the landgrave of Hesse, and other confederates, who met at Smalkald in November. Here it was first of all proposed, to agree upon a confession of faith; which accordingly was prepared, and afterwards offered at the diet of Augsburg, in June 1530. The emperor would not suffer it to be read in a full diet, but only in a special assembly of the princes and other members of the empire; after which the assembly was dismissed, that they might consult what resolutions should be formed. Some thought that the edict of Worms should be put in execution; others were for referring the matter to the decision of a certain number of honest, learned, and indifferent persons; a third party were for having it confuted by the catholic divines, and the confutation to be read in a full diet before the protestants; and these prevailed. The protestants afterwards presented an apology for their confession; but the emperor would not receive it; they were, however, both made public. This confession of faith, which was afterwards called “The confession of Augsburg,” was drawn up by Melancthon, the most moderate of all Luther’s followers, as was also the apology. He revised and corrected it several times, and, as Dupin tells us, could hardly please Luther at last. Maimbourg says, however, that Luther was exceedingly pleased with it, when Melancthon sent him a copy of it; and Seckendorf allows that Luther was very glad of the opportunity which was offered of letting the world know what he and his followers taught. It was signed by the elector of Saxony, the marquis of Brandenburg, Ernest and Francis dukes of Brunswick and Lurtenburg, the landgrave of Hesse, the princes of Anhalt, and the deputies of the cities of Nuremberg and Retlingen.

Soon after Mr. Mackenzie had been employed as counsel for the marquis of Argyle, he was promoted to the office of a judge in the criminal court; which he discharged with so much credit and reputation, that he was made king’s advocate in 1674, and one of the lords of the privycouncil in Scotland. He was also knighted by his majesty. In these offices he met with a great deal of trouble on account of the rebellions which happened in his time; and his office of advocate requiring him to act with severity, he did not escape being censured for having, in the deaths of some particular persons who were executed, stretched the laws too far. This alludes to the noted trials of Baillie of Jerviswood, that of the earl of Argyle, and the prosecutions against Mitchel and Learmonth, events which make a great figure in the history of that unhappy period; but in the opinion of the late lord Woodhcusc lee, “his own defence will fully justify his conduct in the breast of every man whose judgment is not perverted by the same prejudices, hostile to all good government, which led those infatuated offenders to the doom they merited.” (See Mackenzie’s Works, Vindication of the government of Charles II.)

, was the son of Nicolas Desmarets, controller-general of the finances towards the end of Louis XIV.'s reign, and was born in 1682. He first signalized himself in the war on the Spanish succession, and completed his reputation by two brilliant campaigns in Italy. He was afterwards sent against Corsica, which he reduced, but it threw off subjection immediately on his departure. This expedition obtained him the staff of mareschal of France. In the war of 1741, he gained new laurels in Germany and Italy: but in 1746, he was defeated by the famous count Brown, in the battle of Placentia. He died in February 1762, in the 80th year of his age. The account of his campaigns in Italy was published in 1775, in three volumes quarto, accompanied with a volume of maps. The author of this work was the marquis of Pezay, who executed it with great judgment.

, duke of Lauderdale, grandson of the preceding, was a statesman of great power and authority, but of most inconsistent character. On the breaking out of the wars in Scotland in the reign of Charles I. he was a zealous covenanter; and in Jan. 1644-5, one of the commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge, during which, upon the death of his father the earl of Lauderdale, he succeeded to his titles and estate. He took an active but not very useful part in the above treaty; “being,” says lord Clarendon, “a young man, not accustomed to an orderly and decent way of speaking, and having no gracious pronunciation., and full of passion, he made every thing much more difficult than it was before.” In April 1647, he came with the earl of Dumfermling to London, with a commission to join with the parliament commissioners in persuading the king to sign the covenant and propositions offered to him; and in the latter end of the same year, he, in conjunction with the earl of Loudon, chancellor of Scotland, and the earl of Lanerick, conducted a private treaty with his majesty at Hampton court, which was renewed and signed by him on Dec. 26 at Carisbrook castle. By this, among other very remarkable concessions, the king engaged himself to employ the Scots equally with the English in all foreign employments and negociations; and that a third part of all the offices and places about the king, queen, and prince, should be conferred upon persons of that nation; and that the king and prince, or one of them, should frequently reside in Scotland. In August the year following, the earl of Lauderdale was sent by the committee of estates of Scotland to the prince of Wales, with a letter, in which, next to his father’s restraint, they bewailed his highness’s long absence from that kingdom; and since their forces were again marched into England, they desired his presence to countenance their endeavours for religion and his father’s re-establishment. In 1649, he opposed with great vehemence the propositions made by the marquis of Montrose to king Charles II.; and in 1651 attended his majesty in his expedition into England, but was taken prisoner after the battle of Worcester in September the same year, and confined in the Tower of London, Portland-castle, and other prisons, till the 3d of March, 1659-60, when he was released from his imprisonment in Windsor-castle.

Upon the Restoration he was made secretary of state for Scotland, and persuaded the king to demolish the forts and citadels built by Cromwell in Scotland; by which means he became very popular. He was likewise very importunate vfith his majesty for his supporting presbyterv in that kingdom; though his zeal, in that respect, did not continue long. In 1669, he was appointed lord commissioner for the king in Scotland, whither he was sent with great pomp and splendour to bring about some extraordinary points, and particularly the union of the two kingdoms. For this purpose he made a speech at the opening of the parliament at Edinburgh on the 19th of October that year, in which he likewise recommended the preservation of the church as established by law, and expressed a vast zeal for episcopal government. And now the extending of the king’s power and grandeur in that kingdom. was greatly owing to the management of his lordship although he had formerly been as much for depressing the prerogative; and from the time of his commission the Scots had reason to date all the mischiefs and internal commotions of that and the succeeding reign. Having undertaken to make his majesty absolute and arbitrary, he stretched the power of the crown to every kind of excess, and assumed to himself a sort of lawless administration, the exercise of which was supposed to be granted to him in consequence of the large promises he had made. In the prosecution of this design, being more apprehensive of other men’s officious interfering, than distrustful of his own abilities, he took care to make himself his majesty’s sole informer, as well as his sole secretary; and by this means, not only the affairs of Scotland were determined in the court of England, without any notice taken of the king’s council in Scotland, but a strict watch was kept on all Scotchmen, who came to the English court; and to attempt any access to his majesty, otherwise than by his lordship’s mediation, was to hazard his perpetual resentment. By these arrogant measures, he gradually made himself almost the only important person of the whole Scotch nation; and in Scotland itself assumed so much sovereign authority, as to name the privy-counsellors, to place and remove the lords of the session and exchequer, to grant gifts and pensions, to levy and disband forces, to appoint general officers, and to transact all matters belonging to the prerogative. Besides which, he was one of the five lords, who had the management of affairs in England, and were styled the Cabal, and in 1672, was made marquis of March, duke of Lauderdale, and knight of the garter. But these honours did not protect him from the indignation of the House of Commons; by whom, in November the year following, he was voted a *' grievance, and not fit to be trusted or employed in any office or place of trust.“And though his majesty thought proper on the 25th of June, 1674, to create him a baron of England by the title of Baron of Petersham in Surrey, and earl of Guildford, yet the House of Commons the next year presented an address to the king to remove him from all his employments, and from his majesty’s presence and counsels for ever; which address was followed by another of the same kind in May 1678, and by a third in May the year following. He died at Tunbridge Wells, August 24, 1682, leaving a character which no historian has been hardy enough to vindicate. In Clarendon, Burnet, Kennet, Hume, Smollet, &c. we find a near conformity of sentiment respecting his inconsistency, his ambition, and his tyranny . Mr. Laing observes, that” during a long imprisonment, his mind had been carefully improved by study, and impressed with a. sense of religion, which was soon effaced on his return to the world. His learning was extensive and accurate; in public affairs his experience was considerable, and his elocution copious, though unpolished and indistinct. But his temper was dark and vindictive, incapable of friendship, mean and abject to his superiors, haughty and tyrannical to his inferiors; and his judgment, seldom correct or just, was obstinate in error, and irreclaimable by advice. His passions were furious and ungovernable, unless when his interest or ambition interposed; his violence was ever prepared to suggest or to execute the most desperate counsels; and his ready compliance preserved his credit with the king, till his faculties were visibly impaired with age." The duke died without male issue, but his brother succeeded to the title of Earl, whose son Richard was the author of a translation of Virgil, which is rather literal than poetical, yet Dryden adopted many of the lines into his own translation.

From 1728 to 1732 he was employed in publishing, “Marmorum Arundellianorum, Seldenianorum, aliorumque Academies Oxoniensi donatorum, una cum Commentariis & Indice, editio secunda,” folio to which an “Appendix” was printed in 1733. “Epistola D. Mich. Maittaire ad D. P. Des Maizeaux, in qua Indicis in Annales Typographicos methodus explicatur,” &c. is printed in “The Present State of the Republic of Letters,” in August 1733, p. 142. The life of Robert Stephens, in Latin, revised and corrected by the author, with a new and complete list of his works, is prefixed to the improved edition of R. Stephens’s Thesaurus, 4 vols. in folio, in 1734. In 1736 appeared, “Antiques Inscriptiones cluae,” folio; being a commentary on two large copper tables discovered near Heraclea, in the bay of Tarentum. In 1738 were printed at the Hague, “Graecse Linguae Dialecti in Scholse Regias Westmonasterrensis usum recogniti opera Mich. Maittaire. Prosfationem & Appendicem ex Apollonii Discoli fragmento inedito addidit J. F. Reitzius.” Maittaire prefixed a dedication of this volume to the marquis of Granby, and the lords Robert and George Manners, his brothers; and a new preface, dated 3 Cal. Octob. 1737. This was again printed at London in 1742. In 1739, he addressed to the empress of Russia a small Latin poem, under the title of “Carmen Epinicium Augustissimae Russorum Imperatrici sacrum.” His name not having been printed in the titlepage, it is not so generally known that he was editor of Plutarch’s “Apophthegmata,” 1741, 4to. The last publication of Mr. Maittaire was a volume of poems in 4to, 1742, under the title of “Senilia, sive Poetica aliquot in argumentis varii generis tentamina.” It may be worth mentioning, that Baxter’s dedication to his “Glossarium Antiquitatum Britannicarum,” was much altered by Maittaire; who died August 7, 1747, aged seventy-nine. There is a good mezzotinto print of him by Faber, from a painting by B. Dandridge, inscribed, “Michael Maittaire, A. M. Amicorum jussu.” His valuable library, which he had been collecting fifty years, was sold by auction, by Messrs. Cock and Langford, at the close of the same year, and the beginning of the following, taking up in all forty-four nights. Mr. Cock, in his prefatory advertisement, tells us, “In exhibiting thus to the public the entire library of Mr. Maittaire, I comply with the will of my deceased friend; and in printing the catalogue from his own copy just as he left it (though, by so doing, it is the more voluminous), I had an opportunity not only of doing the justice I owe to his memory, but also of gratifying the curious.” Maittaire, it may be added, was patronized by the first earl of Oxford, both before and after that gentleman’s elevation to the peerage, and continued a favourite with his son the second earl. He was also Latin tutor to Mr. Stanhope, the earl of Chesterfield’s favourite son, and was esteemed by so many persons of eminence that we cannot wonder at his portrait being engraven jussu amicorum. He possessed many amiable qualities; in religion was orthodox and zealous ; in temper modest and unassuming despising the pride of learning, yet fond of friendly intercourse.

, an Italian Jesuit, sent by his superiors as a missionary to Portugal, was a man of an ardent zeal, with that facility of elocution which enthusiasm geu*rally confers. He soon became the fashionable confessor, and people of all ranks put themselves under his direction. He was regarded as a saint, and consulted as an oracle. When the duke d‘Aveiro formed his conspiracy against the king of Portugal, he is said by the enemies of the Jesuits to have consulted with three of that order, one of whom was Malagrida. The king, when he thought proper to banish the Jesuits from his kingdom, suffered Malagrida, Alexander, and Mathos, to remain there; and these are the very three who are supposed to have assisted the conspiracy, by telling the conspirators that it was not even a venial sin to kill a monarch who persecuted the saints, i. e. the Jesuits. Malagrida was some time after sent to the inquisition, for teaching heretical doctrines; an accusation which is said to have been not altogether without foundation. He appears, however, to have been an enthusiast of so extravagant a kind, that no singularities in his writings can be thought extraordinary. He conceived himself to possess the power of working miracles; and declafed to the inquisitors, that God himself had appointed him his ambassador, apostle, and prophet. This, and many other very wild declarations, would not, perhaps, have occasioned his condemnation, had he not unfortunately pretended to have had the death of the king revealed to him. The marquis of Tancors, general of the province of Estremadura, ’happening to die, the castle of Lisbon, and all the fortresses of the Tagus, discharged their cannon in honour of him. Malagrida, hearing this unusual sound in the night, concluded that the king was dead, and desired that the inquisitors would grant him an audience. When he came before them, he said, in order to establish the credit of his predictions, that the death of the king had been revealed to him; and that he also had a vision, which informed him what punishment that monarch was to undergo in the other world for having persecuted the Jesuits. This declaration hastened his condemnation. He was burnt alive on Sept. 21, 1761, at the age of 75, not as a conspirator, but as a false prophet. His true character, perhaps, was that of a lunatic. The works in which his heretical extravagancies are to be found, are entitled “Tractatus de vita et imperio Antichrist!” and (written in the Portuguese language) “The Life of St. Anne, composed with the assistance of the blessed Virgin Mary and her most holy Son.”

