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

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

, a learned Protestant divine, was born at Nay in Berne, in 1658, according to Niceron, or in 1654, as in the Gen. Dictionary. He studied at Puy Laurent, at Saumur, at Paris, and at Sedan; at which last place he received the degree of doctor in divinity. He intended to have dedicated himself very early to the ministry; but the circumstances of the Protestants of France rendering it impracticable there, he accepted the offer of the count d'Espense, an officer in the service of the elector of Brandenburgh, by whom he was settled at Berlin, as a French minister. Here he resided many years, and his congregation, at first very thin, was greatly increased by the revocation of the edict of Nantes. In 1688, the elector, Frederic William, died, and our author accepted of an invitation from marshal Schomberg, to go with him first into Holland, and then into England, with the prince of Orange. In 1689 he went to Ireland, and was there in the following year, when his patron was killed at the battle of the Boyne. On his return to England, he became minister of the French church at the Savoy, but the air disagreeing with him, he went again to Ireland, and would have been promoted to the deanery of St. Patrick’s had he been acquainted with the English language. He obtained, however, that of Killaloo, the value of which was far inferior, and never had any other promotion. He occasionally visited England and Holland, for the purpose of printing his works, which were all in French. In one of these visits to London, he died at Marybone, Sept. 25, 1727. He was strongly attached to the cause of king William, as appears by his elaborate defence of the Revolution, and his history of the Assassination-plot. He had great natural abilities, which he cultivated with true and useful learning. He was a most zealous defender of the primitive doctrine of the Protestants, as appears by his writings; and that strong nervous eloquence, for which he was so remarkable, enabled him to enforce the doctrines of his profession from the pulpit with great spirit and energy.

In 1619 he executed a design which he had long formed, of founding an hospital at Guildford, where, on the 5th of April, he was present when sir Nicholas Kempe laid the first stone. The archbishop endowed it with lands to the value of three hundred pounds per annum: one hundred of which was to be employed in setting the poor to work, and the remainder for the maintenance of a master, twelve brothers, and eight sisters, who were to have blue clothes, and gowns of the same colour, and half-a-crown a week each. Oct. 29, being the anniversary of the archbishop’s birth, is commemorated at Guildford; and the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being is visitor of the hospital. Towards the end of this year, the Elector Palatine accepted of the crown of Bohemia, which occasioned great disputes in king James’s councils. Some were desirous that his majesty should not interfere in this matter, foreseeing that it would produce a war in Germany; others were of opinion, that natural affection to his son and daughter, and a just concern for the Protestant interest, ought to engage him to support the new election. The latter was the archbishop’s sentiment; and not being able at that time to attend the privy council, he wrote his mind with great boldness and freedom to the secretary of state. The archbishop, now in a declining state of health, used in the summer to go to Hampshire for the sake of recreation; and, being invited by lord Zouch to hunt in his park at Branzill, he met there with the greatest misfortune that ever befel him; for he accidentally killed that nobleman’s keeper, by an arrow from a cross-bow, which he shot afc one of the deer. This accidentthrew him into a deep melancholy; and he ever afterwards kept a monthly fast on Tuesday, the day on which this fatal mischance happened. He also settled an annuity of 20l. on the widow. There were several persons who took advantage of this misfortune, to lessen him in the king’s favour; but his majesty said, “An angel might have miscarried in this sort.” But his enemies representing, that, having incurred an irregularity, he was thereby incapacitated for performing the offices of a primate, the king directed a commission to ten persons, to inquire into this matter. The points referred to their decision were, 1. Whether the archbishop was irregular by the fact of involuntary homiciue 2. Whether that act might tend to scandal in a churchman 3. How his grace should be restored, in case the commissioners should find him irregular All agreed, that it could not be otherwise done, than by restitution from the king; but they varied in the manner. The bishop of Winchester, the lord chief justice, and Dr. Steward, thought it should be done by the king, and by him alone. The lord keeper, and the bishops of London/ Rochester, Exeter, and St. David’s, were for a commission from the king directed to some bishops. Judge Doddridge and sir Henry Martin were desirous it should be done both ways, by way of caution. The king accordingly passed a pardon and dispensation; by which he acquitted the atchbishop of all irregularity, scandal, or infamation, and declared him capable of all the authority of a primate. From that time an increase of infirmities prevented his assistance at the council. But when, in the last illness of James I. his attendance was required, he was attentive to the charge till the 27th of March 1625, the day on which the king expired. Though very infirm, and afflicted with the gout, he assisted at the ceremony of the coronation of Charles I. whose favour, however, he did not long enjoy. His avowed enemy, the duke of Buckingham, soon found an opportunity to make him feel the weight of his displeasure. Dr. Sibthorp had in the Lent assizes 1627 preached before the judges a sermon at Northampton, to justify a loan which the king had demanded. This sermon, calculated to reconcile the people to an obnoxious measure, was transmitted to the archbishop with the king’s direction to license it; which he refused, and gave his reasons for it : and it was not licensed by the bishop of London, until after the passages deemed exceptionable had been erased. On July 5, lord Conway, who was then secretary of state, made him a visit; and intimated to him, that the king expected he should withdraw to Canterbury. The archbishop declined this proposal, because he had then a law-suit with that city; and desired that he might rather have leave to retire to his house at Ford, five miles beyond Canterbury. His request was granted; and, on Oct. 9 following, the king gave a commission to the bishops of London, Durham, Rochester, Oxford, and Bath and Wells, to execute the archiepiscopal authority; the cause assigned being, that the archbishop could not at that time in his own person attend those services which were otherwise proper for his cognizance and direction. The archbishop did not remain long in this situation; for, a parliament being absolutely necessary, he was recalled about Ciuistmas, and restored to his authority and jurisdiction. On his arrival at court he was received by the archbishop of York and the earl of Dorset, who conducted him to the king, and his regular attendance was from that time required. He sat in the succeeding parliament, and continued afterwards in the full exercise of his office. On the 24th of August 1628, the archbishop consecrated to the see of Chichester Dr. Richard Montague, who had before been active in supporting the pretence of irregularity which had been alleged against him. Laud, bishop of London, one of his former enemies, also assisted at the consecration. When the petition of right was discussed in parhament, the archbishop dehvercd the opinion of the House of Lords at a conference with the House of Commons, offering some propositions from the former, and received the thanks of sir Dudley Digges. Dr. Manwaring, having preached before the House of Commons two sermons, which he afterwards published, and in which he maintained the king’s authority in raising subsidies without the consent of parliament, was brought before the bar of the House of Lords, by impeachment of the Commons. Upon this occasion the archbishop, with the king’s consent, gave the doctor a severe admonition, in which he avowed his abhorrence of the principles maintained in the two discourses. The interest of bishop Laud being now very considerable at court, he drew up instructions, which, having the king’s name, were transmitted to the archbishop, under the title of “His majesty’s instructions to the most reverend father in God, George, lord archbishop of Canterbury, containing certain orders to be observed and put in execution by the several bishops in his province.” His grace communicated them to his suffragan bishops; but, to prove that he still intended to exercise his authority in his own diocese, he restored Mr. Palmer and Mr. Unday to their lectureships, after the dean and archdeacon of Canterbury had suspended them. In other respects he endeavoured to soften their rigour, as they were contrived to enforce the particular notions of a prevailing party in the church, which the archbishop thought too hard for those who made the fundamentals of religion their study, and were not so zealous for forms. His conduct in this and other respects made his presence unwelcome at court; so that, upon the birth of the prince of Wales, afterwards Charles H. Laud had the honour to baptize him, as dean of the chapel. It appears, ho.vever, from almost the last public act of his life, that Abbot was not so regardless of the ceremonial parts of religious duty in the church of England as his enemies have represented him; for he issued an order, dated the 3d of July 1633, requiring the parishioners of Crayford in Kent to receive the sacrament on their knees, at the steps ascending to the communion table. On the 5th of August, in the same year, he died at Croydon, worn out with cares and infirmities, at the age of 71, and was according to his own direction buried in the chapel of Our Lady, within the church dedicated to the Holy Trinity at Guildford. A stately monument was erected over the grave, with the effigies of the archbishop in his robes. He shewed himself, in most circumstances of his life, a man of great moderation to all parties; and was desirous that the clergy should attract the esteem of the laity by the sanctity of their manners, rather than claim it as due to their function. His notions and principles, however, not suiting the humour of some writers, have drawn upon him many severe reflections. Heylin asserts, “That marks of his benefactions we find none in places of his breeding and preferment;” an aspersion which is totally groundless. Dr. Wellwood has done more justice to the merit and abilities of our prelate: “Archbishop Abbot,” says he, “was a person of wonderful temper and moderation; and in all his conduct shewed an unwillingness to stretch the act of uniformity beyond what was absolutely necessary for the peace of the church, or the prerogative of the crown, any farther than conduced to the good of the state. Being not well turned for a court, though otherwise of considerable learning and genteel education, he either could not, or would not, stoop to the humour of the times; and now and then, by an unseasonable stiffness, gave occasion to his enemies to represent him as not well inclined to the prerogative, or too much addicted to a popular interest; and therefore not fit to be employed in matters of government.”

, a German writer of high character, was born Nov. 25, 1738, at Ulm, where he received his education, and in 1751 produced his first dissertation, under the title of “Historia vitae magistra,” in which he maintained two theses, the one on burning mirrors, the other on the miracle of the dial of Ahaz. In 1756, he went to the university of Halle, where he was invited by professor Baumgarten to live in his house. Here he published a thesis “De Extasi,” and studied chiefly philosophy and the mathematics; and from 1758, when he received the degree of M. A. he confined himself to these, giving up divinity, to which he had been originally destined. In 1760, he was appointed professor-extraordinary of philosophy in the university of Francfort-on-the-Oder, and in the midst of the war which then raged, inspirited his fellow-­citizens by a work on “Dying for our Country.” In the following year, he passed six months at Berlin, and left that city to fill the mathematical chair in the university of Rinteln, in Westphalia; but, becoming tired of an academical life, began to study law, as an introduction to some civil employment. In 1763, he travelled through the south of Germany, Switzerland, and part of France; and, on his return to Rinteln, at the end of that year, published his work “On Merit,” which was re-printed thrice in that place, and obtained him much reputation. In 1765, the reigning prince of Schaumburg Lippe bestowed on him the office of counsellor of the court, regency, and consistory of Buckeburgh; but he did not long enjoy the friendship of this nobleman, or his promotion, as he died Nov. 27, 1766, when only in his twenty-eighth year. The prince caused him to be interred, with great pomp, in his private chapel, and honoured his tomb by an affecting epitaph from his own pen. Abbt was highly esteemed by his contemporaries, who seem agreed that, if his life had been spared, he would have ranked among the first German writers. He contributed much to restore the purity of the language, which had become debased before his time, as the Germans, discouraged by the disastrous thirty years war, had written very little, unless in French or Latin.

was born at Riez in Provence, in 1648. He removed to Paris early in life, where he was much admired for the brilliancy of his wit. The marechai de Luxembourg took notice of him, and gave him the title of his secretary; and the poet followed the hero in his campaigns. The marshal gave him his confidence during his life, and at his death recommended him to his heirs as an estimable man. The prince of Conti and the duke de Vendome vouchsafed him their familiarity, and found great pleasure in his lively and animated conversation. The witticisms which would have been common in the mouth of any other man, were rendered striking in him by the turn he gave them, and by the grimaces with which he accompanied them. A countenance remarkably ugly and full of wrinkles, which he managed at pleasure, stood him instead of a variety of masks. Whenever he read a tale or a comedy, he made a ludicrous use of this moveable physiognomy for distinguishing the personages of the piece he was reciting. The abbe Abeille enjoyed a priory, and a place in the French academy. We have of him some odes, some epistles, several tragedies, one comedy, and two operas. A certain prince observed of his tragedy of Cato, that, if Cato of Utica should return from the grave, he would be only the Cato of the abbe Abeille. He understood well enough what was necessary to the formation of a good poet: but he was not one himself. His style is feeble, low, and languid. In his versification he discovers none of that dignity he had in his character. He died at Paris, the 21st of May, 1718. A French critic, speaking of the two tragedies, Solyman and Hercules, written by Jean Juvenon de la Thuillerie, says, the reader will be able to judge of their merit, when he is informed that they were attributed to the Abbé Abeille .

The Eastern nations are generally extravagant in their applause of men of learning; and have bestowed the highest encomiums and titles upon Abulfafagius, as, the prince of the learned, the most excellent of those who most excel, the example of his times, the phoenix of his age, the glory of wise men, &c. Our historian, Gibbon, esteems him “eminent both in his life and death. In his life he was an elegant writer of the Syriac and Arabic tongues, a poet, physician, and a moderate divine. la his death, his funeral was attended by his rival the Nestorian patriarch, with a train of Greeks and Armenians, Who forgot their disputes, and mingled their tears over the grave of an enemy.” His death took place in 1286.

, khan of the Tartars, worthy of a place in this Dictionary, as well on account of his literary talents as from the circumstance of his being the only Tartar historian with whom the nations of Europe are acquainted. He was born in the city of Urgens, capital of the country of Kharasm, in the year of the hegira 1014, answering to the year 1605 of the Christian sera. He was the fourth, in order of birth, of seven brothers, and descended in a direct line, both on nis father’s and his mother’s side, though By different branches, from Zingis khan. His youth was marked by misfortunes, which contributed not a little to form his character, and to fit him for the government. of his states when he came to the sovereignty of the country of Kharasm, which happened in the year of the hegira 1054. He reigned 20 years; and, by his conduct and courage, rendered himself formidable to all his neighbours, A short time before his death, he resigned the throne to his son Anuscha Mohammed Bayatur khan, in order to devote the remainder of his life to the service of God. It was in his retreat that he wrote the famous “Genealogical History of the Tartar’s;” but, being attacked by the mortal disease that put an end to his life in the year 1074 of the hegira, corresponding to 1663 of our sera, before he could complete it, when dying he charged his son and successor to give it the finishing hand, which he did accordingly two years afterwards. As a specimen of the style and manner of this historian, the reader will not be displeased to see the preface to that work, which, in English, is as follows; “There is but one God; and before him none other did ever exist, as after him no other will be. He formed seven heavens, seven worlds, and eighteen creations. By him, Mohammed, the friend of God, was sent, in quality of his prophet, to all mankind. It is under his auspices that I, Abulgasi Bayatur khan, have taken in hand to write this book. My father, Ariep Mohammed khan, descended in a direct line from Zingis khan, and was, before me, sovereign prince of the country of Kharasm. I shall treat in this book of the house of Zingis khan, and of its origin; of the places where it was established, of the kingdoms and provinces it conquered, and to what it arrived at last. It is true that, before me, many writers, both Turks and Persians, have employed their pens on this subject; and! have in my own possession 18 books of these several authors, some of which are tolerably well composed. But, perceiving that there was much to correct in many places of these books, and, in other places, a number of things to be added, I thought it necessary to have a more accurate history: and, especially as our countries are very barren in learned writers, I find myself obliged to undertake this work myself; and, notwithstanding that, before me, no khan has thought proper to take this trouble upon him, the reader will do me the justice to be persuaded that it is not from a principle of vanity that I set up for an author, but that it is necessity alone that prompts me to meddle in this matter that, if I were desirous of glorying in any thing, it could, at most, be only in that conduct and wisdom which I hold as the gift of God, and not from myself. For, on one hand, I understand the art of war as well as any prince in the world, knowing how to give battle equally well with few troops as with numerous armies, and to range both my cavalry and my infantry to the best advantage. On the other hand, I have a particular talent at writing books in all sorts of languages, and I know not whether any one could easily be found of greater ability than myself in this species of literature, except, indeed, in the cities of Persia and India; but, in all the neighbouring provinces of which we have any knowledge, I may venture to flatter myself that there is nobody that surpasses me either in the art of war or in the science of good writing; and as to the countries that are unknown to me, I care nothing about them. Since the flight of our holy prophet, till the day that I began to write this book, there have elapsed 1074 years [1663 of the Christian aera]. I call it A Genealogical History of the Tartars; and I have divided it into nine parts, in conformity with other writers, who universally hold this number in particular regard.”

, or Habib Ebn Aws Al-Hareth Ebn Kais, an Arabian poet of great eminence in his time, was born in the 190th year of the hegira, or A. D. 805, at Jasem, a little town between Damascus and Tiberias. He was educated in Egypt, and died at Mawsel, in the year 845. His poems consist chiefly of eulogiums on several of the caliphs, who richly rewarded him. He collected his compositions into a volume, entitled, “Al Hamasah,” according to D'Herbelot; but, according to Dr. Pococke, this was a selection from the ancient Arabic poets made by him, and not his own compositions. He was long considered as the prince of Arabian poets, and none but Al Motanabbi disputed precedence with him. Bakhteri, another celebrated poet, candidly as well as critically said of him, “Such verses as are good in Abu Temam excel the best of mine; but such of mine as are bad, are mortt endurable than where he falls off.”