, a statesman and elegant writer, was born at Borgo Taro, a small town of the dukedom of Parma, on the 14th April, 1714. He was the eldest son of Marcel marquis of Ozzano, of an ancient family amongst the Parmesan nobility, and of a lady named Pellegrini, of birth equally illustrious. As soon as he arrived at an age competent for a learned education, he was placed in the college of Parma, where he went through all his studies with assiduity and success; and in the earliest period of his youth displayed that peculiar fondness for the belles lettres and fine arts, which afterwards constituted his predominant and almost exclusive passion. On quitting college, he repaired to his native place, where his father, with a view of giving him some knowledge of domestic economy, associated him in the management of his large estate, and thus gave him for some time rather more occupation than was compatible with his literary pursuits. After his father’s death he married a lady of noble birth, of the name of Antini; and soon added to his other occupations that of superintending the education of his children. In this way he spent many years, on his manor of Borgo Taro, and occasionally gave specimens of his talents in painting and poetry. His performances in the former art were not numerous or highly distinguished, and were only intended as presents to his friends; but in poetry he reached the highest degree of merit, and seemed to have well availed himself of those favourable circumstances which the spirit of the age had introduced. The abbe" Frugoni was then one of the most conspicuous leaders of the new poetical band; and having fixed his residence at Parma, he naturally became, in that small metropolis, the head of a school, in which, by exploding the frequent antitheses, the inflation of style, the wantonness of conceits, and the gigantic strains of imagination, he introduced an easy, regular, descriptive, sentimental, and elegant poesy, and what was more remarkable, gave to blank verse a strength and harmony till then unknown. Mr. Manara, although a professed admirer of Frugoni and his disciples, did not choose to be of their number as far as regarded their enthusiasm, imagery, rapidity of thoughts, and luxury of versification. He was conscious that his own poetical fire was like his temper, endowed with gentleness and sensibility; and with this spirit wrote those elegant eclogues, which soon proved rivals to the pastoral songs of the celebrated Pompei; and in the opinion of the best judges, united the flowing style of Virgil with the graces of Anacreon. His sonnets, too, though not numerous, might be put in competition with those of Petrarch.

In 1749, and the thirty-fifth year of his age, Manara was called to town by his sovereign, and the place to which he was appointed, the first he had filled at court, was admirably adapted to his temper. No sooner had the highspirited Infant Don Philip become the pacific possessor of that principality, than he thought of reviving the languid progress of scientific and literary pursuits; and instituted that famous academy of arts, which, except those of Rome and Bologna, was soon accounted the best in Italy. He himself was appointed academician and counsellor, invested with a vote; and he greatly distinguished himself, as might be expected, in the sessions of the society, and in the annual speeches on the solemn distribution of its premiums. The first minister of state, marquis of Felin, a man of great discernment and sagacity, was not long in perceiving that Manara, by his uncommon abilities, was entitled to higher honours and employments at court. Accordingly, in 1760 he appointed him a chamberlain of the royal house, and soon after, superintendant of the newly-projected high road, through that lofty branch of the Apennines which connects the Ligurian with the Parmesan dominions; and from that time he was gradually promoted to more conspicuous and important places. He succeeded the abbe" de Condillac in the education of the young Infant (his late royal highness) Ferdinand, and acquitted himself of this task to the complete satisfaction of his friends and countrymen. The amiable prince himself was so duly sensible of his services in this respect that he rewarded him with an extraordinary pension for life^ and with the eminent dignity of first chamberlain of his royal family.

, marquis of Granby, was son of John duke of Rutland, and grandson of John the first duke, and was born in January 1721. He was bred to the army, and in the rebellion of 1745 raised a regiment of foot at his own expence, for the defence of the country against the rebels. In 1755 he was advanced to the rank of majorgeneral, and in 1758 was appointed lieutenant-general and colonel of the blues. With this rank he went into Germany with the British forces, which were sent to serve under prince Ferdinand of Brunswick; and in 1759 was promoted to the general command of the British troops, an appointment which gave much satisfaction, and for which he appears to have been well qualified. If he had not the great abilities requisite to a commander in chief, he had all the qualifications for an admirable second in command. With a competent share of military skill, he possessed that personal valour and ardour in the service, which inspired his soldiers with confidence; and that humane and generous attention to their comfort and welfare, joined with affability and open-hearted cheerfulness, which strongly attached them to his person. In 1760 he justified the high opinion which prince Ferdinand had expressed of him after the battle of Minden, by his good conduct at Warburg, where the British cavalry were particularly signalized. In the beginning of the ensuing campaign, he commanded under the hereditary prince, in his attack on the frontier towns of Hesse; and at the battle of KirkDenkern, bore the first and most violent onset of the enemy, and by the firmness of his troops contributed much to that victory. He maintained the same character at Grsebesteein and Homburgh, in 1762. He died at Scarborough, Oct. 19, 1770 He had been made a member of the privycouncil in 1760, and resigning the office of lieutenantgeneral of the ordnance, was in May 1763 constituted master-general of that department. In Feb. 1764, he was declared lord-lieutenant and custos rotulorum of Derbyshire. In 1766 he was constituted commander in chief of his majesty’s land forces in Great Britain; which he resigned a little before his death. He married Sept. 3, 1750, lady Frances Seymour, eldest daughter of Charles duke of Somerset, by whom, among other issue, he had Charles, the late duke of Rutland, who died lord-lieutenant of Ireland in 1787; and lord Robert Manners, a gallant officer of the navy, who died Jan. 23, 1782, of the wounds he received in an engagement, Sept. 1, 1781, in the West Indies, on board his majesty’s ship the Resolution, of which he was captain. A monument in hoiiour of his memory was ordered at the national expence for him, capt. Blair, and capt. Bayne, which is now in St. Paul’s cathedral.

Dr. Miller’s professional knowledge was very extensive, particularly in the theory of music; and his publications have been much valued. Among these are “The Institutes of Music,” intended to teach the ground-work of the science; and “The Elements of Thorough Bass and Composition.” But the most popular of his works was the “Psalms of David,” set to music and arranged for every Sunday throughout the year. This, which was expressly intended for the use of churches and chapels, met with very great encouragement from all ranks of the clergy, and the subscription, before publication, amounted to near five thousand copies. It is now regularly used in a great proportion of places of public worship. Dr. Miller also was somewhat of a poet, and somewhat of an antiquary. His first attempt in the former character was entitled “The Tears of Yorkshire, on the death of the most noble the Marquis of Rockingham.” He informs us himself, that so much was the marquis beloved, “that 600 copies of this literary trifle were sold in the course of a few hours, on the day of his interment in York minster. As an antiquary he published, two years before his death,” The History and Antiquities of Doncaster," 4to, in which he was assisted by many learned friends in that neighbourhood; but even with their help it bears many marks of advanced years and infirmities.

, a late French historian, was born at Besanc,on, in March 1726, and belonged, for some time, to the order of Jesuits. He was one of those who were appointed to preach, and continued so to do after he had quitted that society. But the weakness of his voice, his timidity, and the embarrassed manner of his delivery, obliged him to relinquish that duty. The marquis of Felino, minister of the duke of Parma, founded a professorship of history, and Millot, through the interest ef the duke of Nivernois, was appointed to it. A revolt having arisen among the people of Parma, while he was there, in consequence of some innovations of the minister, Millot very honourably refused to quit him. It was represented that by so doing he risked his place. “My place,” he replied, “is to attend a virtuous man who is my benefactor, and that office I am determined not to lose.” After having held this professorship, with great reputation for some time, he returned into France, and was appointed preceptor to the duke D‘Enghien. He was still employed in this duty in 1785, when he was removed by death, at the age of fifty-nine. Millot was not a man who shone in conversation; his manner was dry and reserved, but his remarks were generally able and judicious. D’Alembert said of him, that he never knew a man of so few prejudices, and so few pretensions. His works are carefully drawn up, in a pure, natural, and elegant style. They are these: 1. “Elements of the History of France, from Clovis to Louis XV.” 3 vols. 12mo; an abridgment made with remarkable judgment in the selection of facts, and great clearness in the divisions and order. 2. “Elements of the History of England, from the time of the Romans to George II.” This work has the same characteristic merits as the former. 3. “Elements of Universal History,” 9 vols. 12mo. It has been unjustly said, that this is pirated from the general history of Voltaire. The accusation is without foundation; the ancient part is perfectly original, and the modern is equally remarkable for the selection of facts, and the judicious and impartial manner in which they are related. 4. “History of the Troubadours,” 3 vols. 12mo. This work was drawn up from a vast collection of materials made by M. de St. Palaye, and, notwithstanding the talents of the selector, has still been considered as uninteresting. 5. “Political and military Memoirs towards the History of Louis XIV. and XV. composed of original documents collected by Adrian Maurice, duke of Noailles, mareschal of France,” 6 vols. 12mo There are extant also, by Millot, “Discourses on Academical Subjects,” and, “Translations of some select ancient Orations, from the Latin Historians.” All these are written in French. Notwithstanding a few objections that have been made to him, as being occasionally declamatory, there is no doubt that Millot is a valuable historian, and his elements of French and English history have been well received in this country in their translations.

From Rome, after a residence of two months, he went to Naples, in company with a hermit, who introduced him to Menso, marquis of Villa, who had been before the patron of Tasso, and who showed every mack of attention to Milton, until the latter displeased him by certain sentiments on the subject of religion. In return, however, for a few verses addressed to him by the marquis, in which he commends him for every thing but his religion, Milton sent him a Latin poem, which must have raised a high opinion of English elegance and literature. It ought indeed never to be forgot, that in the whole course of this tour, Milton procured respect for the English wherever he went; nor does it appear to be less memorable that he rarely found his superior among the learned men of the continent, who considered his country as only just emerging from barbarism.

, knight of the bath, and a distinguished ambassador at the court of Berlin, was the only child of the rev. William Mitchell, formerly of Aberdeen, but then one of the ministers of St. Giles’s, commonly called the high church of Edinburgh. The time of his birth is not specified, but he is said to have been married in 1715, when very young, to a lady who died four years after in child-birth, and whose loss he felt with so much acuteness, as to be obliged to discontinue the study of the law, for which his father had designed him, and divert his grief by travelling, amusements, &c. This mode of life is said to have been the original cause of an extensive acquaintance with the principal noblemen and gentlemen in North Britain, by whom he was esteemed for sense, spirit, and intelligent conversation. Though his progress in the sciences was but small, yet no person had a greater regard for men of learning, and he particularly cultivated the acquaintance of the clergy, and professors of the university of Edinburgh. About 1736 he appears to have paid considerable attention to mathematics under the direction of the celebrated Maclaurin; and soon after began, his political career, as secretary to the marquis of Tweedale, who Wc-s appointed minister for the affuirs of Scotland in 1741. He became also acquainted with the earl of Stair, and it was owing to his application to that nobleman that Dr. (afterwards sir John) Pringle, was in 1742 appointed physician to the British ambassador at the Hague.

Though the marquis of Tweedale resigned the place of secretary of state, in consequence of the rebellion in 1745, yet Mr. Mitchell still kept in favour. He had taken care, during that memorable period, to keep up a correspondence with some eminent clergymen in Scotland, and from time to time communicated the intelligence he received; which assiduity was rewarded wiih a seat in the House of Commons in 1747, as representative for the burghs of BamfF, Elgin, Cullen, Inverurie, and Kiiitore. In 1751 he was appointed his majesty’s resident at Brussels, where, continuing two years, he in 1753 came to London, was created a knight of the bath, and appointed ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary at the court of Berlin. There, by his polite behaviour, and a previous acquaintance with marshal Keith, he acquired sufficient influence with his Prussian majesty to detach him from the French interest. This event involved the court of France in the greatest losses, arising not only from vast subsidies to the courts of Vienna, Petersburg!], and Stockholm, but also from the loss of numerous armies. Sir Audrew generally accompanied the great Frederick through the course of his several campaigns, and when, on the memorable 12th of August, 1759, the Prussian army was totally routed by count SoltikofT, the Russian general, it was with difficulty that he could be prevailed upon to quit the king’s tent, even while all was in confusion.

But there appears very good reason to give him the merit of an invention of much greater importance, that of the steam-engine; a contrivance which, assisted by modern improvements, is now performing what a century ago would have seemed miraculous or impossible. Yet it appears that he has been hitherto entirely unknown to the world at large. In 1699, captain Savery obtained a paten for this invention; aud he has consequently occupied al the honour of the discovery. But in that noble assemblage of Mss. the Harleian collection, now in the British Museum, the strongest testimony appears that the real inventor was Samuel Morland. That the first hint of the idnd was thrown out by the marquis of Worcester, in his “Century of Inventions,” is allowed; but obscurely, like the rest of his hints. But Morland wrote a book upon the subject; in which he not only shewed the practicability of the plan, but went so far as to calculate the power of different cylinders. This book is now extant in manuscript, in the above collection. It was presented to the French king in 1683, at which time experiments were actually shewn at St. Germain’s. The author dates his invention in 1682; consequently seventeen years prior to Savery’s patent. It seems, however, to have remained obscure both in France and England, till 1699, when Savery, who probably knew more of Morland’s invention than he owned, obtained a patent; and in the very same year, M. Amontons proposed something similar to the French academy, probably as his own.

, one of the most pleasing painters Spain ever produced, was born at Pilas, near Seville, in 1613, and be.came a disciple of Juan del Castillo, whose favourite subjects were fairs and markets; of which Murillo painted many pictures before he left him to go to Madrid. There he studied and copied the works of Titian, Rubens, and Vandyke, in the royal palaces, and the houses of the nobility; and having very much advanced himself in the knowledge and practice of his art, returned to Seville, where he was employed to paint for most of the principal churches there, as well as at Granada, Cadiz, and Cordova. The style of Murillio is his own. He copied his objects from nature, but combined them ideally; that is, his back-grounds are generally confused and indistinct, and the parts very much blended together, with a loose pencil and indeterminate execution; but most of them have a very pleasing effect, and perhaps the principal objects acquire a degree of finish and beauty from this very circumstance. An instance may be recollected in his very pleasing picture of the good shepherd, an excellent copy of which is at the marquis of Stafford’s gallery. But it was in small pictures of familiar life that this artist most completely succeeded, for in his large pictures, skilfully wrought as they are, he does not appear to have penetrated the arcana of grandeur or style; but in the amiable and tender sentiments which are expressed by the silent actions of the human features, he was eminently successful. He died in 1685.

We are informed, by Florentine historians, that this family had borne the highest posts of the state from the year 900, when it was raised, with five others, to the dignity of Famiglia Cavalleresca, by the famous Ugo, marquis of Tuscany. The education of Philip de Nerli was superintended by Benedetto, a disciple of Politian; and in his youth he formed an intimacy with the most distinguished scholars of Florence. In the beginning of duke Alexander’s government, in 1532, he was chosen among the first to be of the quarantotto, or forty-eight magistrates, who were afterwards called senators. He governed the chief cities of Tuscany, in quality of commissary, which title is bestowed only upon senators; and the opinion which Alexander entertained of his judgment, made him be always employed upon public affairs, and nothing important was transacted without his concurrence. From this intimacy with political events, we may suppose him enabled to transmit to posterity the secret springs which gave them birth. He was a great favourite, and nearly related to the family of Medicis, which created him some enemies. He died at Florence, Jan. 17, 1556. His “Commentari de Fatti Civili,” containing the affairs transacted in the city of Florence from 1215 to 1537, were printed in folio, at Augsburg, in 1728, by Settimanni. As the author every where betrays his partiality to the Medici, they may be advantageously compared with Nardi’s history of the same period, who was equally hostile to that family.