, one of the writers in the Byzantine history, was born at Constantinople in the year 1220, and brought up at the court of the emperor John Ducas, at Nice. He studied mathematics, poetry, and rhetoric under Theodorus Exapterygus, and learned logic of Nicephorus Blemmidas. In his one-and-twentieth year, he maintained a learned dispute with Nicholas the physician, concerning the eclipse of tLe sun, before the emperor John. He was at length appointed great logothete, and employed in the most important affairs of the empire. John Ducas sent him ambassador to Larissa, to establish a peace with Michael of Epirus. He was also constituted judge by this emperor, to try Michael Comnenus on a suspicion of being engaged in a conspiracy. Theodorus Lascaris, the son of John, whom he had taught logic, appointed him governor of all the western provinces of his empire. When he held this government, in the year 1255, being engaged in a war with Michael Angelus, he was taken prisoner by him. In 1260, he gained his liberty by means of the emperor Palasologus, who sent him ambassador to Constantine prince of Bulgaria. After his return, he applied himself wholly to the instruction of youth, in which employment he acquitted himself with great honour for many years; but being at last weary of the fatigue, he resigned it to Holobolus. In 1272, he sat as one of the judges upon the cause of John Vecchus, patriarch of Constantinople. The year following he was sent to pope Gregory, to settle a peace and re-union between the two churches, which was accordingly concluded; and he swore to it, in the emperor’s name, at the second council of Lyons, in 1274. He was sent ambassador to John prince of Bulgaria in 1382, and died soon after his return. His principal work is his “Historia Byzantina,” Gr. Lat. Paris, fol. 1651. This history, which he was well qualified to write, as he took an active part in public aifajrs, contains the history of about fifty-eight years; i.e. from 1203, when Baldwin, earl of Flanders, was crowned emperor, to 1261, when M. Palseologus put himself in the place of Baldwin II. A manuscript translation of it, by sir William Petty, was in Mr. Ames’s collection. The original was found in the east by Douza, and first published in 1614; but the Paris edition is superior, and now very scarce. His theological writings were never printed. His son Coustantine succeeded him as grand logothete, and was called by the Greeks, the younger Metaphrastes, from his having written the lives of some of the saints in the manner of Simeon Metaphrastes. There is little else in his history that is interesting.

, a French translator of some note, was born at Vendome in 1663, and after finishing his studies, entered into the service of the prince of Conti, who appointed him to be his secretary. He was elected into the French academy in 1723, in room of the abbe Fleury. He translated part of De Thou’s history, which has London on the title, but was printed at Paris, 1734, 16 vols, 4to. This he undertook with Charles Le Beau, the abbes Mascrier, Le Due, Fontaines, Prevost, and father Fabre. He translated also the memoirs of Montecuculli, Amsterdam, 1734, 12mo; an account of the cardinal Tournon; Atheneus; and other works. He died Nov. 12, 1735.

, of an ancient family in Dauphiny, and a bold and enterprising spirit, was born in 1513. After having served in the army with great distinction, he espoused the cause of the Huguenots from resentment to the duke of Guise in 1562. He took Valence, Vienne, Grenoble, and Lyons, but signalized himself less by his prowess and his activity than by his atrocious acts of vengeance. The Catholic writers say, that in regard to persons of their communion he was what Nero had been of old to the primitive Christians. He put his invention to the rack to find out the most fantastic punishments, and enjoyed the barbarous satisfaction of inflicting them on all that fell into his hands. At Montbrison and at Mornas, the soldiers that were made prisoners were obliged to throw themselves from the battlements upon the pikes of his people. Having reproached one of these wretches with having retreated twice from the leap without daring to take it: “Mons. le baron,” said the soldier, “with all your bravery, I defy you to take it in three.” The composed humour of the man saved his life. His conduct was far from being approved even by the most violent of Ins party; admiral Coligny and the prince of Conde were so shocked at his cruelties, that the government of Lyons was taken from him; and piqued at this, Des Adrets was upon the point of turning Catholic; but he was seized at Romans, and would have been brought to the scaffold, if the peace, just then concluded, had not saved him. He afterwards put his design in execution, and died despised and detested by both parties, Feb. 2, 1587. He left two sons and a daughter, who had no issue, gome time before his death, Des Adrets, being at Grenoble, where the duke de Mayenne then was, he wanted to revenge the affronts and threats that Pardaillan had given him on account of the murder of his father. He repeated several times, that he had quitted his solitude to convince all such as might complain of him, that his sword was not grown so rusty but that it could always right him. Pardaillan did not think himself obliged to take any notice of this bravado of a swordsman then in his 74th year: and Des Adrets went back again content with his rhodomontade. The ambassador of Savoy once meeting him on the high road alone, with only a stick in his hand, was surprised at seeing an old man, notorious for his barbarous executions, walking without a companion and quite defenceless, and asked him of his welfare. “I have nothing to say to you,” answered Des Adrets coldly, “unless it be to desire you to acquaint your master, that you met the baron des Adrets, his very humble servant, on the high road, with a white stick in his hand and without a sword, and that nobody said any thing to him.” One of the sons of the baron des Adrets was engaged in the massacre of St. Bartholomew. He had been page to the king, who ordered him one day to go and call his chancellor. The magistrate, who was then at table, having answered him, that as soon as he had dined he would go and receive the commands of his majesty “What!” said the page, “dare you delay a moment when the king commands Rise, and instantly be gone” Whereupon he took hold of the table-cloth by one corner, and drew the whole of the dinner down upon the floor. M. de la Place relates this anecdote (rather improbable it must be confessed) in his “Pieces interessantes,” torn. IV; and adds, that the story being told to Charles IX. by the chancellor, the monarch only laughed, and said “that the son would be as violent as the father.” To this day the name of Adrets is never pronounced in Dauphiny without horror. Such the story usually reported of this extraordinary character; but it is said that Maimbourg, Brantome, Moreri, and Daniel have given some exaggerated accounts of his cruelties. Thnanus has justified him from some of the accusations, and particularly in affair of Mornas, where he was not present.

, a Provencal gentleman and poet, of the twelfth century, died in 1181, leaving behind him the character of a man, learned, amiable, witty, and elegant in person and manners. He married Jausserande de Lunel, in praise of whom he wrote many verses, dedicated to Ildefonso, the first of the name, king of Arragon, prince of Provence, and count of Barcelona, in whose court he held the rank of first gentleman. He complained that in his time the passion of love was not properly understood, and therefore wrote a treatise or poem, entitled “La maniera d'Amar del temps passat.” In this he maintains, in a chain of reasoning, that no one can be happy unless he is a good man; that no one can be a good man unless he is in love; and that no man knows how to love who is not careful of his mistress’s honour. None of his writings have been published. The family of Agoult still exists in Dauphiny and Provence.

On Friday, October 22, 1714, he was appointed solicitorgeneral to his royal highness the prince of Wales, afterwards king George the Second; and on December 21, 1715, he was constituted solicitor-general to the king, in the room of Nicholas Lechmere, resigned; which arduous and important office he executed so much to the satisfaction of his majesty and the people, that he was thought deserving of a higher post; and accordingly, 24th January, 1716-7, Hilary term, the king appointed him one of the barons of the exchequer, in which court he succeeded sir Samuel Dodd, the late lord chief baron, deceased. In the office of solicitor-general he was himself succeeded by sir William Thompson the recorder of London. The reader is referred to the reports of the lord chief baron Comyns, and of the lord chief baron Gilbert, sir John Strange and Bunbury, for our baron’s resolutions and opinions while he sat in this court.

, an Arabic prince of Batan in Mesopotamia, was a celebrated astronomer, about the year 880, as appears by his observations. He is also called Muhammed ben Geber Albatani (Mahomet, the son of Geber) and Muhamedes Aractensis. He made astronomical observations at Antioch, and at Racah or Aracta, a town of Chaldea, which some authors call a town of Syria or of Mesopotamia. He is highly spoken of by Dr. Halley, as a man of great acuteness, and accuracy in making observations. Finding that the tables of Ptolemy were imperfect, he computed new ones, which were long used as the best among the Arabs: these were adapted to the meridian of Aracta or Racah. He composed in Arabic a work under the title of “The Science of the Stars,” comprizing all parts of astronomy, according to his own observations and those of Ptolemy. The original of this, which has never been published, is in the library of the Vatican. It was translated into Latin by Plato of Tibur, and was published at Nuremberg in 1537, with some additions and demonstrations of Regiomontanus; and the same was reprinted at Bologna in 1645, with this author’s notes. Dr. Halley detected many faults in these editions. (Philos. Trans, for 1693, No. 204.) In this work Albategni gives the motion of the sun’s apogee since Ptolemy’s time; as well as the motion of the stars, which he makes one degree in seventy years. He made the longitude of the first star of Aries to be 18 2‘; and the obliquity of the ecliptic 23 35’; and upon his observations were founded the Alphonsine tables of the moon’s motion.

, grandson of the constable de Luynes, was the ninth child of Louis-Charles, duke de Luynes, grand almoner of France. He was born in 1672, and had in his youth the title of the chevalier d‘Albert. In 1688, he served as a volunteer at the siege of Philipshurgh; in 1690 he was twice wounded in the battle of Fleurus; and in 1693, commanded the Dauphin regiment of dragoons at Steinkirk, where he was again wounded. In 1703, he accompanied marshal Villars into Bavaria, where the elector promoted him to the rank of lieutenant-general. He was then known by the title of count d’ Albert, and was successively chamberlain, master of the horse, minister, and colonel of the Bavarian guards. The elector having arrived at the throne in 1742, by the royal title of Charles VII. appointed count d' Albert field marshal, and sent him to France as ambassador extraordinary. The same year the emperor created him a prince of the holy Roman empire, by the title of prince of Grimberghen, taken from the rich domains he acquired by marrying a princess of Berghes. He died Nov. 10, 1758, aged eighty-seven. Amidst all his campaigns and political engagements, he cultivated a taste for literature. His works are “Le Songe d'AlcU biade,” a supposed translation from the Greek, Paris, 1735, 12mo, reprinted with “Timandre instruit par son genie,” and other pieces, published at Amsterdam, 1759, 12 mo, under the title “Recueil de differentes pieces de litterature.”

A consultation was then held among the Portuguese officers, when it was resolved to etttack some towns belonging to the prince of Repelsin, about twenty miles distant from Cochin. The Portuguese set out in boats, and surprised the towns, but were soon after attacked by a large army, and obliged to retreat. They returned to Cochin, and the same night made an attack on some other villages, when Alphonso being advanced with a fresh party, was attacked by some of the enemy who lay in ambush, and in this dangerous situation signalized himself by his courage, having fought with great intrepidity till break of day, when his brother Francis came to his assistance. The Portuguese then put the enemy to flight, pursued, and slew a great number of them. The fame of the Portuguese being spread everywhere, Alphonso Albuquerque sailed to Coulon to load three ships, which he completed without opposition, made an alliance with the people, and returned to Cochin. On his return, he found the Zamorin ready to enter into a treaty of peace with him, which was concluded. The two brothers soon after sailed to Cananor, and thence proceeded for Portugal. Alphonso arrived safe at Lisbon; but it is most probable Francis perished at sea, as he was never more heard of.

, or Abdelazyz, an Arabian astrologer, lived in the reign of Seif-Eddaulah, prince of the dynasty of the Hamdanites, or about the middle of the tenth century of the Christian sera. His reputation extended to Hurope, where John Hispalensis translated into Latin, about the twelfth or thirteenth century, his treatise “On judicial Astrology.” This was printed at Venice in 1503, 4to, under the title “Alchabitius cum commento,” and under the title a figure representing the circle and the armillary sphere. There is, however, an edition mentioned by Panzer of the date 1473, 4to, which is the most scarce and valuable. Bayle says that he wrote also a treatise on optics, which was found in a German convent.

, successively bishop of Rochester, Worcester, and Ely, in the latter end of the fifteenth century, was born at Beverley in Yorkshire, and educated at the University of Cambridge, where he took the degree of doctor of laws. In 146 1, he was collated to the church of St. Margaret’s, New Fish-street, London, by Thomas Kemp, bishop of that diocese, and in the same year was advanced to the deanry of St. Stephen’s college, Westminster. In 1462 he was appointed master of the rolls. Six years after, he obtained two prebends; one in the church of Sarum, and the other in that of St. Paul’s, London. In 1470, he was made a privy counsellor, and one of the ambassadors to the king of Castille; and next year, he was, together with others, a commissioner to treat with the commissioners of the king of Scotland. About the same time, he was appointed by Edward IV. to be of the privy council to his son Edward, prince of Wales, He was also in 1471 promoted to the bishopric of Rocheser; and in 1472, constituted lord high chancellor of England, in which office he does not appear to have continued longer than ten months. In 1476,. he was translated to jhe see of Worcester, and appointed lord president of Wales. During his being bishop of Worcester, he very elegantly enlarged the church of Westbury. He was in disgrace with the Protector Richard duke of York, and was removed from his office of preceptor to Edward V. on account of his attachment to that young prince. Soon after the accession of Henry VII. he had again, for a short time, the custody of the great seal. At length, in 1486, he was raised to the bishopric of Ely, and according to A. Wood, he was made president of the council of king Edward IV. in the same year, which is a palpable mistake, as Henry VII. came to the crown in 1485. Bishop Alcock, in 1488, preached a sermon at St. Mary’s church at Cambridge, which lasted from one o'clock in the afternoon till past three.

Such is the account that has been commonly given of this extraordinary man. We shall now advert to some circumstances upon which modern research has thrown a new light. All the accounts represent Aldhelm as having been a very considerable man for the time in which he lived. It is evident, says Dr, Henry, from his works, which are still extant, that he had read the most celebrated authors of Greece and Rome, and that he was no contemptible critic in the languages in which these authors wrote. In the different seminaries in which he was educated, he acquired such a stock of knowledge, and became so eminent for his literature, not only in England but in foreign countries, that he was resorted to by many persons from Scotland, Ireland, and France. Artville, a prince of Scotland, sent his works to Aldhelm to be examined by him, and entreated him to give them their last polish, by rubbing off their Scotch rust. Besides the instructions which Aldhelm received from Maildulphus, in France and Italy, he had part of his education, and as it would seem the most considerable part, at Canterbury, under Theodore, archbishop of that city, and Adrian, the most learned professor of the sciences, who had ever been in England. The ardour with which he prosecuted his studies at that place, is well represented in a letter written by him to Hedda, bishop of Winchester; which letter also gives a good account of the different branches of knowledge in the cultivation of which he was then engaged. These were, the Roman jurisprudence, the rules of verses ard the musical modulation of words and syllables, the doctrine of the seven divisions of poetry, arithmetic, astronomomy, and astrology. It is observable, that Aldhelm speaks in very pompous terms of arithmetic, as a high and difficult attainment: though it is now so generally taught, as not to be reckoned a part of a learned education. In opposition to what has been commonly understood, that Aldhelm was the first of the Saxons who taught his countrymen the art of Latin versification, Mr. Warton, in his History of Poetry, informs us, that Conringius, a very intelligent antiquary in this sort of literature, mentions an anonymous Latin poet, who wrote the life of Charlemagne in verse, and adds that he was the first of the Saxons that attempted to write Latin verse. But it ought to have been recollected, that Aldhelm died above thirty years before Charlemagne was born. Aldhelm’s Latin compositions, whether in prose or verse, as novelties, were deemed extraordinary performances, and excited the attention and adruiration of scholars in other countries. His skill in music has obtained for hhn a considerable place in sir John Hawkins’s History of Music.

, a Flemish Jesuit, born at Brussels the 22d of January 1592, was trained in polite literature in his own country. He went afterwards to Spain, and entered into the service of the duke of Ossuna, whom he attended to Sicily, when the duke went there as viceroy. Alegambe, being inclined to a religious life, took the habit of a Jesuit at Palermo, the 7th of September 1613, where he went through his probation, and read his course of philosophy. He pursued the study of divinity at Rome, whence he was sent to Austria, to teach philosophy in the university of Gratz. Havhig discharged th duties of this function to the satisfaction of his superiors, he was chosen professor of school-divinity, and promoted in form to the doctorship in 1629. About this time the prince of Eggemberg, who was in high favour with the emperor Ferdinand II. having resolved that his son should travel, and being desirous he should be attended by some learned and prudent Jesuit, Alegambe was judged a proper person; and he accordingly travelled with him five years, visiting Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. In 1638, the young prince with whom he travelled, being appointed by the emperor Ferdinand III. ambassador of obedience to the pope, invited Alegambe to go with him, who accordingly accompanied him to Rome, in quality of his confessor. After he had discharged this office, the general of the Jesuits retained him as secretary of the Latin dispatches for Germany. Alegambe, having spent four years in the discharge of this laborious office, was obliged to resign it, the continual application to writing having considerably weakened his sight. He was now appointed president of spiritual affairs in the professed house, and had the office also of hearing confessions in the church, in which capacity he acquitted himself with reputation. He died of the dropsy, at Rome, the 6th of September 1652. He is now principally known by hi 1. “Bibliotheca scriptorum societatis Jesu,” Antwerpise, 1643, fol. 2. “Vita P. Joannis Cardin. Lusitani, ex societate Jesu,” Romae, 1649, 12mo. 3. “Heroes et victims charitatis societatis Jesu,” Romse, 1658, 4to; continued by Nadasi from 1647 to 1657. These “victims” were such as lost their lives in attending persons who died of the plague. 4. “Mortes illustres et gesta eorum de societate Jesu, qui in odium fidei ab hsreticis vel aliis occisi sunt,” Romse, 1657, fol.

His first production of this kind, the tragedy of “Darius,” was printed at Edinburgh in 1603, 4to, and reprinted in 1604 with the tragedy of “Croesus,” and a. “Parsenesis to the Prince,” another piece in which he recommends the choice of patriotic, disinterested, and public-spirited counsellors. The prince intended to be thus instructed was Henry; but it is said to have been afterwards inscribed to Charles I. The dedication occurs in the folio edition of 1637 “To Prince Charles,” which, if a republication, may mean Charles I. but, if it then appeared for the first time, Charles II. Some of our author’s biographers have asserted that prince Henry died before the publication, which was the reason of its being inscribed to prince Charles, but Henry died in 1612, eight years after the appearance of the Paraenesis, and to a prince of his virtues it must have been highly acceptable. In this same volume Mr. Alexander published his “Aurora,” containing “the first fancies of his youth;” and in 1607, he reprinted “Croesus” and “Darius,” with the “Alexandraean Tragedy” and “Julius Caesar.” In 1612, he printed an “Elegy on the death of Prince Henry,” a poem of which no copy is known to exist except one in the university library of Edinburgh.

, a very eminent Arabian philosopher of the tenth century, was born at Farab, now Othrar, in Asia. Minor, from which he took the name by which he is generally known. His real name was Mohammed. He was of Turkish origin, but quitted his country to acquire a more perfect knowledge of the Arabic, and of the works of the Greek philosophers. He studied principally at Bagdat, under a celebrated Aristotelian professor, named Abou Bachar Mattey; and then went to Harran, where John, a Christian physician, taught logic. In a short time, he surpassed all his fellow-scholars; and after a visit to Egypt, settled at Damas, where the prince of that city, Seif-edDaulah, took him into his patronage, although it was with difficulty that he could persuade him to accept his favours. Alfarabi had no attachment but to study, and knew nothing of the manners of a court. When he presented himself, for the first time, before the prince, the latter, wishing to amuse himself at the expence of the philosopher, made known his intention to his guards in a foreign language, but was much surprised when Alfarabi told him that he knew what he said, and could, if necessary, speak to him in seventy other languages. The conversation then turning on the sciences in general, Alfarabi delivered his opinions with such learning and eloquence, that the men of letters present were completely put to silence, and began to write down what he said. He excelled likewise in music, and ingratiated himseif so with the prince, that he gave him a handsome pension, and Alfarabi remained with him until his death in the year 950. He wrote many treatises on different parts of the Aristotelian philosophy, which were read and admired, not only among the Arabians, but also among the Jews, who began about this time to adopt the Aristoteliaft mode of philosophizing. Many of his books were translated from Arabic into Hebrew, and it is by these versions principally that the Europeans have been made acquainted with his merit. His treatise “De Intelligentiis” was published in the works of Avicenna, Venice, 1495; another, “Dfc Causis,” is in Aristotle’s works, with the commentaries of Averroes; and his “Opuscula varia” were printed at Paris in 1638. One of his writings, which brought him much reputation, was a kind of encyclopaedia, in which he gives a short account and definition of all branches of science and art. The manuscript of this is in the Escurial.

, an eminent Italian poet of the last century, was born at Asti, in Piedmont, Jan. 17, 1749, of an ancient family, and sent for education to Turin, where he was principally under the care of the count Benoit Alfred, his father’s cousin. His progress, however, was for some time very slow, partly owing to bad health, and partly to temper; and when his tutor died, he left the academy at the age of sixteen, almost as ignorant as he entered it, and without having acquired a taste for any thingbut riding. His next passion was for travelling, in which he appeared to have no-other object than moving from one place to another. In less than two years he visited a great part of Italy, Paris, England, Holland, and returned to Piedmont, without having sought to know any thing, to study any thing, or to gratify any curiosity. His second tour was yet more extensive and more rapid: in eighteen months he travelled through Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Prussia, and returning through the Spa and Holland, went again to England. During this second visit to London, he engaged in affairs of gallantry, and discovered many oddities of behaviour, but in neither of his visits did he give himself the trouble to learn the language. After remaining in London seven months, he returned, with the utmost expedition, by Holland, France, Spain, and Portugal, and arrived at Turin, May 5, 1772. A violent attachment to a lady of quality of this place engrossed his mind for two years, but had the happy effect of first inspiring him with a taste for poetry and poetical composition. After some imperfect attempts, he wrote a sort of tragedy, called “Cleopatra,” which he procured to be acted at Turin, June 16, 1775, with a small piece “The Poets,” by way of farce, in which the author endeavoured to turn his own tragedy into ridicule. The success of these two pieces, although confined to only two representations, decided Alfieri to become an author, and proved the commencement of a new life. At this time, he knew French very imperfectly, scarcely any thing of Italian, and nothing of Latin. The French he determined to forget altogether, but to cultivate Italian and Latin, and study the best authors in both. The study, accordingly, of the Latin and the pure Tuscan languages, and of dramatic composition, upon a new plan of his own invention, occupied all his time, and gave employment to that activity and sprightliness of mind and fancy which had hitherto been dissipated on trifles. His first two tragedies were “Philip II.” and “Polinice;” and these were followed at short intervals, by “Antigone,” “Agamemnon,” &c. to the amount of fourteen, within less than seven years; and within the same space, he wrote several pieces in prose and verse, a translation of Sallust, “A Treatise on Tyranny,” “Etruria avenged,” in four cantos, and five “Odes” on the American revolution. He afterwards recommenced his travels, and added to his collection of tragedies, “Agis,” “Sophonisba,” “Brutus I.” “Brutus II.” and others. Although he had a dislike to France, he came thither to print his theatre, and with him the lady of his affections, the princess of Schomberg, the wife of the last prince of the house of Stuart, who, when set at liberty by the death of her husband, bestowed her hand on Alfieri. On his arrival in France, he found that nation ripe for a revolution, to the principles of which he was at first inclined, and expressed his opinion very freely in “Parigi Shastigliato,” an ode on the taking of the Bastille; but the horrors of revolutionary phrenzy which followed, induced him to disavow publicly the principles which he had professed, and he resolved to lose the property that he had acquired in France, rather than to appear to maintain them any longer. Accordingly he left France ia August 1792, and the following year, his property in the funds was confiscated, and his furniture, papers, and books sequestered and sold at Paris. In 1794, he published a declaration in the gazette of Tuscany, in which he avowed some of the works left behind him, and disavowed others which he thought might be found among his papers, or altered without his consent, and published as his. Among the latter was his “Etruria avenged,” and the “Treatise on Tyranny” above mentioned; but it is certain that he had caused an edition of these and some other pieces of the same stamp to be published at Kell, about the time he arrived in France, and now disavowed them merely because he had changed his opinions. From this time, ruminating on the unjust treatment he had received at Paris, he never ceased to express his contempt of the French nation in what he wrote, but he resumed his pen and his studies with more eagerness than ever. At the age of forty-eight he began the study of Greek, and continued it with his usual ardour, and the rest of his life was employed in making translations from that language, and in writing comedies, tragedies, and satires. His incessant labours at length brought on a complaint of which he died at Florence (where he had resided from the time of his leaving France), Oct. 8, 1803, and was interred in the church of St. Croix, where his widow erected a splendid monument to his memory, executed by Canova, between the tombs of Machiavel and Michael Angelo. The inscription was written by himself, and is as flattering as his life, written also by himself, and published at Paris, 1809, and in English at London, 1810, 2 vols. His posthumous works, in 13 volumes, were published in 1804, at Florence, although with London on the title: they consist of a number of translations, and some original dramas in a singular taste, and not very likely to be adopted as models. A French translation of his dramatic works was published at Paris, 1802, 4 vols. 8vo. Petitot, the translator, has added some judicious reflexions on the forms given to the Italian tragedy by Alfieri, and notwithstanding its weak parts, this collection is a mine which some new authors have frequently worked. His lofty expression, or attempt at expression, and his anxious search for forcible thoughts, sometimes render him obscure; and he appears to have encumbered his genius with more designs than it could execute. Of his personal character, various accounts have been given. In his “Life,” he is sufficiently favourable to himself; but there are few traits in his character that are not rather objects of warning than of imitation. From his youth he appears to have been the slave of passion and temper, averse to the restraints of a well-regulated mind, and consequently many of his opinions, whether good or bad, were hastily conceived, and hastily abandoned.

In this station, he manifested his equity and good administration of justice, improved the discipline of the mamalukes, and laid the foundation of his future greatness. Here he gained the favour of the pasha Rahiph, who, discovering his merit, became his protector. He remained several years in this station, until his patron Ibrahim was elected emir al hagi, or prince of the caravan, who took him with him to escort the pilgrims: in their march they were attacked by the Arabs; Ali fell upon them at the head of the mamalukes, repulsed the enemy, and killed a great number on the spot. On his return, several tribes being collected were determined to avenge their defeat: the young cachef gave them battle, and obtained a signal victory. Ibrahim did justice to the services of his lieutenant in full council, and proposed to create him a sangiak, which, after some opposition, was accomplished.

Become now one of the members of the republic, he never forgot his obligations to his patron. In 1758, the emir al hagi was murdered by the party of Ibrahim the Circassian. From this moment, All meditated vengeance he concealed his resentment, and employed all the resources of his mind to arrive at the post of scheik elbalad, the first dignity of the repuhlic. In 1763 he attained that post; and soon after revenged the blood of his patron, by sacrificing Ibrahim the Circassian with his own hand. This action raised him up numerous enemies; the sangiaks, attached to the party of the Circassian, conspired against him; he was on the point of being murdered, but saved himself by flight, and repaired to Jerusalem. Having gained the esteem of the governor of that city, he thought himself in safety; but his enemies, fearing him even in exile, wrote to the Porte to demand his death, and orders were immediately sent to the governor to strike off his head. Fortunately, Rahiph, his old friend, was one of the divan, and gave him notice to fly from Jerusalem: Ali therefore anticipated the arrival of the capigi bachi, and took refuge with scheik Daker, prince of St. John of Acre. This old man received him with open arms, was not long in discovering the merit of his new guest, and from that moment loaded him with caresses; he exhorted him to bear adversity with courage, flattered his hopes, soothed his sorrows, and made him taste of pleasures even in his disgrace. Ali Bey might have passed his days happily with scheik Daker; but ambition would not permit him to remain inactive; he carried on a secret correspondence with some of the sangiaks attached to his interest. The prince of Acre, on his part, wrote to his friends at Grand Cairo, and urged them to hasten the recal of the schiek elbalad. While this was going on, Rahiph, now grand vizir, procured him to be invited to return to Grand Cairo, and resume his dignity: he set off immediately, and was received with the acclamations of the people. On all sides the storm was gathering around him: all those who were offended at the murder of Ibrahim the Circassian, were constantly laying snares for him; they only waited a favourable opportunity: the death of Rahiph, which happened in 1763, furnished them with it; they threw off the mask, and declared openly against him. He escaped into Arabia Felix, visited the coasts of the Red Sea, and once more took refuge with the scheik of Acre, who received him with the same tenderness. Whilst he was there, the sangiaks of the party of the Circassian persecuted those who were devoted to the interests of Ali. This imprudence opened the eyes of the majority; they perceived that they were the dupes of a few ambitious men; and, to strengthen their party, recalled the scheik elbalad, and promised to support him with all their power: he set otf immediately. Ou his return to Grand Cairo, in 1766, All held a council: he represented to them that moderation had only excited the friends of Ibrahim to revenge, that nothing but flight would have saved him from their plots; and that to secure the common safety, these turbulent spirits must be sacrificed. The wholeassembly applauded this resolution, and the next day they took otf the heads of fottr of them. This execution insured the tranquillity of Ali: he saw himself at the head of the government, and, in the space of six years, raised sixteen of his mamalukes to the dignity of beys, and one of them to that of aga of the janisaries.

In 1768 the Russians declared war against the Porte: the scheik sent 12,000 men to serve in the Turkish army. Even this circumstance of duty was made use of to his disadvantage; and it was represented at Constantinople, that these troops were designed to serve in the Russian army: the calumny was credited, and a capigi, with four attendants, sent to take off his head. All had intelligence by his friends, and dispatched a confident, with 12 mamalukes, who seized the capigi and his attendants, took from them their order, and put them to death. The whole will shew us by how precarious a tenure life is held in the Ottoman empire. The scheik, possessed of this order, assembled the chiefs, and laid before them the despotism of the Ottoman court. This had the desired effect; sixteen of the beys exclaimed that war ought to be declared against the grand signior. The Turkish pasha was ordered to quit fcgypt, and the scheik secured the assistance of the prince of Acre.

, a celebrated physician and botanist, was born the 23d of November 1553, at; Marostica, in the republic of Venice. In his early years he was inclined to the profession of arms, and accordingly served in the Milanese; but being at length persuaded by his father, who was a physician, to apply himself to learning, he went to Padua, where in a little time he was chosen deputy to the rector, and syndic to the students, which offices he discharged with great prudence and address. This, however, did not hinder him from pursuing his study of physic, in which faculty he was created doctor in 1578. Nor did he remain long without practice, being soon after invited to Campo San Pietro, a little town in the territories of Padua. But such a situation was too confined for one of his extensive views; he was desirous of gaining a knowledge of exotic plants, and thought the best way to succeed in his inquiries, was, after Galen’s example, to visit the countries where they grow. He soon had an opportunity of gratifying his curiosity, as George Emo, or Hemi, being appointed consul for the republic of Venice in Egypt, chose him for his physician. They left Venice the 12th of September 1580; and, after a tedious and dangerous voyage, arrived at Grand Cairo the beginning of July the year following. Alpini continued three years in this country, where he omitted no opportunity of improving his knowledge in botany, travelling along the banks of the river Nile, and as far as Alexandria, and other parts of Egypt. Upon his return to Venice, in 1584, Andrea Doha, prince of Melfi, appointed him his physician; and he distinguished himself so much in this capacity, that he was esteemed the first physician of his age. The republic of Venice, displeased that a subject of theirs, of so much merit as Alpini, should continue at Genoa, when he might be of very great service and honour to their state, recalled him in 1593, to fill the professorship of botany at Padua, where he had a salary of 200 florins, afterwards raised to 750. He discharged this office with great reputation; but his health became very precarious, having been much injured by the voyages he had made. According to the registers of the university of Padua, he died the 5th of February 1617, in the 64th year of his age, and was buried the day after, without any funeral pomp, in the church of St. Anthony.

, an eminent German divine, was born at Embden, Feb. 17, 1583, of a family of considerable note in Friesland. His father, Menso Alting, was one of the first who preached the doctrines of the reformation in the territory of Groningen, about the year 1566, and under the tyrannical government of the duke of Alva. He faithfully served the church of Embden during the space of thirty-eight years, and died Oct. 7th, 1612. His sjn was from a child designed for the ministry, and sent very early to school, and afterwards into Germany in 1602. At Herborn he made such uncommon progress under the celebrated Piscator, Matthias, Martinius, &c. that he was allowed to teach philosophy and divinity. While preparing for his travels into Switzerland and France, he was chosen preceptor to three young counts, who studied at Sedan with the electoral prince Palatine, and took possession of that employment about September 1605; but the storm which the duke of Bomllon was threatened with by Henry IV. obliging the electoral prince to retire from Sedan with the three young noblemen, Alting accompanied them to Heidelberg. Here he continued to instruct his noble pupils, and was admitted to read lectures in geography and history to the electoral prince till 1608, when he was declared his preceptor. In this character he accompanied him to Sedan, and was afterwards one of those who were appointed to attend the young elector on his journey into England in 1612, where he became acquainted with Dr. Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. King, bishop of London, Dr. Hackwell, preceptor to the prince of Wales; and also had the honour of an audience of king James. The marriage between the elector and the princess of England being solemnized at London in Feb. 1613, Alting left England, and arrived at Heidelberg. In the ensuing August he was appointed professor of the common places of divinity, and to qualify himself for presiding in theological contests, he took the degree of D. D. In 1616 he had a troublesome office conferred upyn him, that of director of the collegium supientite of Heidelberg. In 1618 he was offered the second professorship of divinity, vacant by the death of Coppeniiis, which he refused, but procured it for Scultetus.

Amyraut was a man of such charity and compassion, that he bestowed on the poor his whole salary during the last ten years of his life, without distinction of 'saffholic or protestant. He died the 8th of February 1664, and was interred with the usual ceremonies of the academy. He left but one son, who was one of the ablest advocates of the parliament of Paris, but fled to the Hague after the revocation of the edict of Nantes: he had also a daughter, who died in 1645, a year and a half after she had been married. His works are chiefly theological, and very voluminous; but, notwithstanding his fame, few of them were printed a second time, and they are now therefore scarce, and perhaps we may add, not in much request. He published in 1631 his “Traite des Religions,” against those who think all religions indifferent, and five years after, six “Sermons upon the nature, extent, &c. of the Gospel,” and several others at different times. His book of the exaltation of Faith, and abasement of Reason, “De Pelevation de la foi, &c.” appeared in 1641; and the same year was published in Latin the “Defence of Calvin with regard to the doctrine of absolute reprobation,” which in 1644 appeared in French. He began his “Paraphrase on the Scripture” in 1644: the Epistle to the Romans was paraphrased the first; then the other Epistles; and lastly the Gospel but like Calvin, he did not meddle with the Revelations, nor did he prefix his name to his Paraphrases lest it should deter the Roman Catholics from perusing them. He pub^ lishedin 1647 an “Apology for the Protestants,” “A treatise of Free Will,” and another “De Secessione ab Ecclesia Romana, deque pace inter Evangelicos in negotio Religionis constituenda.” But he treated this subject of the re-union of the Calvinists and Lutherans more at length in his “Irenicon” published in 1662. His book of the “Vocation of Pastors” appeared in 1649. He had preached on this subject before the prince of Tarento, at the meetings of a provincial synod, of which he was moderator. The prince desired the sermon might be printed, and the subject treated more at length, it being then the common topic of all missionaries. Mr. Amyraut, therefore, not only printed his sermon, but published a complete treatise upon that important controversy, and dedicated them both to the said prince. His Christian Morals, “Morale Chre-= tienne,” in six vols. 8vo, the first of which was printed in 1652, were owing to the frequent conferences he had with Mr. de Villornoul, a gentleman of an extraordinary merit, and one of the most learned men of Europe, who was heir in this respect also to Mr. du Plessis Mornai his grandfather by the mother’s side. He published also a treatise of dreams, “Traité des Songes;” two volumes upon “the Millenium,” wherein he refutes an advocate of Paris, called Mr. de Launoi, who was a zealous Millenarian; the “Life of the brave la None, surnamed Iron-arm,” from 1560 to the time of his death in 1591, Leyden, 1661, 4to; and several other works, particularly a poem, entitled “The Apology of St. Stephen to his Judges.” This piece was attacked by the missionaries, who asserted that the author had spoke irreverently of the sacrament of the altar; but he published a pamphlet in which he defended himself with great ability.