On lord North’s return home, he commenced his parliamentary career in 1754, as representative for the family borough of Banbury, in Oxfordshire. On June 2, 175y, during the administration of Mr. Pitt, afterwards lord Chatham, he was appointed one of the commissioners of the treasury, and continued in that office until 1763, in which last year Mr. George Grenville succeeded the earl of Bute, as first lord. In the same year lord North began to contribute his more active services, as a statesman, by taking the management of the measures adopted in consequence of the publication of Mr. Wilkes’s “North Briton,” and other parts of that gentleman’s political conduct, to his final expulsion from the House of Commons. It must be confessed that these measures afford but an inauspicious commencement of his lordship’s political career, for without answering their purpose, or suppressing the spirit of faction, they served only to give that importance to Wilkes which he then could not otherwise have attained. In the same year lord North was a supporter of the right of taxing American commodities, and of the memorable stamp act. In 1765, on the dissolution of Mr. Grenville’s administration, which was succeeded by that of the marquis of Rockingham, lord North retired from office with his colleagues, but persisted in his sentiments respecting the taxation of the colonies, and divided with the minority against the repeal of the stamp act. The Rockingham administration scarcely survived this well-intentioned measure, and when succeeded by that of the duke of Grafton, lord North was, in August 1766, appointed joint receiver (with George Cooke, esq.) and paymaster of the forces; and in Dec. 1767, was appointed chancellor of the exchequer, and a lord of the treasury. The talents he had already displayed were thought to qualify him in an eminent degree for those situations, especially that of chancellor of the exchequer; and his abilities for debate were often displayed to advantage. During a period of considerable political turbulence, he was advanced Jan 28, 1770, to the place of first lord of the treasury, which he held with that of chancellor of the exchequer during the whole of his eventful administration, which finally terminated in March 1782.

, a nobleman of poetical celebrity, was a descendant from the Nugents of Carlanstown, in the county of Westmeath, and was a younger son of Michael Nugent, by Mary, daughter of Robert lord Trimleston. He was chosen M. P. for St. Mawes, in Cornwall, in 1741; appointed comptroller of the household of Frederick, prince of Wales, in 1747; a lord of the treasury in 1754; one of the vice-treasurers of Ireland in 1759; and a lord of trade in 1766. In 1767 he was created baron Nugent and viscount Clare, and in 1776 earl Nugent, with remainder to his son-in-law, the late marquis of Buckingham. His lordship was thrice married; his second wife was Anne, sister and heiress to secretary Craggs, the friend of Pope and Addison, by whom he acquired a large fortune. She was at the time of her marriage to him, in 1736, in her second widowhood, having

While in this family he first gave a proof of his inclination rather than genius for poetry, by translating some of “Æsop’s Fables” into English verse and, being then one of the troop of guard belonging to his lord, he composed a humourous piece, entitled “The character of a Trooper.” As a poet, however, he ranks among the very lowest. About that time he was appointed deputy-master of the revels in Ireland; built a little theatre in Dublin, and was much encouraged; but, upon the breaking out of the rebellion in 1641, this scheme was interrupted, and he lost all his property. To add to his misfortune he was shiprecked in his passage from Ireland, and arrived in London in a most destitute condition. He had an enterprizing spirit, however, and was not easily discouraged. After a short stay in London he went on foot to Cambridge; where his great industry, and greater love of learning, being discovered, he was encouraged by several scholars in that university. By their assistance he became so complete a master of Latin, that he translated the “Works of Virgil,” and published them with his portrait in a large octavo volume, London, 1649-50; with a dedication to William marquis of Hertford, whom he calls his most noble patron. Wood observes that thereby he obtained a considerable sum of money in his pocket. Thus encouraged, he proceeded to print “Æsop’s Fables” in verse, in 1651 f. This was published in 4to; and, as Wood archly observes, procured him a degree among the minor poets, being recommended in some verses for the purpose, both by sir William Davenant and James Shirley.

After four years residence in Holland, having obtained but a partial redress from the court of Portugal in the matter of his dispute with count de Tarouca, he came in 1744 to London, to avail himself of the interest of the Porttu guese envoy, Mons. de Carvalho, afterwards marquis of Ponabal, but although this gentleman professed to admit the justice of his claims, he did him no substantial service. The chevalier, however* had another affair at this time more at heart, and after carefully weighing all the consequences of the step he was about to take, he determined to sacrifice every thing to the dictates of his conscience, and accordingly in June 1746 he publicly abjured the Roman catholic religion, and embraced that of the church of England. As he was now cut off from all his resources in Portugal, he for socoe time encountered many difficulties; but that Providence in which he always trusted, raised him several friends in this country, and to the interest of some of these it is supposed he owed the pension granted him by the late Frederick, prince of Wales, which was continued by the princess dowager, and after her decease, by the present queen. He also acknowledges his obligations to Dr. Majendie, lord Grantham, lord Townshend, the duchess dowager of Somerset, and the archbishops Seeker and Herring.

, so called, because he was bishop of that diocese in the twelfth century, was son of Leopold, marquis of Austria, and Agnes, daughter of the emperor Henry IV. He studied in the university at Paris, and retiring afterwards to the Cistertian monastery of Morimond in Burgundy, became abbot there. In 1138, he was made bishop of Frisingen, accompanied the emperor Conrad to the Holy Land, and died at Morimond, September 21, 1158, leaving a “Chronicle” in seven books, from the creation to. 1146. This work, which is principally to be consulted for the history of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, was continued to 1210, by Otho de St. Blaise. Otho of Frisingen, who was an able Aristotelian, also wrote a treatise on the end of the world, and on Anti-Christ, and two books of the “Life of the Emperor Frederic Barbarossa.” Each of these works may be found in the collections by Pistorius, Muratori, &c. and also separately.

A man so thoroughly conversant in the history of literature could not fail to perceive that a vast number of books were held as valuable and scarce in England, which were rather common in other countries. He thought he could do his native country an essential service, and procure emolument for himself, if he should undertake a journey through some parts of the continent, and succeed in purchasing some articles of this description. With this view he set out for the continent in the year 1776, and actually bought a capital collection of books, which, on his return to England, he digested in the catalogue (the best, perhaps, of his performances) that bears the title of “Bibliotheca Universalis Selecta.” One of the most respectable booksellers of London had been his fellow-traveller in that journey; and, being informed of his design, and relying on his good sense and excellent intention, offered him his friendly assistance. He lent him a thousand pounds, to be employed in an additional purchase of books, in hopes that he might have the money returned to him when the speculation was carried into execution. Mr. Paterson, as usual, proved unsuccessful; and the generous friend, sympathising in his misfortunes, never claimed the return of his loan! Mr. Paterson’s fame had come to the ears of the late marquis of Lansdown, who requested the learned bibliographer to arrange his elegant and valuable library, to compile a detailed catalogue of his books and manuscripts, and to accept, for the purpose, the place of his librarian, with a liberal salary. Mr. Paterson accordingly entered into the office of librarian, remained in it for some years, and perhaps expected to close his life in the same station when, unfortunately, a misunderstanding took place between the noble lord and him, by which he was obliged to withdraw.

Being now possessed of a living, and of some independent personal property inherited from his mother, he married, in April 1732, miss Anne Clarke, the only daughter of Benjamin Clarke, esq. of Stanley, near Wakefield, in Yorkshire. While he resided in Kent, which was for the space of twenty years, he made himself universally acceptable by his general knowledge, his agreeable conversation, and his vivacity. Having an early propensity to the study of antiquities as well as of the classics, he here laid the foundation of what in time became a considerable collection of books, and his cabinet of coins grew in proportion; by which two assemblages, so scarce among country gentlemen in general, he was qualified to pursue those collateral studies, without neglecting his parochial duties, to which he was always assiduously attentive. Here, however, the placid course of his life was interrupted by the death of Mrs. Pegge, whom he lamented with unfeigned sorrow; and now meditated on some mode of removing himself, without disadvantage, to his native country, either by obtaining a preferment tenable with his present vicarage, or by exchanging this for an equivalent. Having been induced to reside for some time at Surrenden, to superintend the education of Sir Edward Dering’s son, that baronef obtained for him the perpetual curacy of Brampton, near Chesterfield, in the gift of the dean of Lincoln; but the parishioners insisting that they had a right to the presentation, law proceedings took place, before the termination of which in favour of the dean of Lincoln, Mr. Pegge was presented by the new dean of Lincoln, Dr. George, to the rectory of Whittington, near Chesterfield. He was accordingly inducted Nov. 11, 1751, and resided here upwards of forty-four years without interruption. About a fortnight after, by the interest of his friend sir Edward Dering with the duke of Devonshire, he was inducted into the rectory of Brinhill, or Brindle, in Lancashire, on which he resigned Godmersham. Sir Edward also obtained for him in the same year a scarf from the marquis of Hartington (afterwards the fourth duke of Devonshire) who was then called up to the house of peers by the title of baron Cavendish of Hard wick. In 1758 Mr. Pegge was enabled, by the acquiescence of the duke of Devonshire, to exchange Brinhill for Heath, alias Lown, which lies within seven miles of Whittington; a very commodious measure, as it brought his parochial preferments within a smaller distance of each other. The vicarage of Heath he held till his death. His other preferments were, in 1765, the perpetual curacy ofWingerworth; the prebend of Bobenhull, in the church of Lichfield, in 1757; the living of Whittington in Staffordshire, in 1763; and the prebend of Louth, in Lincoln church, in 1772. Towards the close of his life he declined accepting a residentiaryship in the church of Lichfield, being too old to endure, with tolerable convenience, a removal from time to time. His chief patron was archbishop Cornwallis, but he had an admirer, if not a patron, in every dignitary of the church who knew him; and his protracted life, and his frequent and almost uninterrupted literary labours, made him very generally known. In 1791, when on a visit to his grandson, sir Christopher Pegge, of Oxford, he was created LL. D. by that university. He died, after a fortnight’s illness, Feb. 14, 1796, in the ninety-second year of his age, and was buried, according to his own desire, in the chancel of the church of Whittington, near Chesterfield, where his son placed a mural tablet of black marble, over the east window, with a short inscription.

, captain, a celebrated engineer, the secondson of Samuel Perry, of Rodborough in Gloucestershire, gent, and Sarah his wife, daughter of sir Thomas Nott, knt. was, in or before 1693, lieutenant of the Montague; which about that year coming into Portsmouth dock to he refitted, he exerted his skill in the improvement of an engine for throwing out a large quantity of water from deep sluices in a short space of time. In 1695, he published “A Regulation for Seamen; wherein a method is humbly proposed, whereby their Majesties fleet may at all times be speedily and effectually manned, and the Merchants be more readily and cheaper served, without having their men at any time pressed or taken away; setting forth the great advantages that will accrue thereby to the king, merchant, and subject in general, whereby these islands will be more secure and happy, the king’s revenue considerably be eased, trade in general be quickened and encouraged, and every individual subject receive benefit thereby, in lessening the price of all naval commodities; wherein is also proposed, a method or nursery for training up of Seamen to supply the loss and decay of them in time of War: as also, the giving hereby equal liberty and advantage to all seamen, removing many hardships that they now suffer under, and giving them many encouragements that they do not now enjoy. By John Perry, late Captain of the Signet Fire-ship, now a prisoner in the Marshalsea, according to sentence of a late CourtMartial. To. which is added, a short Narrative of his Case relating to his loss of the said ship in company' of the Diamond Frigate, in September 1693,” 4to. By this pamphlet it appears that he had been sentenced to a fine of 1000l. and to ten years’ imprisonment. In 1698, when the Czar Peter was in this country, being desirous of engaging some eminent artists, Mr. Perry was introduced to his notice by the marquis of Carmarthen, and by Mr. Dummeiy surveyor of the Navy, as a person capable of serving him on several occasions, relating to his new design of establishing a fleet, making his rivers navigable, &c.; and he was taken into the service of the Czar as comptroller of the marine works, at a salary of 300l. per annum, with travelling charges, and subsistence-money, on whatever service he should be employed; besides a further reward to his satisfaction, at the conclusion of any work he should finish. After some conversation with the Czar himself, particularly respecting a communication between the rivers Volga and Don, he was employed on this work three successive summers; but not being properly supplied with men, partly on account of the ill-success of the Czar against the Swedes at the battle of Narva, and partly by the discouragement of the governor of Astracan, he was ordered at the end of 1707 to stop, and next year employed in refitting the ships at Veronise, and in 1709 in making the river of that name navigable. After repeated disappointments, and fruitless applications for his salary, he at last quitted the kingdom, under the protection of Mr. Whitworth, the English ambassador, in 1712.

His family, at his death, consisted of his widow and three children, Charles, Henry, and Anne; of whom Charles was created baron of Shelbourne, in the county of Waterford, in Ireland, by king William III.; but dying without issue, was succeeded by his younger brother Henry, who was created viscount Dunkeron, in the county of Kerry in that kingdom, and earl of Shelbourne, Feb. 11, 1718. He married the lady Arabella Boyle, sister to Charles earl of Cork, who brought him several children. He was member of parliament for Great Marlow in Buckinghamshire, a fellow of the royal society; and died April 17, 1751. Anne was married to Thomas Fitz-Morris, baron of Kerry and Lixnaw, and died in Ireland, anno 1737. The descent to the present marquis of Lansdown may be seen in the peerage.