, professor of history and Greek at Groningen, was born at Braunfels, in the county of Solras, August 10th, 1604. His father was minister to count de Solms-Braunfels, and Inspector of the churches which belong to that county, and his mother, daughter to John Piscator, a famous professor of divinity at Herborn, in the county of Nassau. He performed his humanity-studies at Herborn, and then studied philosophy at the same place, under Alstedius and Piscator, after which he went to Bremen, where he lived seven years. He was one of the most constant auditors of Gerard de Neuville, a physician and a philosopher; and, as he had a desire to attain a public professorship, he prepared himself for it by several lectures which he read in philosophy. He returned to his own country in 1628, where he did not continue long, but went to Groningen, on the invitation of his kind patron, Henry Alting. He read there, for some time, lectures upon all parts of philosophy, after which Alting made him tutor to his sons, and wheo they had no longer occasion for his instruction, he procured him the same employment with a prince Palatine, which lasted for three years; part of which he spent at Leyden, and part at the Hague, at the court of the prince of Orange. He was called to Groningen in 1634, to succeed Janus Gebhardus, who had been professor of history and Greek. He filled that chair with great assiduity and reputation till his death, which happened October 17, 1676. He was library -keeper to the university, and a great frierAi to Mr. Des Cartes, which he shewed both during the life and after the death of that illustrious philosopher. He married the daughter of a Swede, famous, among other things, for charity towards those who suffered for the sake of religion.

His first publication was a work of uncommon pleasantry and humour. It was entitled “Anecdotes ancient and modern, with observations,” 1789, 8vo, and a supplement to it, 1790. This went rapidly through several editions; prefixed is a portrait, bearing some resemblance to himself, of a man distilling anecdotes from an alembic. This was designed by Mr. Andrews, drawn by Grimm, and engraved by Macky. The volume is inscribed to his brother, sir Joseph Andrews, and he acknowledges having received assistance from Mr. Pye, the present laureat, captain Grose, and others. In the same year he is said, but we believe without authority, to have written a small pamphlet, entitled “Advice to the Prince of Wales.” His next work was entitled “The History of Great Britain, connected with the Chronology of Europe; with notes, &c. containing anecdotes of the times, lives of the learned, and specimens of their works, vol. I. from Caesar’s invasion to the deposition and death of Richard II.” 1794, 4to. In this work he proved himself a very accurate and industrious collector of facts, the result of a long course of diligent reading. Throughout the part of the work which is strictly historical, the histories of England and of the rest of Europe are carried on collaterally, a certain portion of the former being given in one page, and a corresponding portion of the latter on the opposite page. The English story is concisely told, with a careful attention to the insertion of minute circumstances. The corresponding page of general chronology is extended to comprehend the annals of every European state, but seldom wanders into other parts of the globe, except when led by circumstances closely connected with the affairs of Europe. In order to condense as much matter as possible into his volume, he carefully avoids unnecessary amplification, and expresses himself with a happy, yet forcible brevity. The notes contain a great variety of curious and amusing particulars not immediately connected with the main story. To the historical narrative are added, at proper intervals, appendixes of two kinds; the first, containing relations of such incidents as could not properly be thrown into the notes, and biographical sketches of distinguished British writers, with specimens of poetical productions; the second presenting an analysis of the times, under the respective heads of religion, government, manners, arts, sciences, language, commerce, &c. There arc other arrangements adopted by the author, which render the work not less useful for reference, than for continued reading. In 1795, he published a second volume, or rather a second part to vol. I. continuing his plan from “The deposition and death of Richard II. to the accession of Edward VI.” It is much to be regretted that he did not live to co nplete this plan. It may, indeed, be undertaken by another, but there is always a certain portion of enthusiasm in the original contriver of a scheme, which it is impossible to impart.

To begin the work, fire was put to the house next the toll-house for fruit, both which were burnt to the ground, with all the books and accounts, and goods and furniture. This done, every one shut up his shop, and, the numbers increasing, many thousand people uniting themselves went to other parts of the city, where all the other toll-houses were: them they plundered of all their writings and books, great quantities of money, with many rich moveables; all which they threw into a great fire of straw, and burnt to ashes in the streets. The people, meeting with no resistance, assumed more boldness, and made towards the palace of the viceroy. The first militia of Massaniello, consisting of 2000 boys, marched on, every one lifting up his cane with a piece of black cloth on the top, and with loud cries excited the compassion, and entreated the assistance of their fellow-citizens. Being come before the palace, they eried out that they would not be freed of the fruit-tax only, but of all others, especially that of corn. At last they entered the palace and rifled it, notwithstanding the resistance of the guards, whom they disarmed. The viceroy got into his coach to secure himself within the church or St. Lewis, but the people, spying him, stopped the coach, and with naked swords on each side of it threatened him, unless he would take off the taxes. With fair promises, and assurances of redress, and by throwing money among the multitude, which they were greedy to pick up, he got at last safe into the church, and ordered the doors to be shut. The people applied to the prince of Bisignano, who was much beloved by them, to be their defender and intercessor. He promised to obtain what they desired; but finding himself unable, after much labour and fatigue, to restrain their licentiousness, or quell their fury, he took the first opportunity of retiring from the popular tumult.

, a celebrated grammarian of Athens, flourished in the 169th Olympiad, or about 104 years before the Christian aera, under the reign of Plotemy Euergetes, king of Egypt. He was the son of Asclepiades, and the disciple of Aristarchus the grammarian, and of the philosopher Panaetius. He composed a very voluminous work on the origin of the gods, of which Harpocration has quoted the sixth book, Macrobius the fourteenth, and Hermolaus the seventeenth. Besides this work he wrote a “Chronicle,” a “Treatise on legislators,” another “on the philosophical sects,” and others which we find mentioned in the writings of the ancients. There is, however, only now extant, an abridgement of his book on the origin of the gods, Rome, 1555, and Antwerp, 1565, of which M. le Fevre of Saumur (Tanaquil Faber), published a Latin ' translation, under the title of “Apollodori Atheniensis bibliothecse, sive de Diis, libri tres,” Imperfect as this abridgement is, it is very useful in illustrating fabulous history. It commences with Inachus, and comes down to Theseus, prince of Athens, consequently comprising the space of 622 years, from A. M. 2177 to A. M. 2799. But we owe a very superior edition to the labours of that eminent classical scholar and critic, Heyne, who published in 1782, “Apollodori Atheniensis Bibliothecae Libri tres. Ad codd. Mss. fidem recensiti,” Gottingen, 8vo, and the following year, “Ad Apollodori Atheniensis Bibliothecam Notae, cum commentatione de Apollodoro argumento et consilio operis et cum Apollodori fragmentis,” ibid. 2 vols. 8vo. Four years before the first of these publications, Mr. Heyne gave a course of lectures on Apollodorus, which became very popular and interesting to young scholars. At the commencement of this undertaking, he found that the editions of Apollodorus were very scarce, and Gale’s, although the best, yet very inaccurate. He determined therefore to publish one himself, in executing which he was assisted by three manuscripts, one formerly belonging to Dorville, a second prepared for the press by Gerard James Vanswinden, and a third in the king’s library at Paris. None of his works do Heyne more credit, and his notes are highly valuable and entertaining to students of mythology.

, commonly called the lady Arabella, was so often talked of for a queen, that custom seems to have given her a right to an article in this manner under her Christian name, as that by which our historians distinguish her. She was the daughter of Charles Stuart, earl oY Lenox, who was younger brother to Henry lord Darnley, father to king James VI. of Scotland, and First of England, by Elizabeth, daughter of sir William Cavendisu, km. She was born, as near as can be computed, in 1577, and educated at London, under the eye of the eld countess of Lenox, her grand-mother. She was far from being either beautiful in her person, or from being distinguished by any extraordinary qualities of mind; and yet she met with many admirers, on account of her royal descent and near relation to the crown of England. Her father dviug in 1579, and leaving her thereby sole heiress, as some understood, of the house of Lenox, several matches were projected for her at home and abroad. Her cousin, king James, inclined to have married her to lord Esme Stuart, whom he had created duke of Lenox, and whom before his marriage he considered as his heir; but this match was prevented by queen Elizabeth, though it was certainly a very fit one in all respects. As the English succession was at this time very problematical, the great powers on the Continent speculated on many husbands for the lady Arabella, such as the duke of Savoy, a prince of the house of Farnese, and others. In the mean time, this lady had some thoughts of marrying herself at home, as Thuanus relates, to a son of the earl of Northumberland, but it is not credible that this took effect, though he says it did privately. The very attempt procured her queen Elizabeth’s displeasure, who confined her for it. In the mean time her title to the crown, such as it was, became the subject, amongst many others, of father Persons’ s famous book, wherein are all the arguments for and against her, and which served to divulge her name and descent all over Europe; and yet this book was not very favourable to her interest. On the death of the queen, some malcontents framed an odd design of disturbing the public peace, and amongst other branches of their dark scheme, one was to seize the lady Arabella, and to cover their proceedings by the sanction of her title, intending also to have married her to some English nobleman, the more to increase their interest, and the better to please the people. But this conspiracy was fatal to none but its authors, and those who conversed with them; being speedily defeated, many taken, and some executed. As for the lady Arabella, it does not appear that she had any knowledge of this engagement in her behalf, whatever it was; for domestic writers are perplexed, and foreign historians ruu into absurdities, when they endeadeavour to explain it. She continued at liberty, and in apparent favour at court, though her circumstances were narrow till the latter end of the year 1608, when by some means she drew upon her king James’s displeasure. However, at Christmas, when mirth and good-humour prevailed at court, she was again taken into favour, had a service of plate presented to her of the value of two hundred pounds, a thousand marks given her to pay her debts, and some addition made to her annual income. This seems to have been done, in order to have gained her to the interest of the court, and to put the notions of marriage she had entertained out of her head; all which, however, proved ineffectual; for in the beginning of the month of February 1609, she was detected in an intrigue with Mr. William Seymour, son to the lord Beauchamp, and grandson to the earl of Hertford, to whom, notwithstanding, she was. privately married some time afterwards. Upon this discovery, they were both carried before the council, and severely reprimanded, and then dismissed. In the summer of 1610, the marriage broke out, on which the lady was sent into close custody, at the house of sir Thomas Parry, in Lambeth; and Mr. Seymour was committed to the Tower for his contempt, in marrying a lady of the royal family without the king’s leave. It does not appear that this confinement was attended with any great severity to either; for the lady was allowed the use of sir Thomas Parry’s house and gardensj and the like gentleness, in regard to his high quality, was shewn to Mr. Seymour. Some intercourse they had by letters, which after a time was discovered, and a resolution taken thereupon to send the lady to Durham, a resolution which threw her into deep affliction. Upon this, by the interposition of friends, she and her husband concerted a scheme for their escape, which was successfully executed in the beginning, though it ended unluckily. The lady, under the care of sir James Crofts, was at the house of Mr. Conyers, at Highgate, from whence she was to have gone the next day to Durham, on which she put a fair countenance now, notwithstanding the trouble she had before shewn. This made her keepers the more easy, and gave her an opportunity of disguising herself, which she did on Monday the 3d of June, 1611, by drawing over her petticoats a pair of large French-fashioned hose, putting on a man’s doublet, a peruke which covered her hair, a hat, black cloak, russet boots with red tops, and a rapier by her side. Thus equipped, she walked out between three and four with Mr. Markham. They went a mile and half to a little inn, where a person attended with their horses. The lady, by that time she came thither, was so weak and faint, that the hostler, who held the stirrup when she mounted, said that gentleman would hardly hold out to London. Riding, however, so raised her spirits, that by the time she came to Blackwall, she was pretty well recovered. There they found waiting for them two men, a gentlewoman, and a chambermaid, with one boat full of Mr. Seymour’s and her trunks, and another boat for their persons, in which they hasted from thence towards Woolwich. Being come so far, they bade the watermen row on to Gravesend. There the poor fellows were desirous to land, but for a double freight were contented to go on to Lee, yet being almost tired by the way, they were forced to lie still at Tilbury, whilst the rowers went on shore to refresh themselves; then they proceeded to Lee, and by that time the day appeared, and they discovered a ship at anchor a mile beyond them, which was the French bark that waited for them. Here the lady would have lain at anchor, expecting Mr. Seymour, but through the importunity of her followers, they forthwith hoisted sail and put to sea. In the mean time Mr. Seymour, with a peruke and beard of black hair, and in a tawny cloth suit, walked alone without suspicion, from his lodging out at the great west door of the Tower, following a cart that had brought him billets. From thence he walked along by the Towerwharf, by the warders of the south gate, and so to the iron gate, where one Rodney was ready with a pair of oars to receive him. When they came to Lee, and found that the French ship was gone, the billows rising high, they hired a fisherman for twenty shillings, to put them on board a certain ship that they saw under sail. That ship they found not to be it they looked for, so they made forwards to the next under sail, which was a ship from Newcastle. This with much ado they hired for forty pounds, to carry them to Calais, and the master performed his bargain, by which means Mr. Seymour escaped, and continued in Flanders. On Tuesday in the afternoon, my lord treasurer being advertised that the lady Arabella had made an escape, sent immediately to the lieutenant of the Tower to set strict guard over Mr. Seymour, which he promised, after his yxrt manner, “he would thoroughly do, that he would;” but, coming to the prisoner’s lodgings-, he found, to his great amazement, that he was gone from thence one whole day before. A pink being dispatched from the Downs into Calais road, seized the French bark, and brought back the lady and those with her; but, before this was known, the proclamation issued for apprehending them. As soon as she was brought to town, she was, after examination, committed to the Tower, declaring that she was not so sorry for her own restraint, as she should be glad if Mr. Seymour escaped, for whose welfare, she affirmed, she was more concerned than for her own. Her aunt, the countess of Shrewsbury, was likewise committed, on suspicion of having prompted the lady Arabella, not only to her escape, but to other things, it being known that she had amassed upwards of twenty thousand pounds in ready money. The earl of Shrewsbury was confined to his house, and the old earl of Hertford sent for from his seat. By degrees things grew cooler, and though it was known that Mr. Seymour continued in the Netherlands, yet the court made no farther applications to the archduke about him. In the beginning of 1612, a new storm began to break out; for the lady Arabella, either pressed at an examination, or of her own free will, made some extraordinary discoveries, upon which some quick steps would have been taken, had it not shortly after appeared, that her misfortunes had turned her head, and that, consequently, no use could be made of her evidence. However, the countess of Shrewsbury, who before had leave to attend her husband in his sickness, was, very closely shut up, and the court was amused with abundance of strange stories, which wore out by degrees, and the poor lady Arabella languished in her confinement till the 27th of September, 1615, when her life and sorrows ended together. Even in her grave this poor lady was not at peace, a report being spread that she was poisoned, because she happened to die within two years of sir Thomas Overbury. Sir Bull. Whitlocke has put this circumstance in much too strong a light; for it was a suspicion at most, and never had the support of the least colour of proof. As for her husband, sir William Seymour, he soon after her decease, procured leave to return, distinguished himself by loyally adhering to the king during the civil wars, and, surviving to the time of the Restoration, was restored to his great-grandfather’s title of duke of Somerset, by an act of parliament, which entirely cancelled his attainder and on the giving his royal assent to this act, king Charles II. was pleased to say in full parliament, what perhaps was as honourable for the family as the title to which they are restored, flis words were these: “As this is an act of an extraordinary nature, so it is in favour of a person of no ordinary merit: he has deserved of my father, and of myself, as much as any subject possibly could do; and I hope this will stir no man’s envy, because in doing it I do no more than' what a good master should do for such a servant.” By his lady Arabella, this noble person had no issue: but that he still preserved a warm affection for her memory, appears from hence, that he called one of his daughters by his second wife, Frances, daughter and coheiress of Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, Arabella Seymour.

, one of the most celebrated mathematicians among the ancients, flourished about 250 years before Christ, being about 50 years later than Euclid. He was born at Syracuse in Sicily, and was related to Hiero, who was then king of that city. The mathematical genius of Archimedes placed him with such distinguished excellence in the view of the world, as rendered him both the honour of his own age, and the admiration of posterity. He was indeed the prince of the ancient mathematicians, being to them what Newton is to the moderns, to whom in his genius and character he bears a very near resemblance. He was frequently lost in a kind of reverie, so as to appear hardly sensible; he would study for days and nights together, neglecting his food; and Plutarch tells us that he used to be carried to the baths by force. Many particulars of his lire, and works, mathematical and mechanical, are recorded by several of the ancients, as Polybius, Livy, Plutarch, Pappus, &c. He was equally skilled in all the sciences, astronomy, geometry, mechanics, hydrostatics, optics, &c. in all of which he excelled, and made many and great inventions. Among others, he made a sphere of glass, of a most surprizing contrivance and workmanship, exhibiting the motions of the heavenly bodies. Claudian wrote an epigram on this invention.

Dr. Kurd (late bishop of Worcester) patronized his son (Dr. William Arnald), a fellow of St. John’s college, who, by his favour and recommendation, became sub-preceptor to the prince of Wales and duke of York in 1776, and afterwards canon of Windsor, and prsecentor of Lichfield. He died in 1802, after having been for twenty years confined through insanity. He was much respected by his friends before this awful visitation, and they paid him every affectionate attention which his situation could admit.

, brother of Robert and Anthony, was born at Paris in 1597. After the death of Gournay, bishop of Toul, the chapter of that city tin; mously elected the abbé Arnauld, then dean of that cathedral, his successor. The kinsr confirmed his nomination, at the entreaty of the famous capuchin, pere Joseph; but a dispute about the right of election prevented him from accepting it. In 1645, he was sent on an extraordinary embassy from France to Rome, for quieting the disputes that had arisen between the Barbarini and Innocent X. On his return to France he was made bishop of Angers in 1649. He never quitted his diocese but once, and that vas to give advice to the prince of Tarento, in order to a reconciliation with the duke de la Tremouille his father. The city of Angers having revolted in 1652, this prelate appeased the queen-mother, who was advancing with an army to take vengeance on it, by saying to her, as he administered the sacrament: “Take, madam, the body of him who forgave his enemies, as he was dying on the cross.” This sentiment was as much in his heart as it was on his lips. He was the father of the poor, and the comforter of the afflicted. His time was divided between prayer, reading, and the duties of his episcopal function. One of his intimates telling him that he ought to take one day in the week for some recreation from fatigue, “Yes,” said he, “that I will do with all my heart, if you will point me out one day in which I am not a bishop.” He died at Angers, June 8, 1692, at the age of 95. His negotiations at the court of Rome, and in various courts of Italy, were published at Paris in 5 vols, 12 mo. a long time after his death (in 1748). They are interspersed with, a great number of curious anecdotes and interesting particulars related in the style peculiar to all the Arnaulds.

To this character of Arne’s genius, which we were unwilling to interrupt by details of less importance, we may now add, that besides those mt niioued, he composed the opera of Eliza, Love in a Village, the masque of Britannia, the oratorios of the Death of Abel, Judith, and Beauty and Virtue; the musical entertainment of Thomas and Sally, the Prince of the Fairies, the songs in As You Like It, the Merchant of Venice, the Arcadian Nuptials, King Arthur, the Guardian Outwitted, the Rose, Caractacus, and Elfrida, besides innumerable instrumental pieces, songs, cantatas, &c. &c. The degree of doctor of music was conferred on Mr. Arne, by the university of Oxford in 1759. He died in the sixty-eighth year of his age, on March 5, 1778. He married, in 1736, Miss Cecilia Young, a pupil of Geminiani, and a favourite singer of those times. In his private character Dr. Arne was a man of pleasure, addicted to promiscuous gallantry, and so much a lover of gaiety and expensive enjoyments, that he left scarcely any property behind him.

, or Asser, or Asker (called, by Pitts, John,) a learned monk of St. David’s, and historian, was of British extraction, probably of that part of South Wales called Pembrokeshire, and was bred up in the learning of those times, in the monastery of St. David’s (in Latin Menevia), whence he derived his surname of Menevensis. There he is said to have had for his tutor Johannes Patricius, one of the most celebrated scholars of his age, and had also the countenance of Nobis, or Novis, archbishop of that see, who was his relation but it does not appear that he was either his secretary or his chancellor, as some writers would have us believe. From St. David’s he was invited to the court of Alfred the Great, merely from the reputation of his learning, probably about the year 880, or somewhat earlier. Those who had the charge of bringing him to court, conducted him from St. David’s to the town of Dene (Dean) in Wiltshire, where the king received him with great civility, and shewed him in a little time the strongest marks of favour and affection, insomuch that he condescended to persuade him not to think any more of returning to St. David’s, but rather to continue with him as his domestic chaplain and assistant in his studies. Asserius, however, modestly declined this proposal, alledging, that it did not become him to desert that holy place where he had been educated, and received the order of priesthood, for the sake of any other preferment. King Alfred then desired that he would divide his time between the court and the monastery, spending six months at court, and six at St. David’s. Asserius would not lightly comply even with this request, but desired leave to return to St. David’s, to ask the advice of his brethren, which he obtained, but in his journey falling ill at Winchester of a fever, he lay there sick about a year and as soon as he recovered he went to St. David’s, where, consulting with his brethren on the king’s proposal, they unanimously agreed that he should accept it, promising themselves great advantages from his favour with the king, of which, at that time, they appear to have had need, to relieve them from the oppressions of one Hemeid, a petty prince of South Wales. But they requested of Asserius, that he would prevail on the king to allow him to reside quarterly at court and at St. David’s, rather than that he should remain absent six months together. When he came back he found the king at Leoneforde, who received him with every mark of distinction. He remained with him then eight months at once, reading and explaining to him whatever books were in his library, and grew into so great credit with that generous prince, that on Christmas-eve following, he gave him the monasteries of Anigresbyri, and Banuwille, that is, Ambrosbury in Wiltshire, and Banwell in Somersetshire, with a silk pall of great value, and as much incense as a strong man could carry, sending together with them this compliment, “That these were but small things, and by way of earnest of better which should follow them.” Soon after, he had Exeter bestowed upon him, and not long after that, the bishopric of Sherburn, which, however, he seems to have quitted in the year 883, though he always retained the title, as Wilfred archbishop of York was constantly so styled, though he accepted of another bishopric. Thenceforward he constantly attended the court, in the manner before stipulated, and is named as a person, in whom he had particular confidence, by king Alfred, in his testament, which must have been written some time before the year 885; since mention is made there of Esna bishop of Hereford, who died that year. He is also mentioned by the king, in his prefatory epistle placed before his translation of Gregory’s Pastoral, addressed to Wulfsig bishop of London and there the king does not call him bishop of Sherburn, but “my bishop,” acknowledging the help received from him and others in that translation. It appears to have been the near resemblance, which the genius of Asserius bore to that of the king, that gained him so great a share in his confidence and very probably, it was on this account, that Asserius drew up those memoirs of the life of Alfred which we still have, and which he dedicated and presented to the king in the year 893. la this work we have a curious account of the manner in which that prince and our author spent their time together. Asserius tells us, that having one day, being the feast of St. Martin, cited in conversation a passage of some famous author, the king was mightily pleased with it, and would have him write it down in the margin of a book he carried in his breast; but Asserius finding no room to write it there, and yet being desirous to gratify his master, he asked king Alfred whether he should not provide a few leaves, in which to set dawn such remarkable things as occurred either in reading or conversation the king was delighted with this hint, and directed Asserius to put it immediately in execution. Pursuing this method constantly, their collection began to swell, till at length it became of the size of an ordinary Psalter and this was what the king called his “Hand-book, or Manual.” Asserius, however, calls it Enchiridion. In all probability, Asserius continued at court during the whole reign of Alfred, and, probably, several years after but where, or when he died is doubtful, though the Saxon Chronicle positively fixes it to the year 910. The editor of his life in the Biog. Brit, takes Asser the monk, and Asser bishop of Sherburnj for one and the same person, which some however have denied, and asserts him to have been also archbishop of Sk David’s, upon very plausible authority. He admits, however, i that if there was such a reader in the public schools at Oxford as Asser the monk, he must have been some other person of the same name, and not our author but this point rests almost wholly on the authority of Harpsfiekl nor is the account consistent with itself in several other respects,as sir John S'pelman has justly observed. There is no less controversy about the works of Asserius, than about his preferments for some alledge that he never wrote any thing but the Annals of king Alfred whereas, Pitts gives us the titles of no less than five other books of his writing, and adds, that he wrote many more. The first of these is a “Commentary on Boetius,” which is mentioned by Leland, on the authority of the Chronicle of St. Neot’s but he probably only explained this author to king Alfred when he made his Saxon translation. The second piece mentioned by Pitts, is the Anjials of Alfred’s life and reign. The third he styles “Annales Britannia;,” or the Annals of Britain, in one book, mentioned also by Leland and Bale, and which has been since published by the learned Dr. Gale. The fourth piece, he calls “Aurearum Sententiarum Enchiridion, lib. 1” which is without question the Manual or common-placebook made for king Alfred, and reckoned among his works by Pitts himself. Leland has also spoken of this Enchiridion, as an instance of the learning and diligence of Asser, which it certainly was and though the collections he made concerning this author, are much better and larger than those of Bale and Pitts, yet he modestly, upon this subject, apologizes for speaking so little and so obscurely of so great a man. The next in Pitts’ s catalogue, is a “Book of Homilies,” and the last, “A Book of Epistles” but the existence of these seems unsupported by any authority; nor is it known where he was interred. He appears to have been one of the most pious and learned prelates of the age in which he lived.

October 30, 1693, when the lord mayor of London elect was sworn in before sir Robert, in the exchequer, he made a famous speech, wherein, after drawing a terrible picture of the designs of Lewis XIV. and of the means employed to accomplish them, he has the following passage, which will assist our readers in judging of the baron’s character "There is one piece of policy of his, wherein he outdoeth all other princes whatsoever and that is, the great thing of maintaining and managing intelligence. He can tell when your merchant-ships set out, and by what time they shall return nay, perhaps, he does take upon him to know, by the help of some confederacy with him that is prince of the power of the air, that the wind shall not serve in such or such a corner till such a time he knoweth when our royal navy is to be divided, and when it is united.

, a military character, and a man of letters, was born at Bagnacvallo in the kingdom of Naples, about the year 1530, and accompanied the prince of Salerno, general to Charles V. in his expedition against Piedmont. He diverted the fatigues of his campaigns by the study of polite literature, and the cultivation of a poetical taste. His works were, “II Duello,” Venice, 1560, which is a history of celebrated duels, and the laws respecting that remnant of barbarity. “A Discourse on Honour,” 1562, and various poems which have been inserted in collections.

Many curious anecdotes are reported of his freedoms with the king. Before he returned to the court, he sent one of his pages to announce to the sovereign that he was upon the road. The king asked him from whence he came? The page said, “Yes, yes;” and to every question that was put to him, still returned “Yes, yes.” On the king’s asking him why he continued to answer his questions in that manner, he replied, “Sire, I said yes yes, because kings drive away from their presence all persons who will not make use of those words to every thing which their sovereigns require of them.” While equerry to the king, and lying one night with the Sieur de la Force in the guard chamber, he whispered in his companion’s ear, “Certainly our master is the most covetous, and most ungrateful mortal upon earth.” Receiving no answer, he repeated the accusation, but la Force, being scarcely awake, did not hear him distinctly, and asked, “What do you say, D'Aubigne?” “Cannot you hear him?” said the king, who was awake, “he tells you I am the most covetous and most ungrateful mortal on earth.” “Sleep on, sire,” replied D'Aubigne, “I have a good deal more to say yet.” The next day, Aubigne tells us in his memoirs, the king did not look unkindly on him, but still gave him nothing. After, however, sometimes pleasing and sometimes displeasing the king and court by these freedoms, he again found it necessary to retire, and passed the rest of his days at Geneva, where he died in 1630, in the 80th year of his age. It was here probably, where he was received with great respect and honour, that he employed his pen on those various works which entitle him to a distinguished place in the republic of letters. These were his universal history, entitled “Histoire Universelle depuis 1550 jusq'en 1601, avec un histoire abregée de la mort de Henry IV.” 3 vols. folio, printed at St. Jean d'Angeli, although the title page says Maille, 1616—18—20, and reprinted in 1626, with additions and corrections. The first edition is in most request by the curious, as having some strokes of satire in it which are omitted in the other. His style is not uniform, and he often departs from the dignity of history to indulge in a jocose garrulity, accompanied with impassioned coarse passages, which are, however, highly characteristic of the writer. The first volume was burnt by order of the parliament of Paris, on account of the freedoms he had taken with the royal personages, particularly Henry III. The first and second parts of this history, which contain the wars of the prince of Condé and of the admiral Coligny, the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and the first transactions of the League, are given rather in a succinct form, but the third, which continues the detail until the peace of Henry the Great, is the most full and most correct. He wrote also some “Tragedies,” 1616, 4to and 8vo; “A collection of Poetical pieces,” printed at Geneva, 1630, 8vo; a very satirical piece entitled “La Confession de Sancy;” and in 1731, was printed “Baron de Foeneste,” 12mo, said to be his, which is a more gross composition. In the same year his Memoirs, written by himself, were printed, and have been translated into English. His son, Constant D'Aubigne, a most profligate character, was the father of madame de Maintenon.

, Abou-Ali- Alhussein-Ben-Abdoullah, EfiN-SiNA, called Avicenes, the prince of Arabian philosophers and physicians, was born at Assena, a village in the neighbourhood of Bokhara in the year 980. His father was from Balkh in Persia, and had married at Bokhara. The first years of Avicenna were devoted to the study of the Koran, and the belles lettres, and so rapid was his progress that, when he was but ten years old, he was perfectly intelligent in the* most hidden senses of the Koran. Abou-Abdouliah, a uative of Napoulous in Syria, at that time professed philosophy at Bokhara with the greatest reputation. Avicenna studied under him the principles of logic but soon disgusted with the slow manner of the schools, he set about studying alone, and read all the authors that had written on philosophy, without any other help than that of their commentators. Mathematics likewise had great charms for him, and after reading the first six propositions of Euclid, he reached to the last, without a teacher, having made himself perfect master of them, and treasured up all of them equally in his memory.

Several great princes had been taken dangerously ill, and Avicenna was the only one who could know their ailments, and administer a remedy. His reputation consequently increased daily, and all the kings of Asia desired to retain him in their families. Mahmoud, the first sultan of the dynasty of Samanides, was then the most powerful prince of the east. Imagining that an implicit obedience was due by all to his will, he wrote a haughty letter to Mamoun, sultan of Kharism, ordering him to send Avicenna to him, who was at his court, with several other learned men but as Avicenna had himself been used to the most flattering distinctions, he resented this imperious command, and refused to go. The sultan of Kharism, however, obliged him to depart with the others who had been demanded.