, descendant of the preceding, second lord Wycombe, and first marquis of Lansdown, was born in May 1737, and succeeded his father as lord Wycombe, earl of Shelburne, in the month of May 1761. In February 1765 he was married to lady Sophia Carteret, daughter of the late earl Granvitle, by whom he became possessed of large estates, particularly that beautiful spot Lansdown Hill, Bath, from which he took his last title. By this lady, who died in 1771, he had a son, John Henry, who succeeded him in his titles, and who is since dead, leaving no male heir. The marquis married, secondly, lady Louisa Fiizpatrick, by whom, who died in 1789, he had another son, lord Henry, the present marquis of Lansdown. His lordship being intended for the army, he, at a fit a^e, obta tied a commission in the guards, and served wuh the British troops in Germany under prince Ferdinand, and gave signal proofs of great personal courage at the battles of Campen and Minden. In December 1760 he was appointed aid-de-camp to the king, George III. with the rank of colonel. As a political man, he joined the party of the earl of Bute; and in 1762 he eagerly defended the court on the question respecting the preliminaries of peace. In the following year he was sworn of the privy council, and appointed first lord of the board of trade, which he soon quitted, and with it his connexion with the court and ministry, and aiUiched himself in a short time to lords Chatham and Camden. When the Rockingham administration was displaced in 1766, and lord Chatham was called upon to form a new administration, he appointed lord Sheiburne secretary of state of the southern department, to which was annexed the department of the colonies. But this he resigned when lord Chatham withdrew in 1768, and from this; period, continued in strong opposition to all the measures of government during the American war till the termination of lord North’s ministry, in the spring of 1782. He was then appointed secretary of state for the foreign department in the Rockingham administration, and upon the death of that nobleman he succeeded to the office of minister. This measure gave great offence to Mr. Fox and his friends, but his lordship did not quit his post. His first object was to make peace; but when the treaty was brought before the parliament, lord North and Mr. Fox had united in a most disgraceful coalition, which, however, for a time was irresistible, and early in 1783 lord Shelburne resigned. When at the end of that year Mr. Pitt overthrew the coalition administration, it was expected that lord Shelburne would have been at the head of the new government. He formed, however, no part of the arrangement, and appeared to have been satisfied wirh being created marquis of Lansdown. He now retired to a private life; but on the breaking out of the French revolution, came forward again in constant and decisive opposition to the measures of administration, in which he continued to the day of his death, May 7, 1805. His lordship always had the reputation of a man of considerable political knowledge, improved by a most extensive foreign correspondence, and a study of foreign affairs and foreign relations, which was very uncommon, and gave his speeches in parliament, while in opposition, very great weight. Many of his ablest efforts in this way, however, were rather historical than argumentative, excellent matter of information, but seldom ending in those results which shew a capacity for the formation of able and beneficial plans. It was his misfortune, throughout almost the whole of his political career, to have few personal adherents, and to possess little of the confidence of either of the great parties who divided the parliament in the memorable contests respecting the policy of the American war, and the propriety of our interfering in the continental effort to suppress the consequences of the French revolution. His lordship was possessed of perhaps the most valuable and complete library of history and political documents, both primed and manuscript, that ever was accumulated by any individual or family. The printed part was dispersed by auction after his lordship’s death, but the manuscripts were rescued Irom this—shall we say, disgrace by the interference of the trustees of the British Museum, at whose representation the whole was purchased by a parliamentary grant for the sum of 4925l. It is remarkable that this was the average valuation of three parties who had no connection with the other in the inspection of the Mss. They are now deposited in the above great national collection, and besides their importance as a miscellaneous collection of historical, biographical, and literary matter, they must be considered as highly interesting to future politicians and statesmen when we add that they were scarcely, if at all known, to those able antiquaries and inquirers into political history, Collins, Murdin, Jones, or Birch.

, second son of the preceding, and his legitimate successor in political talents and celebrity, was born May 28, 1759. He was educated at home under the immediate eye of his father, who, as he found him very early capable of receiving, imparted to him many of the principles which had guided his own political conduct, and in other respects paid so much attention to his education that at the age of fourteen, he was found fully qualified for the university; and accordingly, was then entered of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, where he was distinguished alike for the closeness of his application, and for the success of his efforts, in attaining those branches of knowledge to which his studies were particularly directed; nor have many young men of rank passed through the probation of an university with a higher character for morals, abilities, industry, and regularity. He was intended by his father for the bar and the senate, and his education was regulated so as to embrace both these objects. Soon after he quitted the university, he went to the continent, and passed a short time at Rheims, the capital of Champagne. The death of his illustrious father, while he was in his 19th year, could not fail to cast a cloud over the prospects of a younger son, but the foundation was laid of those qualities which would enable him to clear the path to eminence by his own exertions. He had already entered himself a student of Lincoln’s Inn, and as soon as he was of age, in 1780, he was called to the bar, went the western circuit once, and appeared in a few causes as a junior counsel. His success during this short experiment was thought to be such as was amply sufficient to encourage him to pursue his legal career, and to render him almost certain of obtaining a high rank in his profession. A seat in parliament, however, seems to have given his ambition its proper direction, and at once placed him where he was best qualified to shine and to excel. At the general election in 1780, he had been persuaded to offer himself as a candidate to represent the university of Cambridge, but finding that his interest would not be equal to carry the election, he declined the contest, and in the following year was, through the influence of sir James Lowther, returned for the borough of Appleby. This was during the most violent period of political opposition to the American war, to which Mr. Pitt, it may be supposed, had an hereditary aversion. He was also, as most young men are, captivated by certain theories on the subject of political reform, which were to operate as a remedy for all national disasters. Among others of the more practical kind, Mr. Burke had, at the commencement of the session, brought forward his bill for making great retrenchments in the civil list. On this occasion Mr. Pitt, on the 26th of February, 1781, made his first speech in the British senate. The attention of the house was naturally fixed on the son of the illustrious Chatham, but in a few moments the regards of the whole audience were directed to the youthful orator on his own account. Unembarrassed by the novelty of the situation in which he had been so lately placed, he delivered himself with an ease, a grace, a richness of expression, a soundness of judgment, a closeness of argument, and a classical accuracy of language, which not only answered, but exceeded, all the expectations which had been formed of him, and drew the applauses of both parties. During the same and the subsequent session, he occasionally rose to give his sentiments on public affairs, and particularly on parliamentary reform. This he urged with an enthusiasm which he had afterwards occasion to repent; for when more mature consideration of the subject, had convinced him that the expedient was neither safe nor useful, he was considered as an apostate from his early professions. As a public speaker, however, it was soon evident that he was destined to act a high part on the political stage; yet, although he seemed to go along generally with the party in opposition to lord North, he had not otherwise much associated with them, and therefore when, on the dissolution of lord North’s, a new one was formed, at the head of which was the marquis of Rockingham, Mr. Pitt’s name did not appear on the list. Some say he was not invited to take a share; others, that he was offered the place of a lord of the treasury, which he declined, either from a consciousness that he was destined for a higher station, or that he discerned the insecurity of the new ministers. Their first misfortune was the death of the marquis of Rockingham, which occasioned a fatal breach of union between them, respecting the choice of a new head. Of this the earl of Shelburne availed himself, and in July 1782, having, with a part of the former members, been appointed first lord of the treasury, associated Mr. Pitt, who had just completed his 23d year, as chancellor of the exchequer. A general peace with America, France, Spain, &c. soon followed, which was made a ground of censure by a very powerful opposition; and in April 1783, the famous coalition ministry took the places of those whom they had expelled. Mr. Pitt, during his continuance in office, had found little opportunity to distinguish himself, otherwise than as an able defender of the measures of administration, and a keen animadverter upon the principles and conduct of his antagonists; but a circumstance occurred which constitutes the first great æra in his life. This, indeed, was the eventual cause not only of his return to office, but of his possession of a degree of authority with the king, and of popularity with the nation, which has rarely been the lot of any minister, and which he preserved, without interruption, to the end of his life, although his character was supposed to vary in many respects from the opinion that had been formed of it, and although he was never known to stoop to the common tricks of popularity. The coalition administration, of which some notice has been taken in our accounts of Mr. Burke and Mr. Fox, was, in its formation, most revolting to the opinions of the people. Its composition was such as to afford no hopes of future benefit to the nation, and it was therefore narrowly watched as a combination for self-interest. While the public was indulging such suspicions, Mr. Fox introduced his famous bill for the regulation of the affairs of India, the leading provision of which was to vest the whole management of the affairs of the East India company, in seven commissioners named in the act, and to be appointed by the ministry. It was in vain that this was represented as a measure alike beneficial to the company and to the nation; the public considered it as trenching too much on the prerogative, as creating a mass of ministerial influence which would be irresistible, and as rendering the ministry too strong for the crown. Mr. Pitt, who, in this instance, had rather to follow than to guide the public opinion, unfolded the hidden mystery of the vast mass of patronage which this bill would give, painted in the most glowing colours its danger to the crown and people on one hand, and to the company on the other, whose chartered rights were thus forcibly violated. The alarm thus becoming general, although the bill passed the House of Commons by the influence which the ministers still possessed in that assembly, it was rejected in the House of Lords.

To reconcile themselves to this disappointment, and perhaps to regain ground with the public, the ministers industriously circulated the report that the bill owed its rejection to secret intrigue and undue influence. It was said that lord Temple, afterwards the marquis of Buckingham, had demanded a private audience of his majesty, and represented the danger in such a light, that directions were sent to all the noblemen connected with the court to vote against it. This, however, had it been true in its full extent, made no difference in the public opinion. In a case of such danger, a departure from the ordinary forms was not thought to bear any unfriendly aspect to the welfare of the state; and some were of opinion that all which lord Temple was supposed to communicate, must have already occurred to his majesty’s reflection. The consequence, however, was, that the ministry resigned their places, and in the new arrangement, Mr. Pitt, whose fitness for office was no longer a doubt, was made first lord of the treasury, and chancellor of the exchequer.

About this time the pope, having resolved to call a general council for the reformation of the church, summoned several learned men to Rome, for that purpose, and among these he summoned Pole to represent England. As soon as this was known in that country, his mother and other friends requested him not to obey the pope’s summons; and at first he was irresolute, but the importunities of his Italian friends prevailed, and he arrived at Rome in 1536, where he was lodged in the pope’s palace, and treated with the utmost respect, being considered as one who might prove a very powerful agent in any future attempt to reduce his native land to the dominion of the pope. The projected scheme of reformation, in which Pole assisted, came to nothing; but a design was now formed of advancing him to the purple, to enable him the better to promote the interests of the papal see. To this he objected, and his objections certainly do him no discredit, as a zealous adherent to the order and discipline of his church. He was not yet in holy orders, nor had received even the clerical tonsure, notwithstanding the benefices which had been bestowed on him and he represented to the pope, that such a dignity would at this juncture destroy all his influence in England, by subjecting him to the imputation of being too much biassed to the interest of the papal see and would also have a natural tendency to bring ruin on his own family. He, therefore, intreated his holiness to leave him, at least for the present, where he was, adding other persuasives, with which the pope seemed satisfied but the very next day, whether induced by the imperial emissaries, or of his own will, he commanded Pole’s immediate obedience, and he having submitted to the tonsure, was created cardinal- deacon of S. Nereus and Achilleus, on Dec. 22, 1536. Soon after he was also appointed legate, and received orders to depart immediately for the coasts of France and Flanders, to keep up the spirit of the popish party in England and he had at the same time letters from the pope to the English nation, or rather the English catholics, the French king, the king of Scotland, and to the emperor’s sister, who was regent of the Low Countries. Pole undertook this commission with great readiness, and whether from ambition or bigotry, consented to be a traitor to his country. In the beginning of Lent 1537, he set out from Rome, along with his particular friend, the bishop of Verona, and a handsome retinue. His first destination was to France, and there he received his first check, for on the very day of his arrival at Paris, the French king sent him word that he conld neither admic him to treat of the business on which be came, nor allow him 'to make any stay in his dominions. Pole now learnt that Henry VIII. had proclaimed him a traitor, and set a price (50,000 crowns) on his head. Pole then proceeded to Cambray, but there he met with the same opposition, and was not allowed to pursue his journey. The cardinal bishop of Liege, however, invited him, and liberally entertained him in that city, where he remained three months, in hopes of more favourable accounts from the emperor and the king of France but nothing of this kind occurring, he returned to Ro'iki[ after an expedition that had been somewhat disgracefu and totally unsuccessful. In 1538 he again set out on a similar design, with as little effect, and was now impeded by the necessary caution he was obliged to preserve for fear of falling into the hands of some of Henry’s agents. In the mean time, he was not only himself attainted of high treason by the Parliament of England, but his eldest brother Henry Pole, lord Montague, the marquis of Exeter, sir Edward Nevil, and sir Nicholas Carew, were condemned and executed for high treason, which consisted in a conspiracy to raise cardinal Pole to the crown. Sir Geoffrey Pole, another brother of the cardinal’s, was condemned on the same account, but pardoned in cpnsequence of his giving information against the rest. Margaret, also, countess of Salisbury, the cardinal’s mother, was condemned, but not executed until two years after. The cardinal now found how truly he had said to the pope that his being raised to that dignity would be the ruin of his family but he appears to have at this time in a great measure subdued his natural affection, as he received the account of his mother’s death with great composure, consoling himself with the consideration that she died a martyr to the catholic faith. When his secretary Beccatelli informed him of the news, and probably with much concern, the cardinal said, “Be of good courage, we have now one patron more added to those we already had in heaven.”

, marquis of, a famous Portuguese minister of state, whom the Jesuits, whose banishment he pronounced, have defamed by all possible means, and others have extolled as a most able statesman, was born in 1699, in the territory of Coimbra a robust and distinguished figure seemed to mark him for the profession of arms, for which, after a short trial, he quitted the studies of his native university. He found, however, a still readier path to fortune, by marrying, in spite of opposition from her relations, Donna Teresa de Noronha Almada, a lady of one of the first families in Spain. He lost her in 1739, and being sent on a secret expedition in 1745 to Vienna, he again was fortunate in marriage, by obtaining the countess of Daun, a relation of the marshal of that name. This wife became a favourite with the queen of Portugal, who interested herself to obtain an appointment for Carvalho, in which, however, she did not succeed, till after the death of her husband, John V. in 1750. Her son Joseph gave Carvalho the appointment of secretary for foreign affairs, in which situation he completely obtained the confidence of the king. His haughtiness, as well as some of his measures, created many enemies; and in 1758, a conspiracy headed by the duke d'Aveiro, who had been the favourite of John V. broke out in an attempt to murder the king as he returned from his castle of Belem. The plot being completely discovered, the conspirators were punished, not only severely but cruelly; and the Jesuits who had been involved in it, were banished from the kingdom. At the death of Joseph, in 1777, Pombal fell into disgrace, and many of the persons connected with the conspirators, who had been imprisoned from the time of the discovery, were released. The enemies of Pombal did not, however, succeed in exculpating the principal agents, though a decree was passed in 1781, to declare the innocence of those who had been released from prison. Carvalho was banished to one of his estate?, where he died in May 1782, in his eighty-fifth year. His character, as was mentioned above, was variously represented, but it was generally allowed that he possessed great abilities. A book entitled “Memoirs of the Marquis of Pombal,” was published at Paris in 1783, in four volumes, 12mo, but it is not esteemed altogether impartial.