, an eminent English admiral in the last century, descended from a very good family in Lincolnshire, and entered early into the sea-service, where he obtained the character of an able and experienced officer, and the honour of knighthood from king Charles I. This, however, did not hinder him from adhering to the parliament, when by a very singular intrigue he got possession of the fleet, and so zealous he was in the service of his masters, that when in 1648, the greatest part of the navy went over to the prince of Wales, he, who then commanded the Lion, secured that ship for the parliament, which was by them esteemed an action of great importance. As this was a sufficient proof of his fidelity, he had the command given him in a squadron, that was employed to watch the motions of the prince of Wales and accordingly sailed to the coast of Ireland, where he prevented his highness from landing, and drew many of the seamen to that service from which they had deserted. The parliament next year sent him with a considerable number of ships, and the title of admiral, to the coast of Ireland, which commission he discharged with such vigour, that the parliament continued him in his command for another year, and ordered an immediate provision to be made for the payment of his arrears, and presented him with one hundred pounds. After the war was finished in Ireland, sir George Ayscue had orders to sail with a small squadron, to reduce the island of Barbadoes but his orders were countermanded, as the parliament received information, that the Dutch were treating with sir John Grenville, in order to have the isles of Scilly put into their hands, and therefore it was thought necessary to reduce these islands first. Blake and Ayscue were employed in this expedition, in the spring of 1651, and performed it with honour and success, sir John Grenville entering into a treaty with them, who used him very honourably, and gave him fair conditions, after which Blake returned to England, and Ayscue proceeded on his voyage to Barbadoes. The parliament were at first pleased, but when the conditions were known, Blake and Ayscue were accused of being too liberal. Blake resented this, and threatened to lay down his commission, which he said he was sure Ayscue would also do. Upon this, the articles were honourably complied with, and sir George received orders to sail immediately to the West Indies. Sir George continued his voyage, and arrived at Barbadoes October 26, 1651. He then found his enterprize would be attended with great difficulties, and such as had not been foreseen at home. The lord Willoughby, of Parham, commanded there for the king, and had assembled a body of 5,Ooo men for the defence of the island. He was a nobleman of great parts and greater probity, one who had been extremely reverenced by the parliament, before he quitted their party, and was Dow extremely popular on the island. Sir George, however, shewed no signs of concern, but boldly forced his passage into the harbour, and made himself master of twelve sail of Dutch merchantmen that lay there, and next morning he sent a summons to the lord Willoughby, requiring him to submit to the authority of the parliament of England, to which his lordship answered, that he knew no such authority, that he had a commission from king Charles II. to be governor of that island, and that he would keep it for his majesty’s service at the hazard of his life. On this, sir George thought it not prudent to land the few troops he had, and thereby discover his weakness to so cautious an enemy. In the mean time, he receivect a letter by an advice-boat from England, with the news of the king’s being defeated at Worcester, and one intercepted from lady Willoughby, containing a very particular account of that unhappy affair. He now summoned lord Willoughby a second time, and accompanied his summons with lady Willoughby’s letter, but his lordship continued firm in his resolution. All this time, sir George anchored in Speights bay, and stayed there till December, when the Virginia merchant fleet arriving, he made as if they were a reinforcement that had been sent him, but in fact, he had not above 2000 men, and the sight of the little army on shore made him cautious of venturing his men, till he thought the inhabitants had conceived a great idea of his strength. The Virginia ships were welcomed at their coming in, as a supply of men of war, and he presently ordered his men on shore: 159 Scotch servants aboard that fleet, were added to a regiment of 700 men, and some seamen, to make their number look more formidable. One colonel Allen landed with them on the 17th of December, and found lord Willoughby’s forces well entrenched, near a fort they had upon the sea- coast. They attacked him, however, and, in a sharp dispute, wherein about sixty men were killed on both sides, had so much the advantage, that they drove them to the fort, notwithstanding that colonel Allen, their commander, was killed by a musket shot, as he attempted to land. After other attempts, sir George procured colonel Moddiford, who was one of the most leading men on the place, to enter into a treaty with him, and this negociation succeeded so well, that Moddiford declared publicly for a peace, and joined with sir George to bring lord Willoughby, the. governor, to reason, as they phrased it but lord Willoughby never would have consented if an accident had not happened, which put most of the gentlemen about him into such confusion, that he could no longer depend upon their advice or assistance. He had called together his officers, and while they were sitting in council, a cannon-ball beat open the door of the room, and took off the head of the centinel posted before it, which so frighted all the gentlemen of the island, that they not only compelled their governor to lay aside his former design, but to retire to a. place two miles farther from the harbour. Sir George Ayscue, taking advantage of this unexpected good fortune, immediately ordered all his forces on shore, as if he intended to have attacked them in their entrenchments, which struck such a terror into some of the principal persons about the governor, that, after rhature deliberation on his own circumstances, and their disposition, he began to alter his mind, and thereupon, to avoid the effusion of blood, both parties appointed commissaries to treat. Sir George named captain Peck, Mr. Searl, colonel Thomas Moddiforcl, and James Colliton, esq. the lord Willoughby, sir Richard Peers, Charles Pirn, esq. colonel Ellice, and major Byham, who on the 17th of January agreed on articles of rendition, which were alike comprehensive and honourable. The lord Willoughby had what he most desired, indemnity, and freedom of estate and person, upon which, soon after, he returned to England. The islands of Nevis, Antigua, and St. Christopher, were, by the same capitulation, surrendered to the parliament. After this, sir George, considering that he had fully executed his commission, returned with the squadron under his command to England, and arriving at Plymouth on the 25th of May, 1652, was received with all imaginable testimonies of joy and satisfaction by the people there, to whom he was well known before, as his late success also served not a little to raise and heighten his reputation. It was not long after his arrival, before he found himself again obliged to enter upon action for the Dutch war which broke out in his absence, was then become extremely warm, and he was forced to take a share in it, though his ships were so extremely foul, that they were much fitter to be laid up, than to be employed in any farther service. On the 21st of June, 1652, he came to Dover, with his squadron of eleven sail, and there joined his old friend admiral Blake, but Blake having received orders to sail northward, and destroy the Dutch herring fishery, sir George Ayscue was left to command the fleet in the Downs. Within a few days after Blake’s departure he took five sail of Dutch merchantmen, and had scarcely brought them in before he received advice that a fleet of forty sail had been seen not far from the coast, upon which he gave chace, fell in amongst them, took seven, sunk four, and ran twenty-four upon the French shore, all the rest being separated from their convoy. The Dutch admiral, Van Tromp, who was at sea- with a great fleet, having information of sir George Ayscue’s situation, resolved to take advantage of him, and with no“less than one hundred sail, clapped iji between him and the river, and resolved to surprize such ships as should attempt to go out or, if that design failed, to go in and sink sir George and his squadron. The English admiral soon discovered their intention, and causing a signal to be made from Dover castle, for all ships to keep to sea, he thereby defeated the first part of their project. However, Van Tromp attempted the second part of his scheme, in hopes of better success, and on the 8th of July, when it was ebb, be began to sail towards the English fleet but, the wind dying away, he was obliged to come to an anchor about a league off, in order to expect the next ebb. Sir George, in the mean time, caused a strong platform to be raised between Deal and Sandown castles, well furnished with artillery, so pointed, as to bear directly upon the Dutch as they came in the militia of the county of Kent were also ordered down to the sea-shore notwithstanding which preparation, the Dutch admiral did not recede from his point, but at the next ebb weighed anchor, and would have stood intothe port but the wind coming about south-west, and blowing directly in his teeth, constrained him to keep out, and being straightened for time, he was obliged to sail away, and leave sir George safe in the harbour, with the small squadron he commanded. He was soon after ordered to Plymouth, to bring in under his convoy five East- India ships, which he did in the latter end of July and in the first week of August, brought in four French and Dutch prizes, for which activity and vigilance in his command he was universally commended. In a few days after this, intelligence was received, that Van Tromp’s fleet was seen off the back of the isle of Wight, and it was thereupon resolved, that sir George with his fleet of forty men of war, most of them hired merchantmen, except flag ships, should stretch over to the coast of France to meet them. Accordingly, on the 16th of August, between one and two o'clock at noon, they got sight of the enemy, who quitted their merchantmen, being fifty in number. About four the fight began, the English Admiral with nine others charging through their fleet; his ships received most damage in the shrouds, masts, sails, and rigging, which was repaid the Dutch in their hulls. Sir George having thus passed through them, got the weather-gage, and charged them again, but all his fleet not coming up, and the night already entered, they parted with a drawn battle. Captain Peck, the rear-admiral, lost his leg, of which, soon after, he died. Several captains were wounded, but no ship lost. Of the Dutch, not one was said to be lost, though many were shot through and through, but so that they were able to proceed on their voyage, and anchored the next day after, being followed by the English to the isle of Bassa; but no farther attempt was made by our fleet, on account, as it was pretended, of the danger of the French coasts, from whence they returned to Plymouth- Sound to repair. The truth of the matter was, some of sir George’s captains were a little bashful in this affair, and the fleet was in so indifferent a condition, that it was absolutely necessary to refit before they proceeded again to action. He proceeded next to join Blake in the northern seas, where he continued during the best part of the month of September, and took several prizes and towards the latter end of that month he returned with general Blake into the Downs, with one hundred and twenty sail of men of war. On the 27th of that mojith a great Dutch fleet appeared, after which, Blake with his fleet sailed, and sir George Ayscue, pursuant to the orders he had received, returned to Chatham with his own ship, and sent the rest of his squadron into several ports to be careened. Towards the end of November, 1652, general Blake lying at the mouth of our river, began to think that the season of the year left no room to expect farther action, for which reason he detached twenty of his ships to bring up a fleet of colliers from Newcastle, twelve more he had sent to Plymouth, and our admiral, as before observed, with fifteen sail, had proceeded up the river in order to their being careened. Such was the situation of things, when Van Tromp appeared with a fleet of eighty- five sail. Upon this Blake sent for the most experienced officers on board his own ship, where, after a long consultation, it was agreed, that he should wait for, and fight the enemy, though he had but thirtyseven sail of men of war, and a few small ships. Accordingly, on the 29th of November, a general engagement ensued, which lasted with great fury from one in the afternoon till it was dark. Blake in the Triumph, with his seconds the Victory and the Vanguard, engaged for a considerable time near twenty sail of Dutch men of war, and they were in the utmost danger of being oppressed and destrdyed by so unequal a force. This, however, did not hinder Blake from forcing his way into a throng of enemies, to relieve the Garland and Bonadventure, in doing which he was attacked by many of their stoutest ships, which likewise boarded him, but after several times beating them off, he at last found an opportunity to rejoin his fleet. The loss sustained by the English consisted in five ships, either taken or sunk, and several others disabled. The Dutch confess, that one of their men of war was burnt towards the end of the fight, and the captain and most of his men drowned, and also that the ships of Tromp and Evertson were much disabled. At last, night having parted the two fleets, Blake supposing he had sufficiently secured the nation’s honour and his own, by waiting the attack of an enemy, so much superior, and seeing no prospect of advantage by renewing the fight, retired up the river but sir George Ayscue, who inclined to the bolder but less prudent counsel, was so disgusted at this retreat, that he laid down his commission. The services this great man had rendered his country, were none of them more acceptable to the parliament, than this act of laying down his command. They had long wished and waited for an opportunity of dismissing him from their service, and were therefore extremely pleased that he had saved them this trouble however, to shew their gratitude for past services, and to prevent his falling into absolute discontent, they voted him a present of three hundred pounds in money, and likewise bestowed upon him three hundred pounds per annum in Ireland. There is good reason to believe, that Cromwell and his faction were as well pleased with this gentleman’s quitting the sea-service for as they were then meditating, what they soon afterwards put in execution, the turning the parliament out of doors, it could not but be agreeable to them, to see an officer who had so great credit in the navy, and who was so generally esteemed by the nation, laid aside in such a manner, both as it gave them an opportunity of insinuating the ingratitude of that assembly to so worthy a person, and as it freed them from the apprehension of his disturbing their measures, in case he had continued in the fleet; which it is highly probable might have come to pass, considering that Blake was far enough from being of their party, and only submitted to serve the protector, because he saw no other way left to serve his country, and did not think he had interest enough to preserve the fleet, after the defection of the army, which perhaps might not have been the case, if sir George Ayscue had continued in his command. This is so much the more probable, as it is very certain that he never entered into the protector’s service, or shewed himself at all willing to concur in his measures though there is no doubt that Cromwell would have been extremely glad of so experienced an officer in his Spanish war. He retired after this to his country-seat in the county of Surrey, and lived there in great honour and splendor, visiting, and being visited by persons of the greatest distinction, both natives and foreigners, and passing in the general opinion of both, for one of the ablest sea-captains of that age. Yet there is some reason to believe that he had a particular correspondence with the protector’s second son, Henry; since there is still a letter in being from him to secretary Thurloe, which shews that he had very just notions of the worth of this gentleman, and of the expediency of consulting him in all such matters as had a relation to maritime power. The protector, towards the latter end of his life, began to grow dissatisfied with the Dutch, and resolved to destroy their system without entering immediately into a war with them. It was with this view, that he encouraged the Swedes to cultivate, with the utmost diligence, a maritime force, promising in due time to assist them with a sufficient number of able and experienced officers, and with an admiral to command them, who, in point of reputation, was not inferior to any then living. For this reason, he prevailed on sir George, by the intervention of the Swedish ambassador and of Whitelock, and sir George from that time began to entertain favourable thoughts of the design, and brought himself by degrees to think of accepting the offer made him, and of going over for that purpose to Sweden and although he had not absolutely complied during the life of the protector, he closed at last with the proposals made him from Sweden, and putting every thing in order for his journey, towards the latter end of the year 1658, and as soon as he had seen the officers embarked, and had dispatched some private business of his own, he prosecuted his voyage, though in the very depth of winter. This exposed him to great hardships, but on his arrival in Sweden, he was received with all imaginable demonstrations of civility and respect by the king, who might very probably have made good his promise, of promoting him to the rank of high-admiral of Sweden, if he had not been taken off by an unexpected death. This put an end to his hopes in that country, and disposed sir George Ayscue to return home, where a great change had been working in his absence, which was that of restoring king CharJes It. It does not at all appear, that sir George had any concern in this great affair but the contrary may be rather presumed, from his former attachment to the parliament, and his making it his choice to have remained in Sweden, if the death of the monarch, who invited him thither, had not prevented him. On his return, however, he not only submitted to the government then established, but gave the strongest assurances to the administration, that he should be at all times ready to serve the public, if ever there should be occasion, which was very kindly taken, and he had the honour to be” introduced to his majesty, and to kiss his hand. It was not long before he was called to the performance of his promise for the Dutch war breaking out in 1664, he was immediately put into commission by the direction of the duke of York, who then commanded the English fleet. In the spring of the year 1665, he hoisted his flag as rear-admiral of the blue, under the earl of Sandwich, and in the great battle that was fought the third of June in the same year, that squadron had the honour to break through the centre of the Dutch fleet, and thereby made way for one of the most glorious victories ever obtained by this nation at sea. For in this battle, the Dutch had ten of their largest ships sunk or burned, besides their admiral Opdam’s, that blew up in the midst of the engagement, by which the admiral himself, and upwards of five hundred men perished. Eighteen men of war were taken, four fire-ships destroyed, thirteen captains, and two thousand and fifty private men made prisoners and this with so inconsiderable loss, as that of one ship only, nnd three hundred private men. The fleet being again in a condition to put to sea, was ordered to rendezvous in Southwold-bay, from whence, to the number of sixty sail, they weighed on the fifth of July, and stood over for the coast of Holland. The standard was borne by the gallant earl of Sandwich, to whom was viceadmiral sir George Ayscue, and sir Thomas Tyddiman rear-admiral, sir William Perm was admiral of the white, sir William Berkley vice-admiral, and sir Joseph Jordan rear-admiral. The blue flag was carried by sir Thomas ^Vllen, whose vice and rear, were sir Christopher Minims, and sir John Harman. The design was, to intercept de Ruyter in his return, or, at least, to take and burn the Turkey and East-India fleets, of which they had certain intelligence, but they succeeded in neither of these schemes; de Ruyter arrived safely in Holland, and the Turkey and India fleets took shelter in the port of Bergen in Norway. The earl of Sandwich having detached sir Thomas Tyddiman to attack them there, returned home, and in his passage took eight Dutch men of war, which served as convoys to their East and West India fleets, and several merchantmen richly laden, which finished the triumphs of that year. ^The plain superiority of the English over the Dutch at sea, engaged the French, in order to keep up the war between the maritime powers, and make them do their business by destroying each other, to declare on the side of theweakest, as did the king of Denmark also, which, nevertheless, had no effect upon the English, who determined to carry on the war against the allies, with the same spirit they had done against the Dutch alone. In the spring, therefore, of the year 1666, the fleet was very early at sea, under the command of the joint admirals for a resolution having been taken at Court, not to expose the person of the duke of York any more, and the earl of Sandwich being then in Spain, with the character of ambassador-extraordinary, prince Rupert, and old general Monk, now duke of Albemarle, were appointed to command the fleet; having under them as gallant and prudent officers as ever distinguished themselves in the English navy, and, amongst these, sir William Berkley commanded the blue, and sir George Ayscue the white squadron. Prince Rupert, and the duke of Albemarle, went on board the fleet, the twenty-third of April, 1666, and sailed in the beginning of May. Towards the latter end of that month, the court was informed, that the French fleet, under the command of the duke of Beaufort, were coming out to the assistance of the Dutch, and upon receiving this news, the court sent orders to prince Rupert to sail with the white squadron, the admirals excepted, to look out and fight the French, which command that brave prince obeyed, but found it a mere bravado, intended to raise the courage of their new allies, and thereby bring them into the greater danger. At the same time prince Rupert sailed from the Downs, fthe Dutch put out to sea, the wind at north-east, and a fresh gale. This brought the Dutch fleet on the coast of Dunkirk, and carried his highness towards the Isle of Wight but the wind suddenly shifting to the south-west, and blowing hard, brought both the Dutch and the duke to an anchor. Captain Bacon, in the Bristol, first discovered the enemy, and by firing his guns, gave notice of it to the English fleet. Upon this a council of war was called, wherein it was resolved to fight the enemy, notwithstanding their great superiority. After the departure of prince Rupert, the duke had with him only the red and blue squadrons, making about sixty sail, whereas the Dutch fleet consisted of ninety-one men of war, carrying 4716 guns, and 22,460 men. It was the first of June when they were discerned, and the duke was so warm for engaging, that he attacked the enemy before they had time to weigh anchor, and, as de Ruyter himself says in his letter, they were obliged to cut their cables and in the same letter he owns, that to the last the English were the aggressors, notwithstanding their inferiority and other disadvantages. This day’s fight was very fierce and bloody for the Dutch, confiding in their numbers, pressed furiously upon the English fleet, while the English officers, being men of determined resolution, fought with such courage and constancy, that they not only repulsed the Dutch, but renewed the attack, and forced the enemy to maintain the fight longer than they were inclined to do, so that it was ten in the evening before their cannon were silent. The following night was spent in repairing the damages suffered on both sides, and next morning the fight was renewed by the English with fresh vigour. Admiral Van Tromp, with vice-admiral Vander Hulst, being on board one ship, rashly engaged among the English, and were in the utmost danger, either of being taken or burnt. The Dutch affairs, according to their own account, were now in a desperate condition but admiral de Ruyter at last disengaged them, though not till his ship was disabled, and vice-admiral Vander Hulst killed. This only changed the scene for de Ruyter was now as hard pushed as Tromp had been before; but a reinforcement arriving, preserved him also, and so the second day’s fight ended earlier than the first. The duke finding that the Dutch had received a reinforcement, and that his small fleet, on the contrary, was much weakened, through the damages sustained by some, and the Joss and absence of others of his ships, took, towards the evening, the resolution to retire, and endeavour to join prince Rupert, who was coming to his assistance. The retreat was performed in good order, twenty- six or twentyeight men of war that had suffered least, brought up the rear, interposing between the enemy and the disabled ships, three of which, being very much shattered, were burnt by the English themselves, and the men taken on board the other ships. The Dutch fleet followed, but at a distance. As they thus sailed on, it happened on the third day that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, who commanded the Royal Prince (being the largest and heaviest ship of the whole fleet) unfortunately struck upon the sand called the Galloper, where being threatened by the enemy’s fire-ships, and hopeless of assistance from his friends (whose timely return, the near approach of the enemy, and the contrary tide, had absolutely rendered impossible), he was forced to surrender. The Dutch admiral de Ruyter, in his letter to the States-general, says, in few words, that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, having run upon a sand -bank, fell into their hands, and that after taking out the commanders, and the men that were left, they set the s’mp on fire. But the large relation, collected by order of the States out of all the letters written to them upon that occasion, informs us, that sir George Ayscue, in the Royal Prince, ran upon the Galloper, an unhappy accident, says that relation, for an officer who had behaved very gallantly during the whole engagement, and who only retired in obedience to his admiral’s orders. The unfortunate admiral made signals for assistance but the English fleet continued their route so that he was left quite alone, and without hope of succour in which situation he was attacked by two Dutch fire-ships, by which, without doubt, he had been burnt, if lieutenant-admiral Tromp, who was on board the ship of rear-admiral Sweers, had not made a signal to call off the fire-ships, perceiving that his flag was already struck, and a signal made for quarter, upon which rear-admiral Sweers, by order of Tromp, went on board the English ship, and brought off sir George Ayscue, his officers, and some of his men, on board his own vessel, and the next morning sir George was sent to the Dutch coast, in order to go to the Hague in a galliot, by order of general de Ruyter. The English ship was afterwards got off the sands, notwithstanding which, general de Ruyter ordered the rest of the crew to be taken out, and the vessel set on fire, that his fleet might he the less embarrassed, which was accordingly done. But in the French relation, published by order of that court, we have another circumstance, which the Dutch have thought fit to omit, and it is this, that the crew gave np the ship against the admiral’s will, who had given orders /or setting her on fire. There were some circumstances which made the loss of this ship, in this manner, very disagreeable to the English court, and perhaps this may be the reason that so little is said of it in our own relations. In all probability general de Ruyter took the opportunity of sending sir George Ayscue to the Dutch coast the next morning, from an apprehension that he might be retaken in. the next day’s fight. On his arrival at the Hague he was very civilly treated but to raise the spirits of their people, and to make the most of this dubious kind of victory, the states ordered sir George to be carried as it were in triumph, through the several towns of Holland, and then confined him in the castle of Louvestein, so famous in the Dutch histories for having been the prison of some of their most eminent patriots, and from whence the party which opposed the prince of Orange were styled the Louvestein faction. As soon as sir George Ayscue came to this castle, he wrote a letter to king Charles II. to acquaint him with the condition he was in, which letter is still preserved in the life of the Dutch admiral, de Ruyter. How long he remained there, or whether he continued a prisoner to the end of the war, is uncertain, but it is said that he afterwards returned to England, and spent the remainder of his days in peace. Granger observes very justly, that it is scarcely possible to give a higher character of the courage of this brave admiral, than to say that he was a match for Van Tromp or de Ruyter.