, marquis of, a French nobleman, still more distinguished by his talents in poetry than by his rank, was born at Montauban in 1709. He was educated for the magistracy, and became advocategeneral, and first president of the court of aids at Montauban. His inclination for poetry, however, could not be repressed, and at the age of twenty-five he produced his tragedy of “Dido,” in which he approved himself not only one of the most successful imitators of Racine, but an able and elegant poet. After this success at Paris, he returned to his duties at Montauban, which he fulfilled in the most upright manner; but having suffered a short exile, on account of some step which displeased the court, he became digusted with the office of a magistrate. As he had now also increased his fortune by an advantageous marriage, he determined to remove to Paris, where at first he was received as his virtues and his talents deserved. His sincere attachment to Christianity brought upon him a persecution from the philosophists, which, after a time, drove him back to the country. Voltaire and his associates had nowinundated France with their deistical tracts the materialism of Helvetius in his book de TEsprit, had just been brought forward in the most triumphant manner the enemies of Christianity had filled the Encyclopedic with the poison of their opinions, and had by their intrigues formed a powerful party in the French academy, when the marquis of Pompignan was admitted as an academician, in 1760. He had the courage, at his admission, to pronounce a discourse, the object of which was to prove that the man of virtue and religion is the only true philosopher. From this moment he was the object of perpetual persecution. Voltaire and his associates were indefatigable in pouring out satires against him: his religion was called hypocrisy, and his public declaration in its favour an attempt to gain the patronage of certain leading men. These accusations, as unjust as they were illiberal, mingled with every species of sarcastic wit, had the effect of digusting the worthy marquis with Paris. He retired to his estate of Pompignan, where he passed the remainder of his<laysin the practice of a true philosophy, accompanied by sincere piety and died of an apoplexy in 1784, at the age of seventy-five, most deeply regretted by his neighbours and dependents. The shameful treatment of this excellent man, by the sect which then reigned in the academy, is a strong illustration of that conspiracy against religion, so ably detailed by M. Barruel, in the first volume of his Memoirs of Jacobinism. When once he had declared himself a zealous Christian no merit was allowed him, nor any effort spared to overwhelm him with disgrace and mortification. His compositions nevertheless were, and are, esteemed by impartial judges. His “Sacred Odes,” notwithstanding the sarcasm of Voltaire, “sacred they are, for no one touches them,” abound in poetical spirit, and lyric beauties though it is confessed also that they have their inequalities. His “Discourses imitated from the books of Solomon,” contain important moral truths, delivered with elegance, and frequently with energy. His imitation of the Georgics of Virgil, though inferior to that of the abbe De Lille (whose versification is the richest and most energetic of modern French writers), has yet considerable merit and his “Voyage de Languedoc,” though not equal, in easy and lively negligence to that of Chapelle, is superior in elegance, correctness, and variety. He wrote also some operas which were not acted and a comedy in verse, in one act, called “Les Adieux de Mars,” which was represented with success at the Italian comic theatre in Paris. The marquis of Pompignan was distinguished also as a writer in prose. His “Eulogium on the Duke of Burgundy,” is written with an affecting simplicity. His “Dissertations,” his “Letter to the younger Racine,” and his “Academical Discourses,” all prove a sound judgment, a correct taste, and a genius improved by careful study of the classic models. He produced also a “Translation of some dialogues of Lucian,” and some “Tragedies of Æschylus,” which are very generally esteemed. He was allowed to be a man of vast literature, and almost universal knowledge in the fine arts. Yet such a man was to be ill-treated, and crushed if possible, because he had the virtue to declare himself a partizan of religion. Even his enemies, and the most inflexible of them, Voltaire, were unable to deny the merit of some of his poetical compositions. The following stanza in particular, in “An- Ode on the Death of Rousseau,” obtained a triumph for him in defiance of prejudice. The intention seems to be to illustrate the vanity of those who speak against religion:

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

Mr. Preston’s part in this singular disputation might have led to favour at court, if he had been desirous of it and sir Futk Greville, afterwards lord Brook, was so pleased with his performance that he settled 50l. per ann. upon him, and was his friend ever after; but he was now seriously intent on the office of a preacher of the gospel, and having studied Calvin, and adopted his religious opinions, he became suspected of puritanism, which was then much discouraged at court. In the mean time his reputation for learning induced many persons of eminence to place their sons under his tuition and Fuller tells us, he was “the greatest pupil- monger ever known in England, having sixteen fellow-commons admitted into Queen’s college in one year,” while he continued himself so assiduous in his studies as considerably to impair his health. When it came to his turn to be dean and catechistof his college, he began such a course of divinity -lectures as might direct the juniors in that study; and these being of the popular kind, were so much frequented, not only by the members of other colleges, but by the townsmen, that a complaint was at length made to the vice-chancellor, and an order given that no townsmen or scholars of other colleges should be permitted to attend. His character for puritanism seems now to have been generally established, and he was brought into trouble by preaching at St. Botolph’s church, although prohibited by Dr. Newcomb, commissary to the chancellor of Ely, who informed the bishop and the king, then at Newmarket, of this irregularity. On the part of Newcomb, this appears to have been the consequence of a private pique; but whatever might be his motive, the matter came to be heard at court, and the issue was, that Mr. Preston was desired to give his sentiments on the 1U turgy at St. Botolph’s church by way of recantation. He accordingly handled the subject in such a manner as cleared himself from any suspicion of disliking the forms of the liturgy, and soon after it came to his turn to preach before the king when at Hinchingbrook. The court that day, a Tuesday, was very thin, the prince and the duke of Buckingham being both absent. After dinner, which Mr. Preston had the honour of partaking at his majesty’s table, he was so much complimented by the king, that when he retired, the marquis of Hamilton recommended him to his majesty to be one of his chaplains, as a man “who had substance and matter in him.” The king assented to this, but remembering his late conduct at Cambridge, declined giving him the appointment.

While in this place, he occasionally officiated in different congregations, particularly at Dr. Chandler’s meetinghouse in the Old Jewry, where he seemed to acquire considerable popularity; but Dr. Chandler having advised him to be less energetic in his manner, and to deliver his discourses with more diffidence and modesty, Mr. Price ran into the opposite extreme of a cold and lifeless delivery, which naturally injured his popularity. During the latter end of his residence at Mr. Streatfield’s, he officiated principally at Edmonton, till he was chosen to be morning preacher at Newington Green. By the death of Mr. Streatfield, and also of his uncle, which happened in 1756, his circumstances were considerably improved; the former having bequeathed him a legacy in money, and the latter a house in Leadenhall-street, and some other property, but not so much as it was supposed he would have left him, if he had not offended him, as he had done his father, by the freedom of his sentiments on certain religious doctrines, particularly that of the Trinity. In 1757 he married Miss Sarah Blundell, and in 1758 removed to Newington Green, in order to be near his congregation. Previous to his leaving Hackney he published his “Review of the principal questions and difficulties in Morals,” of which he revised a third edition for the press in 1787. This gave him considerable reputation as a metaphysician. During the first years of his residence at Newington Green, he devoted himself almost wholly to the composition of sermons, and to his pastoral duties; but in 1762, as his hearers were few, he was induced, from the hope of being more extensively useful, to accept an invitation to succeed Dr. Benson as evening preacher in Poor Jewry-lane. Even here, however, he acquired no additional number of hearers, which discouraged him so much, that he had determined to give up preaching altogether, from an idea that his talents were totally unfit for the office of a public speaker. Regarding himself, therefore, as incapable of giving effect to his moral instructions by delivering them from the pulpit, he consoled himself with the hope of rendering them useful to the world by conveying them in another manner. With this view he formed the sermons which he had preached on private prayer into a dissertation on that subject, which he published in 1767, along with three other " Dissertations,' 7 on providence, miracles, and the junction of virtuous men in* a future state. These dissertations procured him the acquaintance of the first marquis of Lansdowne, then earl of Shelburne, which began in 1769, and continued for some time before Mr. Price had ever written on political subjectsbut was probably more firmly established in consequence of those publications.

When, after the war ended, lord Shelburne came into administration, in consequence of the death of the marquis of Rockingham, his lordship very gravely offered Dr. Price the place of private secretary but, his biographer adds, “his lordship surely could not be in earnest in making such an offer. It was no doubt meant as a compliment, and the simplicity of Dr. Price considered it in that light, though, as a friend observed, the minister might as well have proposed to make him master of the horse.” During the time, however, that lord Shelburne was in office, he sought the assistance of Dr. Price in forming a scheme for paying off the national debt, and moved an introductory resolution on that subject in the House of Lords; but, upon his leaving administration, the scheme was abandoned. It was, howeVer, communicated to the public by Dr Price in a treatise, entitled “The State of the public Debts and Finances, at signing the preliminary Articles of Peace in January 1783; with a plan for raising Money by public Loans, and for redeeming the public Debts.” After this, when Mr. Pitt determined to introduce a bill into parliament for liquidating the national debt, he applied to Dr. Price for his advice on the subject, and received from him three separate plans one of which now forms the foundation of that act for reducing the public debt, which was established in 1786, and has contributed, more than any other, or all other measures, to raise the credit of his administration. The friends of Dr. Price, however, offer two objections on this subject; the one that the plan Mr. Pitt adopted was the least efficient of the three; the other, that he did not publicly acknowledge his obligations to Dr. Price.

* To read any of the invectives presses himself in terms of contempt against Mr. Burke, one would suppose in regard to the French revolution he was the only human being who and after asking rather too severely looked with an evil eye on the French what good was to be expected from a Revolution. But Dr. Price’s biogra- nation of atheists, he concludes with pher has found another among Dr. foretelling the destruction of a million Price’s intimate correspondents, and of human beings as a probable conno less a pereonage than John Adams, sequence of it. Such a letter, in our the late American ambassador. In opinion, outweighs an hundred of those a loug letter which he wrote to Dr. which Dr. Price received at this time Price at this- time, so far from congra- from his enlightened friends in France, tulating him on the occasion, he exsevere and very painful disorder, by which he had been many years threatened. This he bore with fortitude and resignation, though occasionally his spirits and strength were entirely exhausted by the agonies which he endured. He died on the nineteenth of March, 1791, in the sixtyeighth year of his age, and was interred in Bunhill-fields burying-ground, the funeral being followed by a great concourse of his friends and admirers, to whom he had long been endeared by his private as well as public character. His manners were peculiarly amiable, and whoever was admitted to his conversation, or even perused his works, could not avoid being struck by contrasting his mild and placid temper with that of some of the controversial writers with whom he generally co-operated. He was for many years one of the trustees to the estates of the late Dr. Daniel Williams, which is the most important concern belonging to the London Dissenters. During the applications of the dissenting ministers to parliament, from 1772 to 1779, for relief from subscription to the articles of the church of England, required by the act of Toleration, he was chosen one of the committee appointed to concert and pursue the necessary measures for obtaining that object; but when he found that it could not be obtained without a declaration of faith in the Holy Scriptures, which he contended the civil magistrate had no right to demand, he divided with a small minority of his brethren against the rest of the committee, refusing an enlargement of religious liberty on terms which, according to their views of things, and according to the true principles of dissent, implied submission to the authority of the civil magistrate in matters of conscience, to whom, in matters of this kind, they owed no obedience whatever. In 1783 the degree of LL. D. was conferred upon him by Yale college, in Connecticut, and he was afterwards elected a fellow of the American Philosophical Societies at Philadelphia and Boston. In 1786, when a new academical institution among the dissenters was established at Hackney, Dr. Price was appointed tutor in the higher branches of the mathematics but soon found himself incapable of attending to the duties, of this office, and therefore resigned it the second year. He approved the plan, however, and, says his biographer, “from the circumstance of his having bequeathed a small legacy towards its support, died inconscious of the ignorance and folly which were accelerating its destruction.” Among Dr. Price’s numerous correspondents were, the marquis of Lansdowne, the earls Chatham and Stanhope the bishops of Carlisle, St. Asaph, and Llandaff; Mr. Harris, the author of Philosophical Arrangements, &c. Mr. Howard, Dr. Franklin, the duke de Rochefoucault, the celebrated Turgot, and several of the most distinguished members of the first national assembly.

, a learned English bishop, was born at Stowford, in the parish of Harford, near Ivy-bridge in Devonshire, Sept. 17, 1578, and was the fourth of seven sons of his father, who being in mean circumstances, with so large a family, our author, after he had learned to write and read, having a good voice, stood candidate for the place of parish-clerk of the church of Ugborow near Harford. Mr. Price informs us, that “he had a competitor for the office, who had made great interest in the parish for him* self, and was likely to carry the place from him. The parishioners being divided in thematter, did at length agree in this, being unwilling to disoblige either party, that the Lord’s-day following should be the day of trial; the one should tune the Psalm in the forenoon, the other in the afternoon; and he that did best please the people, should have the place. Which accordingly was done, and Prideaux lost it, to his very great grief and trouble. Upon, which, after he became advanced to one of the first dignities of the church, he would frequently make this reflection, saying,” If I could but have been clerk of Ugborow, I had never been bishop of Worcester.“Disappointed in this office, a lady of the parish, mother of sir Edmund Towel, maintained him at school till he had gained some knowledge of the Latin tongue, when he travelled to Oxford, and at first lived in a very mean station in Exetercollege, doing servile offices in the kitchen, and prosecuting his studies at his leisure hours, till at last he was taken notice of in the college, and admitted a member of it in act-term 1596, under the tuition of Mr. William Helme, B. D. On January the 31st, 1599, he took the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and in 1602 was chosen probationer fellow of his college. On May the 11th, 1603, he proceeded Master of Arts, and soon after entered into holy orders. On May the 6th, 1611, he took the degree of Bachelor of Divinity; and the year following was elected rector of his college in the room of Dr. Holland; and June the 10th, the same year, proceeded Doctor of Divinity. In 1615, upon the advancement of Dr. Robert Abbot to the bishopric of Sarum, he was made regius professor of divinity, and consequently became canon of Christ-church, and rector of Ewelme in Oxfordshire; and afterwards discharged the office of vice-chancellor of the university for several years. In the rectorship of his college he behaved himself in such a manner, that it flourished more than any other in the university; more foreigners coming thither for the benefit of his instruction than ever was known; and in his professorship, says Wood,” he behaved himself very plausible to the generality, especially for this reason, that in his lectures, disputes, and moderatings (which were always frequented by many auditors), he shewed himself a stout champion against Socinus and Arminius. Which being disrelished by some who were then rising, and in authority at court, a faction thereupon grew up in the university between those called Puritans, or Calvinists, on the one side, and the Remonstrants, commonly called Arminians, on the other: which, with other matters of the like nature, being not only fomented in the university, but throughout the nation, all things thereupon were brought into confusion.“In 1641, after he had been twenty- six years professor, he was one of those persons of unblemished reputation, whom his majesty made bishops, on the application of the marquis of Hamilton, who had been one of his pupils. Accordingly, in November of that year, he was elected to the bishopric of Worcester, to which he was consecrated December the 19th following; but the rebellion was at that time so far advanced, that he received little or no profit from it, to his great impoverishment. For adhering stedfastly to his majesty’s cause, and pronouncing all those of his diocese, who took up arms against him, excommunicate, he was plundered, and reduced to such straits, that he was obliged to sell his excellent library. Dr. Gauden said of him, that he now became literally a helluo librorum, being obliged to turn his books >nto bread for his children. He seems to have borne this barbarous usage with patience, and even good humour. On -one occasion, when a friend came to see bim, and asked him how he did? he answered,” Never better in my life, only I have too great a stomach, for 1 have eaten the little plate which the sequestrators left me; I have eaten a great library of excellent books; I have eaten a great deal of linen, much of my brass, some of my pewter, and now am come to eat my iron, and what will come next I know not." So great was his poverty about this time that he would have attended the conferences with the king at the Isle of Wight, but could not afford the means of travelling. Such was the treatment of this great and good man, one of the best scholars and ablest promoters of learning in the kingdom, at the hands of men who professed to contend for liberty and toleration.

After a residence at Leeds for six years, Dr. Priestley accepted the offer of the earl of Shelburne, afterwards marquis of Lansdowne, to reside with his lordship in the nominal capacity of librarian, but really as his literary companion. The terms were 2501. per annum, with a house for his family to live in, and an annuity for life of 150l. in the event of their being separated by his lordship’s dying, or changing his mind. He accordingly fixed his family in a house at Calne, in Wiltshire, near his lordship’s seat; and during seven years attended upon the noble earl in his winter’s residences at London, and occasionally in his excursions, one of which, in 1774, was a tour to the continent. This situation was useful, as affording Dr. Priestley advantages in improving his knowledge of the world, and in pursuing his scientific researches; and as he was perfectly free from restraint, this was the period of some of those exertions which increased his reputation as a philosopher, and some of those which brought the greatest obloquy upon him as a divine. In 1775, he published his “Examination of the doctrine of Common Sense, as held by Drs. Reid, Beattie, and Oswald,” in which he treated those gentlemen with a contemptuous arrogance, of which, we are told, he was afterwards ashamed. In his manner of treating his opponents, he always exhibited a striking contrast to the mild and placid temper of his friend Dr. Price. After this he became the illustrator of the Hartleian theory of the human mind. He had, previously to this, declared himself a believer in the doctrine of philosophical necessity and in a dissertation prefixed to his edition of Hartley, he expressed some doubts of the immateriality of the soul. The charge which these induced against him of infidelity and atheism, seems only to have provoked him to a more open avowal of the same obnoxious sentiments; and in 1777 he published “Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit,” in which he gave a history of the doctrines concerning the soul, and openly supported the system which, upon due investigation, he had adopted. It was followed by “A Defence of Unitarianism, or the simple Humanity of Christ, in opposition to his Pre-existence and of the Doctrine of Necessity.” It seems not improbable that these works produced a coolness in the behaviour of his noble patron, which about this time he began to remark, and which terminated in a separation, after a connection of seven years, without any alledged complaint. That the marquis of Lansdowne had changed his sentiments of Dr. Priestley appears from the evidence of the latter, who informs us, that when he came to London, he proposed to call on the noble lord; but the latter declined receiving his visits. Dr. Priestley adds, that during his connection with his lordship, he never once aided him in his political views, nor ever wrote a single political paragraph. The friends of both parties seem to think that there was no bond of union between them, and his lordship’s attention became gradually so much engaged by politics, that every other object of study lost its hold. According, however, to the articles of agreement, Dr. Priestley retained his annuity for life of 150l. which was honourably paid to the last; and it has been said, that when the bond securing to him this annuity was burnt at the riots of Birmingham, his lordship in the handsomest manner presented him with another.

Dr. Priestley now removed to Birmingham, a situation which he probably preferred to almost any other, on account of the advantage it afforded of able workmen in every branch requisite in his experimental inquiries, and of some men distinguished for their chemical and mechanical knowledge, particularly Watt, Withering, Bolton, and Kier. Several friends to science, aware that the defalcation of his income would render the expences of his pursuits too burthensome for him to support, joined in raising an annual subscription for defraying them. This assistance he without hesitation accepted, considering it as more truly honourable to himself than a pension from the crown, which might have been obtained for him, if he had wished it, during the short administration of the marquis of Rockingham, and the early part of that of Mr. Pitt. Some of these subscriptions were made with a view to defray the expences of his philosophical experiments only, but the greater part of the subscribers were equally friends to his theological studies. He had not been long settled at Birmingham, before a vacancy happened in the principal dissenting congregation, and he was unanimously chosen to supply it. Theology now again occupied a principal share of his attention, and he published his “History of the Corruptions of Christians,” and “History of early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ.” These proved to be, what might be expected, a fertile source of controversy, into which he entered with his usual keenness, and he had for his antagonists two men not easily repelled, the rev. Mr. Badcock, and Dr. Horsley, in whose articles we have already noticed their controversies with this polemic. The renewed applications of the dissenters, for relief from the penalties and disabilities of the corporation and test acts, afforded another topic of discussion, in which Dr. Priestley took an active part; and he did not now scruple to assert that all ecclesiastical establishments were hostile to the rights of private judgment, and the propagation of truth, and therefore represented them as anti-christian, and predicted their downfall, in a style of inveteracy which made him be considered as the most dangerous enemy of the established religion, in its connection vvith the state. Some of the clergy of Birmingham having warmly opposed the dissenters’ claims, Dr. Priestley published a series of “Familiar Letters to the Inhabitants of Birmingham,” which, on account of their ironical manner, as well as the matter, gave great offence. In this state of irritation, another cause of animosity was added by the different feelings concerning the French revolution. The anniversary of the capture of the Bastille, July 14th, had been kept as a festival by the friends of the cause and its celebration was prepared at Birmingham in 1791. Dr. Priestley declined joining the party but a popular tumult ensued, in which he was particularly the object of fury. His house, with his fine library, manuscripts, and apparatus, were made a prey to the flames, and this at a time when it was generally asserted that the mobs in other great cities were rather favourable to the republican cause. After a legal investigation, he received a compensation for his losses, which compensation he stated himself, at 2,000l. short of the actual, loss he sustained. In this he reckoned many manuscripts, the value of which no jury could estimate, and which indeed could have been calculated only in his own imagination. He was not, however, without friends, who purchased for him a library and apparatus equal, according to his own account, to what he had lost. He now came to London, and took up his residence at Hackney, where in a very short time he was chosen to succeed his deceased friend, Dr. Price, as minister to a congregation there; and he had at the same time some connection with the new college lately established in that village. Resuming his usual occupations of every kind, he passed some time in comfort and tranquillity; “but,” say his apologists, “he soon found public prejudice following him in every path, and himself and his family molested by the rude assaults of malignity, which induced him finally to quit a country so hostile to his person and principles.” On the other hand, we are told, that, “had Dr. Priestley conducted himself at Hackney like a peaceable member of society, and in his appeals to the public on the subject of the riots at Birmingham, expressed himself with less acrimony of the government of the country, the prejudices of the people would very quickly have given way to compassion. But when he persisted in accusing the magistrates and clergy, and even the supreme government of his country, of what had been perpetrated by a lawless mob, and appealed from the people, and even the laws of England, to the societies of the * Friends of the Constitution' at Paris, Lyons, Nantz, &c. to the academy of sciences at Paris, when Condorcet was secretary, and to the united Irishmen of Dublin, how was it possible that the prejudices of loyal Englishmen could subside?”

His son, of the same name, was born at Paris in 1655, entered into the army under his father, rose to the post of commander-in-chief in the French Netherlands, and at length to the still more important one of a marshal of France in 1734. He died at Paris in the year 1743, at the age of 88. He was author of a work “On the Art Military,” published by his only son James Francis, marquis of Chastenet, who died in 1782. He was the author of some political works.

, a French poet, was born at Roche-Racan in Touraine in 1.589. At sixteen, he was made one of the pages to Henry IV. and, as he began to amuse himself with writing verses, he became acquainted with Malherbe, who, amidst his advices, reproached him with being too negligent and incorrect in his versification but Boileau, who has passed the same censure on him, affirms that he had more genius than his master; and was as capable of writing in the Epic as in the Lyric style, in which last he was allowed to excel. Menage has also spoken highly of Racan, in his additions and alterations to his " Remarques sur les Poesies de Malherbe. >T Racan had little or no education, and no learning. On quitting the office of page, he entered into the army but this, more to obligee his father, the marquis of Racan, than out of any inclination of his own and therefore, after two or three campaigns, he returned to Paris, where he married, and devoted himself to poetry. His works, the best edition of which is that of Paris, 1724, 2 vols. 8vo, consist of sacred odes, pastorals, letters, and memoirs of the life of Malherbe, prefixed to many editions of the works of that poet. He was chosen one of the members of the French academy, at the time of its foundation; and died in 1670, aged eighty-one.

, the most illustrious painter of the English school, was born at Plympton, in Devonshire, July 16, 1723. His ancestors on both sides were clergymen. His father had no adequate provision for the maintenance of his large family, but appears to have liberally encouraged his son’s early attempts in that art, of which he afterwards became so illustrious a professor. When but eight years of age, Joshua had made himself master of a treatise, entitled “The Jesuit’s Perspective,” and increased his love of the art still more, by studying Richardson’s “Treatise on Painting.” In his seventeenth year, he was placed as a pupil under his countryman, Mr. Hudson, whom, in consequence of some disagreement, he left in 1743, and removed to Devonshire for three years, during which, after some waste of time, which he ever lamented, he sat down seriously to the study and practice of his art. The first of his performances, which brought him into notice, was the portrait of captain Hamilton, father of the present marquis of Abercorn, painted in 1746. About this time he appears to have returned to London.

The marquis of Dorchester, a patron of learning, and learned himself, used to entertain Mr. Rooke at his seat at Ilighgate after the restoration, and bring him every Wednesday in his coach to the Royal Society, which then met on that day of the week at Gresham college. But the last time Mr. Rooke was at Highgate, he walked from thence; and it being in the summer, he overheated himself, and taking cold after it, he was thrown into a fever, which cost him his life. He died at his apartments at Gresham college, June 27, 1662, in the fortieth year of his age. It was reckoned very unfortunate that his death happened the very night that he had for some years expected to finish his accurate observations on the satellites of Jupiter. When, he found his illness prevented him from making that observation, Dr. Pope says, he sent to the Society his request, that some other person, properly qualified, might be appointed for that purpose; so intent was he to the last onmaking those curious and useful discoveries, in which he had been so long engaged. He made a nuncupatory will, leaving what he had to Dr. Ward, the,n lately made bishop of Exeter: whom he permitted to receive what was due upon bond, if the debtors offered payment willingly, otherwise he would not have the bonds put in suit: “for,” said he, “as I never was in law, nor had any contention with, any man, in my life-time, neither would I be so after my death.”

Rousseau. “Ah! my dear, how happy a thing is it to die, when one has no reason for remorse or self-reproach! —Eternal Being! the soul that I am now going to give thee back, is as pure, at this moment, as it was when it proceeded from thee: render it partaker of thy felicity! My dear—I have found in the marquis of Girardin and his lady the marks of even parental tenderness and affection: tell them that I revere their virtues, and that I thank them, with my dying breath, for all the proofs I have received of their goodness and friendship: I desire that you may have my body opened immediately after my death, and that you will order an exact account to be drawn up of the state of its various parts: tell monsieur and madame de Girardin, that I hope they will allow me to be buried in their gardens, in any part of them that they may think proper.”

, was eldest son of Francis fourth earl of Bedford, by Catharine, sole daughter and heir of Giles Bridges, lord Chandois, and was born in 1614. He was educated in Magdalen college, Oxford, and was made knight of the bath at the coronation of king Charles I. He was a member of the Long-parliament, which met at Westminster, November 3, 1640; and May 9 following, upon the death of his father, succeeded him in his honours and estate. In July 1642, having avowed his sentiments against the measures pursued by the court, he was appointed by the parliament general of the horse, in the army raised in their defence against the king; and the marquis of Hertford being sent by his majesty into the West to levy forces, iti order to relieve Portsmouth, the earl of Bedford inid the command of seven thousand foot, and eight full troops of horse, to prevent his success in those parts; and marched with such expedition, that he forced the marquis out of Somersetshire, where his power and interest were believed unquestionable, and thus destroyed all hopes of forming an army for the king in the West. He afterwards joined the eari of Essex, and in the battle of Edgehill commanded the reserve of horse, which saved the whole army, when the horse of both wings had been defeated, and, after doing great execution on the king’s infantry, brought off their own foot; so that it became doubtful who had the victory, this reserve being the only body of forces that stood their ground in good order. In 1643, he, and the earls of Holland and Clare, conferred with the earl of Essex, who became dissatisfied with the war; and they had so much influence in the House of Lords, that, on the 5th of August the same year, that House desired a conference with the Commons, and declared to them their resolution of senclHig propositions for peace to the king, and hoped they would join with him. But by the artin'ce of Pennington, lord mayor of London, who procured a petition from the common-council of that city against the peace, such tumults were raised to terrify these lords, that they left the town, the Commons refusing to agree to their propositions. The earls of Bedford and Holland resolved therefore to go to Oxford; but their purpose being discovered or suspected, they with some difficulty got into the king’s garrison at Wallingford, from whence the governor sent an account of their arrival to the council at Oxford. The king was then at the siege of Gloucester, and the council divided in their opinions, in what manner to receive them; but his majesty upon his return determined on a middle way, by allowing them to come to Oxford, and every person to treat them there as they thought fit, while himself would regard them according to their future behaviour. Accordingly the two earls came, and, together with the earl of Clare, entered into the king’s service in Gloucestershire, waited upon his majesty throughout his march, charged in the royal regiment of horse at the battle of Newbury with great bravery, and in all respects behaved themselves well. Upon the king’s return to Oxford, he spoke to them on all occasions very graciously; but they were not treated in the same manner by others of the court, so that the earl of Holland going away first, the earls of Bedford and Clare followed, and came to the earl of Essex at St. Alban’s on Christmas-day, 1643. Soon after this, by order of parliament, the earl of Bedford was taken into custody by the black rod, and his estate sequestered, as was likewise the earl of Clare’s, tili the parliament, pleased with their successes against % the king in 1644, ordered their sequestrations to be taken off, and on the 17th of April the year following, the earl of Bedford, with the earls of Leicester and Ciare, and the lords Paget, Rich, and Convvay, who had left Oxford, and joined the parliament at London, took the covenant before the commissioners of the great-seal. He did not, however, interpose in any public affairs, till the House of Peers met in 1660, when the earl of Manchester, their speaker, was ordered by them to write to him to take his place among them; which he accordingly did, being assured of their design to restore the king and on the 27th of April that year, he was appointed one of the managers of the conference with the House of Commons, “to consider of some ways and means to make up the breaches and distractions of the kingdom” and on the 5th of May was one of the committee of peers “for viewing and considering, what ordinances had been made since the House of Lords were voted useless, which now passed as acts of parliament, and to draw up and prepare an act of parliament to be presented to the House to repeal what they should think fit.”