, an eminent German musician, was born at Eisenach in 1685, and made such proficiency in his art that at the age of eighteen, he was appointed organist of the new church of Arnstadt. In 1708, he settled at Weimar, where he was appointed court musician and director of the duke’s concert, and in a trial of skill, he obtained a victory over the celebrated French organist, who had previously challenged and conquered all the organists of France and Italy. This happened at Dresden, to which Bach went on purpose to contend with this musical Goliath. He afterwards became master of the chapel to the prince of Anhalt Cotben, and to the duke of Weissenfels. As a performer on the organ, as well as a composer for that instrument, he long stood unrivalled. He died at Leipsic in 1754, and left four sons all eminent musicians, of whom some account is given by Dr. Burney in his History of Music, vol. IV. and in his Musical Tour in Germany.

Dr. Bagot was a man of great learning, an accomplished scholar, and of the most gentle and amiable manners. As a patron, he deserves much praise for bestowing the ample patronage of his see, with great disinterestedness and impartiality, among the learned and meritorious clergy of his diocese, acquainted with the language and manners of the district. His publications were not very numerous. In the “Pietas et Gratulatio Univ.Oxon. 1761,” on the accession, of his present majesty, are some English blank verses, by him and he also contributed some verses on his majesty’s marriage, and on the birth of the prince of Wales, all which are inserted in vol. VIII. of Nichols’s poems. In ]772, when the question of subscription to the thirty-nine articles was agitated, he published “A defence of subscription to the XXXIX Articles, as it is required in the university of Oxford.” This was anonymous, and occasioned by a pamphlet, also anonymous, entitled “Reflections on the impropriety and expediency of Lay Subscription in the university of Oxford.” In 1779 he preached and published the Radcliffe Infirmary sermon, and in 1730 his principal work appeared, “Twelve discourses on the Prophecies,” preached at the Warburtonian lecture in Lincoln’s Inn chapel. The earnestness with which he contends in these discourses for the essential doctrines of the church, was again apparent in his next publication, “A letter to the Rev. W, Bell, D. D.” on the subject of his late publications upon the authority, nature, and design of the Lord’s Supper,“1781, 8vo. In this Dr. Bagot objects to the Socinian tendency of Dr. Bell’s arguments and about the same time he reprinted, with a short preface, Dr. Isaac Barrow’s” Discourse on the doctrines of the Sacrament," which is now one of the tracts dispersed by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge. His other publications were, a sermon before the house of lords, Jan. 30, 1783 one for the Norwich hospital; and two others before the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, 17 88, and the Society for propagating the Gospel, 1790. A small pamphlet against the Anabaptists, and a charge delivered when bishop of Norwich, were printed by Dr. Bagot, but not generally published. In all his works he displays a fervent zeal for the principles of religion and of loyalty, joined with much knowledge of the true grounds of both nor will it be thought an objection of much consequence, that he did not stand high in the opinion of those who contended for such innovations as in his opinion endangered the whole fabric of church government and doctrine.

, founder of Balliol college in Oxford, was the son of Hugh de Balliol of Bernard’s castle in the diocese of Durham. He was a person very eminent for power and riches, being possessed of thirty knights’ fees, about 12,000l. a considerable estate in those times. But he received a great addition thereto, by his marriage with Dervorgille, one of the three daughters and coheiresses of Alan of Galloway (a great baron in Scotland), by Margaret the eldest sister of John Scott, the last earl of Chester, and one of the heirs to David, some time earl of Huntingdon. From 1248 to 1254 he was sheriff of the county of Cumberland and in 1248 was constituted governor of the castle of Carlisle. Upon the marriage of Margaret daughter of king Henry 111. to Alexander III. king of Scotland, the guardianship of them both, and of that kingdom, was committed to our sir John de Balliol, and to another lord but, about three years after, they were accused of abusing their trust, and the king inarched towards Scotland with an army, to chastise them. However, in consideration of the many important services performed, in the most difficult times, to K. John the king’s father, by Hugh, our John BallioPs father and especially by a sum of money, he soon made his peace. In the year 1258, he had orders to attend the king at Chester, with horse and arms, to oppose the incursions of Lhewelyn prince of Wales. And two years after, in recompence of his service to king Henry, as well in France as in England, he had a grant of two hundred marks for discharging which, the king gave him the wardship of William de Wassingle. In part of the years 1260, 1261> 1262, 1263, and 1264, he was sheriff for the counties of Nottingham and Derby; and in 1261, was appointed keeper of the honour of Peverell. In 1263, he began the foundation and endowment of Balliol college in Oxford > which was perfected afterwards by his widow. Duririg the contests and war between ^king Henry III. and his barons > he firmly adhered to the king on which account his lands were seized and detained by the barons, but restored again through one of his sons’ interposition. In 1264, he attended the king at the battle of Northampton, wherein the barons were defeated but, the year following, he was taken prisoner, with many others, after the king’s fatal overthrow at Lewes. It appears that he soon after made his escape^ and endeavoured to keep the northern parts of England in king Henry’s -obedience, and having obtained authority from prince Edward, he joined with other of the northern barons, and raised all the force he could to rescue the king from his confinement. He died a little before Whitsuntide, in the year 1269, or as Savage, the historian of Balliol college, thinks, in 1266; leaving, three sons behind him, Hugh, and Alexander, who both died without issue and John, afterwards chosen king of Scotland.

, a native of Edessa, a city in Syria, in the country of Mesopotamia, flourished in the second century. He is held up to us as a man of very acute genius, and acquired a shining reputation by his numerous writings. He first followed the doctrine of Valentine, and afterwards retracted from it. He gave rise to a considerable sect known in ecclesiastical history by the name of the Barclesanists. His sentiments were, that there is one supreme God, perfectly good and benevolent, who made the world and all its inhabitants in a state of perfection, all souls being clothed with bodies celestial and pure but the prince of darkness, having seduced men into sin, God permitted them to fall into gross bodies, formed of malignant and corrupt matter by the evil principle, and hence permitted the inward disorder of their breasts, as the punishment of their sin. At last, Jesus Christ, the son of God, descended to this world, clothed with an aerial body, and taught men how to subdue their bodies, and by abstinence, fasting, and contemplation, disentangle themselves from the dominion of malignant matter, that at death they may ascend to immortal happiness. His followers continued in these opinions for a considerable time He was a man of acute genius, and acquired great reputation by his writings, which were numerous and learned.

, dean of Canterbury, was the sixth son of Robert Bargrave, of Bridge, in Kent, esq. by Joan, the daughter or John Gilbert, of Sandwich, esq. and was born in 1586. He was entered early at Clare-hall, in Cambridge, of which society he was probably a fellow, where he took his degrees in arts. He was incorporated M. A. at Oxford, in 16*11, and in 1612 he undertook the office of taxor in the university of Cambridge. In March 1614-15, when king James visited Cambridge, Bargrave was one of those who performed a part in the celebrated comedy of “Ignoramus,” written by Ruggle, his fellowcollegian, in order to entertain his majesty. He was at this time a beneficed clergyman, having been inducted to the rectory of Eythorne, in Kent, in October preceding. He became soon afterwards minister of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, and chaplain to Charles prince of Wales, whom he served in the same quality after his accession to the throne. In his church of St. Margaret’s, he often preached before the house of commons, and with much approbation. In 1622, at which time he was D. D. he was promoted by the crown to the fifth prebend in the church of Canterbury. In Feb. 1623, in a sermon before the house of commons, he inveighed with honest warmth against the influence of popery, bad counsellors, and corruption, which displeased king James, but Charles I. soon after his accession, nominated him to the deanery of Canterbury. Other promotions followed, some of which he exchanged, and in 1629 he was commissioned by archbishop Abbot, together with archdeacon Kingsley, to enforce the instructions from the king concerning the regularity of lecturers in the diocese, and the due attendance at divine worship. When the rebellion broke out, he shared the sufferings of the rest of the loyal clergy, and, jn 1641 was fined a thousand pounds by the house of commons, for being a member of a convocation of the clergy in the preceding year. In 1642, when the parliamentary colonel Sandys came to Canterbury, he and his troops treated the dean and his family with the most brutal behaviour, without regard to age or sex his son was then sent prisoner to Dover, and himself to the Fleet prison, London. It does not appear, however, that the dean was either examined or called before the house, nor did his confinement last above three weeks, yet what he bad suffered so much affected him, that he died in January following, (1643). It is worthy of notice, although shocking to relate, that this Sandys owed his escape from an* ignominious death, when he was indicted at Maidstone for a rape, to the interest of dean Bargrave. The dean had been a great traveller, and his connexions ii> foreign countries were such as prove his discernment as well as testify his merit. He attended sir Henry Wotton in one of his embassies, as his chaplain, and sir Henry appointed him one of the supervisors of his will, with a legacy of books: during his residence at Venice, he enjoyed the intimate acquaintance of the celebrated father Paul, who once said to him that he thought the hierarchy of the church of England the most excellent piece of discipline in the whole Christian world. Bargrave was a firm defender of our civil and religious rights. He published only three sermons, printed at London in 1624 and 1627. He was interred in the dean’s chapel, Canterbury, and a monument was erected in the same place by Dr. John Bargrave, in 1679.

On 5th of March 1734-5, a motion was made by sir John Barnard, for leave to bring in a bill “For restraining the number of houses for playing of interludes, and for the better regulating common players of interludes.” In support of his motion, he represented the mischief that was done to the metropolis by the effect which the play-houses had in corrupting the youth, encouraging vice and debauchery, and prejudicing the spirit of industry and trade and he urged that these evils would be much increased, if, according to a project which was then set on foot, another play-house should be erected in the very heart of the city. He was seconded by Mr. Sandys, and was so ably sustained by Mr. Pulteney, sir Robert Walpole, sir Joseph Jekyll, sir Thomas Saunderson, and Mr. James Erskine, that it was ordered, nemine eontradicente, that a bill should be brought in, pursuant to sir John Barnard’s motion. This was accordingly done; but the affair was afterwards dropped, on account of a clause which was offered to be inserted in the bill, for enlarging the power of the lord chamberlain, with regard to the licensing of plays. At midsummer, 1735, sir John Barnard was chosen, together with his brother-inlaw, alderman Godschall, to the office of sheriff for the city of London and county of Middlesex. When, on the 2d of February, 1736-7, Mr. Pulteney moved in the house of commons for an address to his majesty, that he would graciously be pleased to settle 100,000l. a year upon his royal highness Frederick prince of Wales, sir John was one of the gentlemen who spoke in its favour.

In 1700, he married Mrs. Mason, a widow lady of Hemingford, near St. Ives, in Huntingdonshire, with a jointure of c200 per annum. The common report is, that this lady, who was between forty and fifty, having for some time been a great admirer of Mr. Barnes, came to Cambridge, and desired leave to settle an hundred pounds a year upon him after her death which he politely refused, unless she would condescend to make him happy in her person^ which was none of the most engaging. The lady was too obliging to refuse any thing to “Joshua, for whom,” she said, “the sun stood still” and soon after they were married. This jointure was probably a help to him, but he had no church preferment, and bore a considerable part in the printing of some of his works, particularly his Homer. It appears that he was much involved with the expence of this work, and wrote two supplicating letters on the subject to the earl of Oxford, which are now in the British Museum, and weiae copied some years ago, and printed in the St. James’s Chronicle by George Steevens, esq. What the effect of them was, we know not but it is said that he at one time generously refused c2000 a year which was offered to be settled upon him. Upon the same authority we are told that a copy of verses which he wrote to prove that Solomon was the author of the Iliad, was not so much from the persuasion of his own mind, as to amuse his wife and by that means engage her to supply him with money towards defraying the expences of the edition. On his monument is a Latin inscription, and some Greek anacreontics by Dr. Savage, rather extravagant, but composed by way of pleasantry, and which his widow requested might be inscribed. The English translation, often reprinted, is professedly burlesque but one curious-fact is recorded on this monument, that he “read a small English Bible one hundred and twenty-one times at his leisure,” which, Mr. Cole remarks, is but once more than the learned duke de Montausier had read the Greek Testament. In one of the above-mentioned letters to Harley, he says, “I have lived in the university above thirty years fellow of a college, now above forty years standing, and fifty-eight years of age am bachelor of divinity, and have preached before kings.” How Mr. Barnes was neglected in church preferment cannot now be ascertained, but it seems not improbable that he did not seek it, his whole life being spent in study, and his only wants, those which arose from the expense of his publications. His pursuits were classical, and although from his constant perusal of the Bible, we may infer his piety, we know little of him as a divine. The following is a Jist of Mr. Barnes’s works, published and unpublished; and from the latter, we may at least form a very high opinion of his industry. It is unnecessary, perhaps, to add that his editions of the classics are not now in the highest reputation. Their errors were pointed out in his life-time, and superior critics have in a great measure superseded the use of them. While at Christ-church he published, 1. "Sacred Poems, in five books, viz. I. Κοσμοποὖα, or the Creation of the World. II. The Fall of Adam and the Redemption by Christ. III. An Hymn to the Holy Trinity. IV. A Pastoral Eclogue upon the Restoration of King Charles II. and an Essay upon the Royal Exchange. V. Panegyris, or the Muses, &c.“These pieces are in English, with a Latin dedication, an. 1669. 2.” The Life of Oliver Cromwell, the Tyrant,“an English poem, 1670. 3. Several dramatic pieces, viz. Xerxes, Pythias and Damon, Holofernes, &c. some in English and some in Latin; the former written entirely by himself, the latter in conjunction with others. Also some tragedies of Seneca translated into English. 4.” Upon the Fire of London and the Plague,“a Latin poem in heroic verse. 5.” A Latin Elegy upon the beheading of St. John the Baptist.“He afterwards published, 6.” Gerania, or a new discovery of a little sort of people called Pigmies," 1655, 12mo. 7. Αυλιχοχάτοπτρον, sive Esthers Historia, Poetica Paraphrasi, idque Græco carmine, cui versio Latina opponitur, exornata; una cum Scholiis, seu Annotationibus Græcis; in quibus (ad sacri textus dilucidationem) præter alia non pauca, Gentium Orientalium Antiquitates, Moresque reconditiores proferuntur. Additur Parodia Homerica de eadem hac Historia. Accessit Index rerum ac verborum copiosissimus,“1679, 8vo. 8.” The History of that most victorious monarch Edward III. king of England and France, and lord of Ireland, and first founder of the most noble order of the Garter; being a full and exact account of the Life and Death of the said King; together with that of his most renowned son, Edward Prince of Wales and Acquitain, surnamed the Black Prince; faithfully and carefully collected from the best and most ancient authors domestic and foreign, printed books, manuscripts, and records,“Cambridge, 1688, fol. a very elaborate collection of facts, but strangely intermixed with long speeches from his own imagination, which he thought was imitating Thucydides. Of his judgment as an antiquary, it may be a sufficient specimen that he traced the institution of the order of the garter to the Phenicians, following his predecessor Aylet Sammes, who derives all our customs from the same ancient people. 9. His” Euripides,“1694, fol. 10.” His Anacreon,“1705 and 1721, 8vo, which he dedicated to the duke of Marlborough, who, it has been observed, knew nothing of Anacreon, or of Greek. 11. His Homer,” 2 vols. 1711, 4to. The verses he wrote proving that Solomon wrote the Iliad, are in ms. in the library of Emanuel college.