After the restoration of king Charles II. the earl of Bedford, notwithstanding his past conduct, was so far in his favour, that at the solemnity of his coronation, on April 23, 1661, he had the honour to carry St. Edward’s scepter; and, on May 29, 1672, was elected a knight of the most noble order of the garter. When the prince and princess of Orange came to the throne, he was sworn one of their privy council and at their coronation, on April 11, 1689, carried the queen’s scepter with the dove. They constituted his lordship, on May 10, 1689, lord lieutenant of the counties of Bedford and Cambridge; and, on March 1, 1691, lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum for the county of Middlesex, and the liberties of Westminster. He sought for no other honours or employments; but their majesties, on May 11, 1694, created him marquis of Tavistock and duke of Bedford, and, in enumerating his merits in the patent it is expressed, “That this was not the least, that he was father to the lord Russel, the ornament of his age, whose great merits it was not enough to transmit by history to posterity; but they were willing to record them in their royal patent, to remain in the family, as a monument consecrated to his consummate virtue; whose name could never be forgot, so long as men preserved any esteem for sanctity of manners, greatness of mind, and a love to their country, constant even to death. Therefore to solace his excellent father for so great a loss, to celebrate the memory of so noble a son, and to excite his worthy grandson, the heir of such mighty hopes, more cheerfully to emulate and follow the example of his illustrious father, they intailed this high dignity upon the earl and his posterity.”

, a learned Spaniard, and librarian to the king, was born in 1730, and distinguished himself by his researches into the literary history pf his country, and by some editions of its ablest authors, which he illustrated with very valuable notes. Our authority, however, conveys very little information respecting his personal history or his works, and does not even mention the concern he had in the new and much improved edition of Antonio’s “Bibl. Hispana.” He died at Madrid in 1798. His most celebrated work is his “Collection of Castiliian poetry anterior to the fifteenth century, to which are prefixed memoirs of the first marquis of Santillane, and a letter addressed to the constable of Portugal, on the origin of Spanish poetry,” Madrid, 1779 1782, 5 vols. 8vo. This history is now preferred to that of father Sarmiento, which formerly enjoyed such reputation. Sanchez also wrote “An Apology for Cervantes,” in answer to a letter published in the Madrid Courier; and “A Letter to Don Joseph Berni, on his defence of Peter the Cruel,” ibid. 1778, 8vo.

On the institution of the Royal Academy, Mr. Sandby was elected a royal academician. By the recommendation of the duke of Grafton, the marquis of Granby in 1768 appointed him chief drawing-master of the Royal Academy at Woolwich, which office he held with great honour to himself and advantage to the institution; and saw many able and distinguished draughtsmen among the officers of artillery, and corps of Engineers, formed under his instructions.

As he had an impediment in his voice, he was advised by M. Bossuet, to give up the church, and to apply himself to the study of physic: but this being against the inclination of his uncle, from whom 'he drew his principal resources, Sauveur determined to devote himself to his favourite study, so as to be able to teach it for his support. This scheme succeeded so well, that he soon became the fashionable preceptor in mathematics, and at twenty- three years of age he had prince Eugene for his scholar, He had not yet read the; geometry of Des Cartes but a foreigner of the first quality desiring to be taught it, he made himself master of it in an inconceivably small space of time. Basset being a fashionable game at that time, the marquis of Dangeau asked him for some calculations relating to it, which gave such satisfaction, that Sauveur had the honour to explain them to the king and queen.

, marquis of Halifax, a celebrated statesman, but of equivocal character, was descended from an ancient family in Yorkshire. He was the son of sir William Savile, bart. and Anne, daughter of Thomas lord Coventry, lord keeper of the great seal. He was born, probably about 1630. Upon the death of his father, he succeeded to the title of baronet, and soon distinguished himself by his abilities in public affairs; and being zealous in bringing about the restoration, was created a peer, in consideration of his own and his father’s merits. In 1668 he was appointed of that remarkable committee, which sat at Brook-hall for the examination of the accounts of the money which had been given during the Dutch war, of which no member of the House of Commons was admitted. In April 1672 he was called to a seat in the privy council; and, June following, went over to Holland with the duke of Buckingham and the earl of Arlington, as ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary, to treat about a peace with France, when he met with great opposition from hi* colleagues.

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

Upon leaving Oxford, and taking the degree of doctor of physic, Dr. Scarborough settled in the metropolis, where he practised with great reputation. In the College of Physicians, of which he was a fellow, he was particularly respected as a man of uncommon talents; and, in 1658, by the special appointment of the president, he introduced, with an elegant Latin speech, the marquis of Dorchester for his admission into the college that year. In the mean time Dr. Scarborough began to read his highly celebrated anatomical lectures at Surgeons’ Hall, which he continued for sixteen or seventeen years, and was the first who introduced geometrical and mechanical reasonings upon the muscles.

In 1733, he narrowly escaped from a dangerous illness, He had long meditated one of those works, which alone, by their importance, extent, and difficulty, might immortalise a society, a “History of Alsace.” To collect materials for this, he travelled into the Low Countries and Germany in 1738, and into Switzerland 1744. At Prague he found that the fragment of St. Mark’s Gospel, so carefully kept there, is a continuation of that at Venice. The chancellor D'Aguesseau sent for him to Paris, 1746, with the same view. His plan was to write the History of Alsace, and to illustrate its geography and policy before and under the Romans, under the Franks, Germans, and its present governors; and, in 1751, he presented it to the king of France, who had before honoured him with the title of “Historiographer Royal and Counsellor,” and then gave him an appointment of 2000 livres, and a copy of the catalogue of the royal library. He availed himself of this opportunity to plead the privileges of the Protestant university of Strasbourg, and obtained a confirmation of them. His second volume appeared in 1761; and he had prepared, as four supplements, a collection of charters and records, an ecclesiastical history, a literary history, and a list of authors who had treated of Alsace: the publication of these he recommended to Mr. Koch, his assistant and successor in his chair. Between these two volumes he published his ^Vindiciae Celticse,“in which he examines the origin, revolution, and language of the Celts. The” History of Baden“was his last considerable work, a duty which he thought he owed his country. He completed this history in seven volumes in four years; the first appeared in 176 3, the last in 1766. Having by this history illustrated his country, he prevailed upon the marquis of Baden to build a room, in which all its ancient monuments were deposited in 1763. He engaged with the elector palatine to found the academy of Manheim. He pronounced the inaugural discourse, and furnished the electoral treasury with antiques. He opened the public meetings of this academy, which are held twice a year, by a discourse as honorary president. He proved in two of these discourses, that no electoral house, no court in Germany, had produced a greater number of learned princes than the electoral house. In 1766, he presented to the elector the first volume of the” Memoirs of a Rising Academy," and promised one every two years.

When the prince of Orange was almost ready for his expedition into England, marshal Schomberg obtained leave of the elector of Brandenbourg to accompany his highness in that attempt; and, after their arrival at London, he is supposed to have been the author of that remarkable stratagem for trying the affections of the people, by raising an universal apprehension over the kingdom of the approach of the Irish with fire and sword. Upon the prince’s advancement to the throne of England, he was appointed master of the ordnance, and general of his majesty’s forces; in April 1689, knight of the garter, and the same month naturalized by act of parliament; and, in May, was created a baron, earl, marquis, and duke of this kingdom, by the name and title of baron Teys, earl of Brentford, marquis of Harwich, and duke of Schomberg. The House of Commons likewise voted to him 100,000l. for the services which he had done; but he received only a small part of that sum, the king after his death paying his son 5000l. a year for the remainder. In Aug. 1689 he sailed for Ireland, with an army, for the reduction of that kingdom; and, having mustered all his forces there, and finding them to be not above 14,000 men, among whom there were but 2000 horse, he marched to Dundalk, where he posted himself; king James being come to Ardee. within five or six miles of him, with above thrice his number. Schomberg, therefore, being disappointed of the supplies from England, which had been promised him, and his army being so greatly inferior to the Irish, resolved to keep himself on the defensive. He lay there six weeks in a rainy season; and his men, for want of due management, contracted such diseases that almost one half of them perished.

Her tenderness for her children appeared, not only by the care which she took of their education, but also by her attention in re-establishing the affairs of the house of Sevigne. Charles, marquis of Sevigne, her son, acquired a laudable reputation in the world; and Frances Margaret, her daughter, appeared in it with great advantages. The fame of her wit, beauty, and discretion, had already been announced at court, when her mother brought her thither for the first time in 1663, and in 1669, this young lady was married to Francis Adhemar de Monteil, count da Grignan. The mother being now necessarily separated from her daughter, for whom she had an uncommon degree^ of affection, it is to this circumstance we owe the celebrated “Letters” so often published, and so much admired, particularly in France, as models of epistolary correspondence. They turn indeed very much upon trifles, the incidents of the day, and the news of the town; and they are overloaded with extravagant compliments, and expressions of fondness, to her favourite daughter; but withal, they show such perpetual sprightliness, they contain such easy and varied narration, and so many strokes of the most lively and beautiful painting, perfectly free from any affectation, that they are justly entitled to high praise.

It may easily be imagined how much these successes raised his reputation in England, especially when it was remembered what great services he had done formerly against France so that the nation in general had vast expectations from his government but the breach between him and his brother, the lord high admiral of England, lost him the present advantages. The death of the admiral also, in March 1548, drew much censure on the protector; though others were of opinion that it was scarce possible for him to do more for the gaining his brother than he had done. In September 1549, a strong faction appeared against him, under the influence and direction of Wriothesly earl of Southampton, who hated him on account of losing the office of lord chancellor, and Dudley earl of Warwick, who expected to have the principal administration of affairs upon his removal; and other circumstances concurred to raise him enemies. His partiality to the commons provoked the gentry; his consenting to the execution of his brother, and his palace in the Strand, erected on the ruins of several churches and other religious buildings, in a time both of war and pestilence, disgusted the people, The clergy hated him, not only for promoting the changes in religion, but likewise for his enjoying so many of the best manors of the bishops; and his entertaining foreign troops, both German and Italian, though done by the consent of the council, gave general disgust. The privy counsellors complained of his being arbitrary in his proceedings, and of many other offences, which exasperated the whole body of them against him, except archbishop Cranmer, sir William Paget, and sir Thomas Smith, secretary of state. The first discovery of their designs induced him to remove the king to Hampton Ctuirt, and then to Windsor; but finding the party against him too formidable to oppose, he submitted to the council, and on the 14th of October was committed to the Tower, and in January following was fined in the sum of two thousand pounds a year, with thg loss of all his offices and goods. However, on the 16th of February, 1549-50, he obtained a full pardon, and so managed his interest with the king, that he was brought both to the court and council in April following: and to confirm the reconciliation between him and the earl of Warwick, the duke’s daughter was married, on the 3d of June, 1550, to the lord viscount Lisle, the earl’s son. But this friendship did not continue long; for in October 1551, the earl, now created duke of Northumberland, caused the duke of Somerset to be sent to the Tower, alledging^ that the latter had formed a design of raising the people; and that when himself, and the marquis of Northampton^ and the earl of Pembroke, had been invited to dine at the lord Paget’s, Somerset determined to have set upon them by the way, or to have killed them at dinner; with other particulars of that kind, which were related to the king in so aggravated a manner, that he was entirely alienated from his uncle. On the first of December the duke was brought to his trial, and though acquitted of treason, was found guilty of felony in intending to imprison the duke of Northumberland. He was beheaded on Tower-hill on the 22d of January, 1551-2, and died with great serenity. It was generally believed, that the conspiracy, for which he suffered, was a mere forgery; and indeed the not bringing the witnesses into the court, but only the depositions, and the parties themselves sitting as judges, gave great occasion to condemn the proceedings against him. Besides, his four friends, who were executed for the same cause, ended their lives with the most solemn protestations of their innocence.

Finding king James irremediably excluded, he voted for the conjunctive sovereignty, upon this principle, that he thought the title of the prince and his consort equal, and it would please the prince their protector to have a share irt the sovereignty. This vote gratified king William; yet, either by the king’s distrust, or his own discontent, he lived some years without employment. He looked on the king with malevolence, and, if his verses or his prose may be credited, with contempt. He was, notwithstanding this aversion or indifference, made marquis of Normanby in 1694, but still opposed the court on some important questions; yet at last he was received into the cabinet council, with a pension of three thousand pounds.

On his release he determined to follow the fortunes of his royal master, who made him commissary-general of the artillery, in which post he witnessed the battle of Edge-hill, and afterwards attended the king at Oxford, where he was created master of arts, Dec. 20, 1642. Here he took such opportunities as his office permitted of pursuing his studies, and did not leave Oxford untilJune 1646, when it was surrendered to the parliamentary forces. He then went to London, and was entertained by a near relation, John Povey, esq. at his chambers in the Middle Temple. Being plundered of all his property, and what is ever most dear* to a man of learning, his ample library, he would probably have sunk under his accumulated sufferings, had he not met with his kinsman, Thomas Stanley, esq. father of the learned Thomas Stanley, esq. who was a sufferer in the same cause, and secreted near the same place. But some degree of toleration must have been extended to him soon after, as in 1648, he published his translation of Seneca’s “Medea,” and in the same year, Seneca’s answer to Lucilius’s question “Why good men suffer misfortunes, seeing there is a divine providence?” In 1651, he published his “Poems and Translations,” with a Latin dedication to Mr. Stanley; and when sir George Savile, afterwards marquis of Halifax, returned from his travels about that time, he appointed Mr. Sherburne superintendant of his affairs; and by the recommendation of his mother, kidy Savile, he was afterwards made travelling tutor to her nephew, sir John Coventry. With this gentleman he visited various parts of the continent, from March 1654 to October 1659. On the restoration, sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, afterwards lord Shaftesbury, put another into his place in the ordnance, but on Mr. Sherburne’s application to tlve House of Peers, it was restored to him, although its emoluments were soon greatly retrenched.

At the restoration, Sidney would not personally accept of the oblivion and indemnity generally granted to the whole nation; but continued abroad till 1677, when his father died. He then returned to England, and obtained from the king a particular pardon, upon repeated promises of constant and quiet obedience for the future. Burnet observes, “that he came back when the parliament was pressing the king into the war, the court of France having obtained leave for him to return; and that, upon his doing all he could to divert the people from that war, some took him for a pensioner of France: while he in the mean time declared, to those to whom he durst speak freely, that he knew it was a juggle; that our court was in an entire confidence with France; and had no other design in this show of a war but to raise an army, and keep it beyond sea till it was trained and modelled.” In 1683, he was accused of being concerned in the Rye-house plot; and, after lord Eussel had been examined, was next brought before the king and council. He said, that he would make the best defence he could, if they had any proof against him, but xvould not fortify their evidence by any thing he should say; so that the examination was very short. He was arraigned for high treason before the chief justice Jeffreys, Nov. 1683; and found guilty. After his conviction he sent to the marquis of Halifax, who was his nephew by marriage, a paper to be laid before the king, containing the main points of his defence upon which he appealed to the king, and desired he would review the whole matter but this had no other effect, except only to respite his execution for three weeks. When the warrant for his execution was brought, he told the sheriff, that he would not expostulate any thing upon his own account; for, the world was nothing to him: but he desired it mig^ht be considered, how guilty they were of his blood, who had not returned a fair jury, but one packed, and as directed by the king’s solicitor. He was beheaded on Tower-hill, where he delivered a written paper to the Sheriff, Dec. 7, 1683: but his attainder was reversed in the first year of William and Mary. “The execution of Sidney,” says Hume, “is regarded as one of the greatest blemishes of the reign of Charles II. The evidence against him, it must be confessed, was not legal: and the jury, who condemned him, were, for that reason, very blameable. But that after sentence parsed by a court of judicature, the king should interpose and pardon a man, who, though otherwise possessed of merit, was undoubtedly guilty, who had ever been a most indexible and most inveterate enemy to the royal family, and who lately had even abused the king’s clemency, might be an act of heroic generosity, but can never be regarded as a necessary and indispensable duty.” Burnet, who knew Sidney personally, gives the following character of him: “He was a man of most extraordinary courage; a steady man, even to obstinacy; sincere, but of a rough and boisterous temper, that could not bear contradiction. He seemed to be a Christian, but in a particular form of his own he thought it was to be like a divine philosophy in tue mind but he was against all public worship, and every thing that looked like a church. He was stiff to all republican principles; and such an enemy to every thing that looked like monarchy, that he set himself in a high opposition against Cromwell when he was made protector. He had studied the history of government in all its branches, beyond anv man I ever knew.”

and fco-opcraU-il with the other reform- rev. Jamesr. ft gyo. became primate and metropolitan of all Scotland. The year following-, he presided in the assembly of Aberdeen: as he did likewise in other assemblies for restoring the ancient discipline, and bringing the church of Scotland to some degree of uniformity with that of England. He continued in high esteem with James I. during his whole reign; nor was he less valued by Charles I. who in 1633 was crowned by him in the abbey church of Holyrood-house. In 1635, he was made chancellor of Scotland; which post he had not held full four years, when the popular confusions obliged him to retire into England. Being broken with age and grief, and sickness, he went first to Newcastle; and continued there, till, by rest and the care of the physicians, he had recovered strength enough to travel to London; where he no sooner arrived, than he relapsed, and died in 1639. He was interred in Westminster abbey, and an inscription upon brass fixed over him. He married a daughter of David Lindsay, bishop of Ross; by whom he had several children. Sir Robert Spotsvvood, his second son, was eminent for his abilities and knowledge in the laws; was preferred by king James, and afterwards by king Charles; but was put to death for adhering to the marquis of Montrose. Clarendon calls him “a worthy, honest, loyal gentleman, and as wise a man as the Scottish nation had at that time.”

, fourth earl of Chesterfield, was born in London, on the 22d of September 1694. He was the son of Philip third earl of Chesterfield by his wife lady Elizabeth Savile, daughter of George marquis of Halifax. He received his first instructions from private tutors, under the care of his grandmother, lady Halifax and, at the age of eighteen, was sent to Trinity- hall, Cambridge. $ere he studied assiduously, and became, according to his own account, an absolute pedant. “When I talked my best,” he says, “I talked Horace; when I aimed at being facetious, I quoted Martial; and when I had a mind to be a fine gentleman, I talked Ovid. I was convinced that none but the ancients had common sense; that the classics contained every thing that was either necessary, or useful, or ornamental to men: and I was not without thoughts of wearing the toga virilis of the Romans, instead of the vulgar and illiberal dress of the moderns.” He was, however, only two years exposed to this danger, for in the spring of 1714, lord Stanhope left the university for the tour of Europe, but without a governor. He passed the summer of that year at the Hague, among friends who quickly laughed him out of his scholastic habits, but taught him one far more disgraceful and pernicious, as he himself laments, which was that of gaming. Still his leading object was that of becoming an eminent statesman, and of this, among all his dissipations, he never lost sight. From the Hague he went to Paris, where, he informs us, he received his final polish, under the tuition of the belles of that place.

About 1654 he left the university to accept the invitation of sir Roger Burgoyne, who wished him to reside with him at his seat at Wroxhall, in Warwickshire He had been recommended by Dr. Hainan, one of the fellows 01 his college, but in what capacity, whether as chaplain or companion, does not appear. Sir Roger was a man of piety and learning, and became afterwards a very kind friend and patron to Mr. Stillingfleet, yet parted with him very readily next year, when he was invited to Nottingham to be tutor to the hon. Francis Pierrepoint, esq. brother to the marquis of Dorchester. In 1656 he completed his master’s degree, and the following year left Nottingham, and went again to Wroxfoail, where his patron, sir Roger Burgoyne, presented him to the living of Sutton, in Bedfordshire. Before institution he received orders at the hands of Dr. Brownrig, the ejected bishop of Exeter.

Upon his return to England, Mr. Stuart was received into the late Mr. Davvkins’s family; and, among the many patrons which the report of his extraordinary qualifications acquired him, the first lord Anson led him forward to the reward most judiciously calculated to suit his talents and pursuits. It was by his lordship’s appointment that Mr. Stuart became surveyor to Greenwich hospital, which he held till the day of his death with universal approbation. He likewise constantly received the notice and esteem of the marquis of Rockingham, and of the principal nobility and gentry of taste and power. Besides his appointment at Greenwich hospital, all the additions and rebuilding of that part which was destroyed by the fire there, were conducted under his direction. He likewise built several houses in London; Mr. Anson’s in St. James’s-square, Mrs. Montague’s in Portman-square, &c.

After the death of his master, by which he was greatly afflicted, Sully retired from court; for, a new reign introducing new men and new measures, he was no longer regarded. The life he led in retreat was accompanied with decency, grandeur, and even majesty; yet it was, in some measure, embittered with domestic troubles, arising from the extravagance and ill conduct of his eldest son, the marquis of Rosni. He died Dec. 22, 1641, aged eighty-three, and his duchess caused a statue to be erected over his burying-place, with this inscription: “Here lies the body of the most high, most puissant, and most illustrious lord, Maximilian de Bethune, marquis of Rosni, who shared in, all the fortunes of king Henry the Great; among which was that memorable battle, which gave the crown to the victor; where, by his valour, he gained the white standard, and took several prisoners of distinction. He was by that great monarch, in reward of his many virtues and distinguished merit, honoured with the dignities of duke, peer, and marshal of France, with the governments of the Upper and Lower Poitou, with the office of grand master of the ordnance; in which, bearing the thunder of his Jupiter, he took the castle of Montmelian, till then believed impregnable, and many other fortresses of Savoy. He was likewise made superintendant of the finances, which office he discharged singly, with a wise and prudent occonomy; and continued his faithful services till that unfortunate day, when the Caesar of the French nation lost his life by the hand of a parricide. After the lamented death of that great king, he retired from public affairs, and passed the remainder of his life in ease apd tranquillity. He died at the castle of Villebon, Dec. 22, 1641, aged 82.” Though he lived to such an age, no life could be more frequently exposed to perils than that of Sully. One of these was of a very extraordinary kind, and deserves to be particularly mentioned. It was at the taking of a town in Cambray, in 1581, when, to defend the women from the brutality of the soldiers, the churches, with gu.irds about them, were given them for asylums; nevertheless, d very beautiful young girl suddenly threw herself into the arms of Sully, as he was walking in the streets, and, holding him fast, conjured him to guard her from some soldiers, who, she said, had concealed themselves as soon as they saw him. Sully endeavoured to calm her fears, and offered to conduct her to the next church; but she tpld him she had been there, and had asked for admittance, which they refused, because they knew she had the plague. Sully thrust her from him with the utmost indignation as well as horror, and expected every moment to be seized with the plague, which, however, did not happen.

, an admired general, and mareschal of France, was born Feb. 14, 1652, the son of Roger d'Hostun, marquis of la Beaume. Like other young nobles of France, he chose the army for his profession, and at the age of sixteen had the royal regiment of Cravates, in which command he signalized himself for ten years. In 1672 he attended Louis XIV. into Holland, obtained soon after the confidence of Turenne, and distinguished himself on several occasions. He was raised to the rank of lieutenant-general in 1693, and in 1697 was employed in an embassy to England. On the renewal of war, he commanded on the Rhine in 1702, and soon after was created mareschal of France. He distinguished himself in the ensuing year against the Imperialists, and gained a brilliant advantage, which, however, he rather disgraced by his pompous manner of announcing it. He was less fortunate in 1704, when being engaged against the English in the plains of Hochstedt, near Blenheim, he was defeated and brought a prisoner to England, where he remained for seven years. Soon after this battle, he said, in a kind of peevish compliment to the duke of Marlborough, “Your grace has defeated the finest troops in Europe” “You will except, 1 hope,” said the duke, “the troops who beat them.” His residence in England, say the French historians, was not without its use to France; as he very much assisted in detaching queen Anne from tha party of the allies, and causing the recall of the duke of Marlborough. He returned to Paris in 1712, and was created a duke. In 1726 he was named secretary of state, which honour he did not long retain, but died March 3, 1723, at the age of seventy-six. He was a man of good talents and character; his chief fault being that he was rather inclined to boasting.

In 1582, George- Frederic, marquis of Brandenburg, having founded a college at Heilbrun, a town of Suabia, collected the promising youth out of all his states, and Taubman among the rest, whose great capacity recommended him to public notice; and who, besides his skill in the Latin and Greek authors, had acquired much fame by his poetry. After staying ten years at Heilbrun, he went in 1592 to Wittemberg, where he soon distinguished himself; and Frederic William, the prince of Saxony, conceived so high an esteem for him, as often to admit him into his company. The professorship of poetry and the belles lettres becoming vacant in 1595, the university asked it of the court for Taubman, who accordingly took possession of it in October that year, and held it, with great honour to himself, and advantage to the public, as long as he lived. He died of a fever in 1613, leaving five children and a wife, whom he had married in 1596. He was one of those few happy men who had qualities to make himself beloved as well as admired. His very great learning procured him the admiration of mankind; and the liveliness of his disposition, and many private virtues, secured to him their esteem and affection,

In April 1751, Dr Taylor succeeded the rev. Christopher Anstey, D. D. in the rectory of Lawford in Essex, a living belonging to St. John’s college, and the only parochial cure he ever enjoyed; and in Jan. 1753, he became archdeacon of Buckingham. After he took orders he was esteemed a very eminent and successful preacher; but he has only two occasional sermons in print. When the late marquis of Bath and his brother were sent to St. John’s, they were placed under the care of our author by his patron lord Granville, maternal grandfather of these two young noblemen. This charge led to his work on the “Elements of Civil Law,” 1755, in 4to, and which was formed from the papers drawn up by him to instruct his noble pupils in the origin of natural law, the rudiments of civil life, and of social duties. If the work, as published, partakes somewhat too much of the desultory character of such loose papers; if its reasoning is occasionally confused, and its digressions sometimes irrelevant, it is impossible to deny it the prgise of vast reading and extensive information on various subjects or polite learning and recondite antiquity. It quickly came to a second edition, and has also been published in an abridged form. It did not however escape without some severe animadversions.

, an excellent engraver, was born in 1758, at Pattrington, in Holderness, in the East Riding of York, where his father was an innkeeper. At a proper age he was placed as an apprentice to a cooper, at which business, on the expiration of his apprenticeship, he worked some time. During the American war he became a private in ifie Northumberland militia; at the conclusion of which, in 1783, he came to settle at Hull, where he commenced engraver of shop-bills, cards, &c. One of his fust attempts was a card for a tinner and brazier, executed in a very humble style. He engraved and published a plan of Hull, which is dated May 6, 1784, and afterwards solicited subscriptions for two views of the dock at that place, which, it is thought, he shortly after published. He also engraved, while there, a head of Harry Rowe, the famous puppet-showman of York, after a drawing by J. England. Another account says, that an engraving of an old woman’s head, after Gerard Dow, was his first attempt, and appeared so extraordinary, that on the recommendation of the hon. Charles Fox, the duchess of Devonshire, and lady Duncannon, he was appointed historical engraver to the prince of Wales. In 1788, the marquis of Carmarthen, whose patronage he first obtained by constructing a very curious camera obscura, wrote him a recommendatory lelter to Alderman Boy dell, who immediately offered him 300 guineas to engrave a plate from Northcote’s picture of Edward V. taking leave of his brother the duke of York. He afterwards engraved, for Boydell, a number of capital plates from the Shakespeare gallery,and from the paintings by sir Joshua Reynolds, Shee, Westall, Smirke, Fuseli, Northcote, Peters, &c. all which are very extraordinary specimens of graphic excellence, and have been highly and deservedly approved by the connoisseur, and well received by the public. Of Boydell’s Shakspeare, nineteen of the large plates are from his hand. He had received very little instruction, but depended solely on native genius, aided by an intense application, by which \\e suddenly arrived at great excellence in the art. Almost at the outset of his career he became connected with Messrs. Boydell by extensive engagements on their Shakspeare, a work which will long bear ample testimony to his rare merit and talents. The distinguishing characteristics of his practice consisted in most faithfully exhibiting the true spirit and style of each master; a most minute accuracy, a certain polish, and exquisite delicacy of manner; with the appropriate character given to all objects, while a mildness of tone and perfect harmony pervaded the whole piece. The Cardinal Wolsey entering Leicester Abbey, from Westall, is certainly the greatest effort of his skill, and is, by many of the bestinformed connoisseurs and artists, held to be a first-rate specimen in that style of engraving. This ingenious artist died in July 1802, at Stevenage in Hertfordshire.