, the celebrated Dutch statesman, and one of the founders of the civil liberty of Holland, was born in 1547. His patriotic zeal inducing him to limit the authority of Maurice prince of Orange, the second stadtholder of Holland, the partisans of that prince falsely accused him of a design to deliver his country into the hands of the Spanish monarch. On this absurd charge he was tried by twenty-six commissaries, deputed from the seven provinces, condemned, and beheaded in 1619. His sons, William and Réné, with a view of revenging their father’s death, formed a conspiracy against the usurper, which was discovered. William fled; but Réné was taken and condemned to die; which fatal circumstance has immortalized the memory of his mother, of whom the following anecdote is recorded. She solicited a pardon for Réné, upon which Maurice expressed his surprise that she should do that for her son, which she had refused to do for her husband. To this remark she replied with indignation, “I would not ask a pardon for my husband, because he was innocent. I solicit it for my son, because he is guilty.”

, first lord viscount Harrington, a nobleman of considerable learning, and author of several books, was the youngest son of Benjamin Shute, merchant (youngest son of Francis Sbute, of Upton, in the county of Leicester, esq.) by a daughter of the Kev. Jos. Caryl, author of the commentary on Job. He was born at Theobalds in Hertfordshire, in 1678, and received part of his education at Utrecht, as appears from a Latin oration which he delivered at that university, and published there in 1698, in 4to, under the following title “Oratio de studio Philosophise conjungendo cum studio Juris Roman!; habita in inclyta Academia Trajectina Kalendis Junii, 1698, a Johanne Shute, Anglo, Ph. D. et L. A. M.” He published also three other academical exercises; viz. 1. “Exercitatio Physica, de Ventis,” Utrecht, 1696, 4to. 2. “Dissertatio Philosophica, de Theocratia morali,” Utrecht, 1697. 3, “Dissertatio Philosophica Inauguralis, de Theocratia civili,” Utrecht, 1697. The second of these tracts has been cited, with great commendation, by two eminent writers on the civil law, Cocceius and Heineccius. After his return to England, he applied himself to the study of the law in the Inner Temple. In 1701 he published, but without his name, “An essay upon the interest of England, in respect to Protestants dissenting from the Established Church,” 4to. This was reprinted two years after, with considerable alterations and enlargements, and with the title of “The interest of England considered,” &c. Some time after this he published another piece in. 4to, entitled “The rights of Protestant Dissenters,” in two parts. During the prosecution of his studies in the law, he was applied to by queen Anne’s whig ministry, at the instigation of lord Sorners, to engage the Presbyterians in Scotland to favour the important measure then in agitation, of an union of the two kingdoms. Flattered at the age of twenty-four, by an application which shewed the opinion entertained of his abilities, and influenced by the greatest lawyer and statesman of the age, he readily sacrificed the opening prospects of his profession, and undertook the arduous employment. The happy execution of it was rewarded, in 1708, by the place of commissioner of the customs, from which he was removed by the Tory administration in 1711, for his avowed opposition to their principles and conduct. How high Mr. Shute’s character stood in the estimation even of those who differed most widely from him in religious and political sentiments, apyears from the testimony borne to it by Dr. Swift, who writes thus to archbishop Kitig, in a letter dated London, Nov. 30, 1708. “One Mr. Shute is named for secretary to lord Wharton. He is a young man, but reckoned the shrewdest head in England, and the person in whom the Presbyterians chiefly confide; and if money be necessary towards the good work, it is reckoned he can command as far as 100,000l. from the body of the dissenters here. As to his principles, he is a moderate man, frequenting the church and the meeting indifferently.” In the reign of queen Anne, John Wildman, of Becket, in the county of Berks, esq. adopted him for his son, after the Roman custom, and settled his large estate upon him, though he was no relation, and said to have been but slightly acquainted with him. Some years after, he had another considerable estate left him by Francis Harrington, of Tofts, esq. who had married his tirst cousin, and died without issue. This occasioned him to procure an act of parliament, pursuant to the deed of settlement, to assume the name and bear the arms of Barrington. On the accession of king George he was chosen member of parliament for the town of Berwick-upon-Tvveed. July 5, 1717, he had a reversionary grant of the office of master of the rolls in Ireland, which. he surrendered Dec. 10, 1731. King George was also pleased, by privy seal, dated at St. James’s, June 10, and by patent at Dublin, July 1, 1720, to create him baron Barrington of Newcastle, and viscount Barrington of Ardglass. In 1722 he was again returned to parliament as member for the town of Berwick; but in 1723, the house of commons, taking into consideration the affair of the Harburgh lottery, a very severe and unmerited censure of expulsion was passed upon his lordship, as sub-governor of the Harburgh company, under the prince of Wales.

"It was, as I have been informed, part of the original scheme, that the expence of opening the port, which was computed at 100,000l. should be defrayed by the profits of a lottery, to be drawn at Harburgh. Accordingly, after the new charter was passed, his majesty, by warrant under his sign manual and the privy seal of the electorate, empowered and required the company to lay before him a scheme for the lottery, which they did; and sometime afterwards his majesty, by a second warrant under his sign manual and privy seal of the electorate, signed his approbation of the scheme, and empowered the company to proceed upon it, and to deliver out tickets here for the lottery, and he named trustees to manage and direct the drawing at Harburgh. Before the lottery was opened, lord Barrington, who was sub-governor of the company, (his royal highness the present prince of Wales being named governor) thought it necessary to procure a British charter of incorporation, and measures were taken for that purpose with the British ministers; for hitherto everything touching the company had been transacted with the German ministers.

, brother to the preceding, and fifth son of the first lord viscount Harrington, was born in 1729, and entered very young into the service of the British navy, passing through the inferior stations of midshipman and lieutenant with great reputation. He first went to sea in the Lark, under the command of lord George Graham, and in 1744, he was appointed a lieutenant by sir William Rowley, then commanding a squadron in the Mediterranean. In 1746, he had the rank of master and commander in the Weazcl sloop, in which he took a French privateer off Flushing. During the same year, or in 1747, he became post-captain, by being appointed totheBellona frigate (formerly a French privateer) in which he took the Duke de Chartres outward bound East India ship, of 800 tons, and of superior force, after a severe engagement, in which the French lost many killed and wounded. After the peace of 1748, he had the command of the Sea-horse, a twenty-gun ship in the Mediterranean, and while there, was dispatched from Gibraltar to Tetuan, to 'negociate the redemption of some British captives, in which he succeeded. He had afterwards the command of the Crown man of war, on the Jamaica station, and was in commission during the greater part of the peace. When the war broke out again between Great Britain and France, in 1756, he was appointed to the command of the Achilles of 60 guns. In 1759, he signalized his courage in an engagement with the Count de St. Florentin, French man of war, of equal force with the Achilles she fought for two hours, and had 116 men killed or wounded, all her masts shot away, and it was with difficulty she was got into port. The Achilles had twenty-five men killed or wounded. In the Achilles, captain Barrington was after this dispatched to America, from whence she returned about the close of the year 1760. In the Spring of the ensuing year, captain Barrington served under admiral Keppel, at the siege of Belleisle. To secure a landing for the troops, it became necessary to attack a fort and other works, in a sandy bay, intended to be the place of debarkation; three ships, one of which was the Achilles, were destined to this service. Captain Barrington got first to his station, and soon silenced the fire from the fort and from the shore, and cleared the coast for the landing the troops, and although, soon obliged to re-embark, they were well covered by the Achilles, and other ships. Ten days after the troops made good their landing, at a place where the mounting the rock was, as the commanders expressed it, barely possible, and captain Barrington was sent home with this agreeable news. After the peace of 1763, captain Barrington in 1768 commanded the Venus frigate, in which ship the late duke of Cumberland was entered as a midshipman. In her he sailed to the Mediterranean, and as these voyages are always intended both for pleasure and improvement, he visited the most celebrated posts in that sea. Soon after his return, the dispute between Great Britain and Spain, respecting Falkland’s Island, took place, and on the fitting out of the fleet, captain Barrington was appointed to the command of the Albion, of 74 guns, and soon after made colonel of marines. He found some little difficulty, from a scarcity of seamen, in manning his ship, and had recourse to a humourous experiment. He offered a bounty. for all lamp-­lighters, and men of other trades which require alertness, who would enter; and soon procured a crew, but of such a description that they were, for some time, distinguished by the title of Barrington‘ s blackguards. He soon, however, changed their complexion. He had long borne the character of being a thoroughrbred seaman, and a rigid disciplinarian. His officers under him were the same, and they succeeded in making the Albion one of the best disciplined ships in the royal navy. The convention between the two courts putting an end to all prospect of hostilities, the Albion was ordered, as a guardship, to Plymouth; and in this situation captain Barrington commanded her for three years, made himself universally esteemed, and shewed that he possessed those accomplishments which adorn the officer and the man. In the former capacity he had so completely established his character, as to be looked up to as one who, in case of any future war, would be intrusted with some important command. In the latter, the traits of benevolence which are known, exclusive of those which he was careful to keep secret, shew, that with the roughness of a seaman, he possessed the benevolence of a Christian. An economical style of living enabled him to indulge his inclination that way, with a moderate income. On the breaking out of the war with France, captain Barrington, having then been thirty-one years a post-captain in the navy, was promoted to the rank of rear-admiral, and dispatched with a squadron to the West Indies. He found himself, on his arrival, so much inferior to the enemy, that he could riot preserve Dominica from falling into their hands. However, before the French fleet under D’Estaing could reach the West Indies, he was joined at Barbadoes by the troops under general Grant from America. He then immediately steered for St. Lucia, and the British troops had gained possession of a part of the island, when the French fleet, under the command of count D‘Estaing, appeared in sight. ’ Barrington lay in the Grand Cul de Sac, with only three ships-of the line, three of fifty guns, and some-frigates, and with this force, had not only to defend himself against ten sail of the line, many frigates, and American armed ships, but also to protect a large fleet of transports, having on board provisions and stores for the army, and which there had not yet been time to land; so that the fate of the army depended on that of the fleet. During the night the admiral caused the transports to be warped into the bay, and moored the men of war in a line without them. D'Estaing, elated with the hopes of crushing this small naval force under Barrington, attacked him next morning, first with ten sail of the line, but failing, he made a second attack with his whole force, and was equally unsuccessful, being only able to carry off one single transport, which the English had not time to warp within the line. This defence is among the first naval atchievements of the war. In an attack by land, on general Meadows’s intrenchments, the count was equally repulsed, and the island soon after capitulated. Admiral Byron shortly after arriving in the West Indies, Barrington, of course, became second in command only. In the action which took place between the British fleet and the French on the 6th of July, 1775, admiral Barrington, in the Prince of Wales, commanded the van division. The enemy were much superior to the English, but this discovery was not made till it was too late to remedy it. Admiral Barrington, in the Prince of Wales, with the Boyne and Sultan, pressed forward, soon closed with the enemy’s fleet, and bravely sustained their attack until joined by other ships. It was not, however, the intention of the French admiral to risk a general engagement, having the conquest of Grenada in view, and his ships being cleaner than those of the English, enabled him to choose his distance. The consequence was, that several of the British ships were very severely handled, whilst others had no share in the action. Barrington was wounded, and had twenty-six men killed, and forty-six wounded, in his own ship. Soon after this engagement, admiral Barrington, on account of ill-health, returned to England. These two actions established our admiral’s reputation, and he was looked on as one of the first officers in the English navy. The ferment of parties during the close of that war occasioned many unexpected refusals of promotion; and as admiral Barrington was intimately connected with lord Shelburne, col. Barre, and several other leading men in opposition, it was probably owing to this circumstance that he refused the command of the channel fleet, which was offered to him after the resignation of admiral Geary in 1780, and on his declining to accept it, conferred on admiral Darby. In 1782, he served, as second in command, under lord Howe, and distinguished himself at the memorable relief of Gibraltar. The termination of the war put a period to his active services. In February 1786, he was made lieutenant-general of marines; and on Sept. 24, 1787, admiral of the blue. During the last ten years of his life, his ill state of health obliged him to decline all naval command. He died at his lodgings in the Abbey Green, Bath, August 16, 1800.

, a learned divine of the seventeenth century, was born in 1607, in the island of Jersey, according to Wood, which an annotator on the Biog. Britannica contradicts without informing us of the place of his nativity. Grey, in his ms notes, says he was born at Rouen, in Normandy, but quotes no authority, nor do we know in what school or university he received his education. For some time, he was master of the college or free-school at Guernsey, and became chaplain to Thomas Morton bishop of Durham, who gave him the rectory of Stanhope, and the vicarage of EgglesclifF, b.oth in the county of Durham. In July 1640, he had the degree of doctor of divinity conferred upon him at Cambridge, by mandate; and was incorporated in the same at Oxford, the November following, about which time he was made chaplain in ordinary to king Charles I.; Dec. 12, 1643, he was installed into the seventh prebend of Durham, to which he was collated by his generous patron bishop Morton. The next year, August 24, he was also collated to the archdeaconry of Northumberland, with the rectory of Howiek annexed. But he did not long enjoy these great preferments, as in the beginning of the civil wars, being sequestered and plundered, he repaired to king Charles at Oxford, before whom, and his parliament, he frequently preached. In 1646, he had a licence granted him under the public seal of the university, to preach the word of God throughout England. Upon the surrender of the Oxford garrison to the parliament, he resolved with all the zeal of a missionary to propagate the doctrine of the EngJish church in the East, among the Greeks, Arabians, &c. Leaving therefore his family in England, he went first to Zante, an island near the Morea, where he made some stay; and had good success in spreading among the Greek inhabitants the doctrine of the English church, the substance of which he imparted to several of them, in a vulgar Greek translation of our church-catechism. The success of this attempt was so remarkable, that it drew persecution upon him from the Latins, as they are called, or those members of the Romish church, throughout the East, who perform their service in Latin. On this he went into the Morea, where the metropolitan of Achaia prevailed upon him to preach twice in Greek, at a meeting of some of his bishops and clergy, which was well received. At his departure, he left with him a copy of the catechism above mentioned. From thence, after he had passed through Apulia, Naples, and Sicily again (in which last, at Messina, he officiated for some weeks on board a ship) he embarked for Syria; and, after some months stay at Aleppo, where he had frequent conversation with the patriarch of Antioch, then resident there, he left a copy of our church-catechism, translated into Arabic, the native language of that place. From Aleppo he went in 1652 to Jerusalem, and so travelled over all Palestine. At Jerusalem he received much honour, both from the Greek Christians and Latins. The Greek patriarch (the better to express his desire of communion with the church of England, declared by the doctor to him) gave him his bull, or patriarchal seal, in a blank, which is their way of credence, and shewed him other instances of respect, while the Latins received him courteously into their convent, though he did openly profess himself a priest of the church of England. After some disputes about the validity of our English ordinations, they procured him entrance into the temple of the sepulchre, at the rate of a priest, that is half of the sum paid by a layman; and, at his departure from Jerusalem, the pope’s vicar gave him his diploma in parchment, under his own hand and public seal, styling him, a priest of the church of England, and doctor of divinity, which title occasioned some surprise, especially to the French ambassador at Constantinople. Returning to Aleppo, he passed over the Euphrates and went into Mesopotamia, where he intended to send the church-catechism in Turkish, to some of their bishops, who were mostly Armenians. This Turkish translation was procured by the care of sir Thomas Bendyshe, the English ambassador at Constantinople. After his return from Mesopotamia, he wintered at Aleppo, where he received several courtesies from the consul, Mr. Henry Riley. In the beginning of 1653, he departed from Aleppo, and came to Constantinople by land, being six hundred miles, without any person with him, that could speak any of the European languages. Yet, by the help of some Arabic he had picked up at Aleppo, he performed that journey in the company of twenty Turks, who used him courteously, because he acted as physician to them and their friends: a study (as he says) to which the iniquity of the times and the opportunity of Padua drove him. After his arrival at Constantinople, the French Protestants there desired him to be their minister, and though he declared to them his resolution to officiate according to the English liturgy (a translation whereof, for want of a printed copy, cost him no little labour) yet they orderly submitted to it, and promised to settle on him, in three responsible men’s hands, a competent stipend: and all this, as they told him, with the express consent of the French ambassador, but still under the roof and protection of the English ambassador. Before he quitted the Eastern parts, he intended to pass into Egypt, in order to take a survey of the churches of the Cophties, and confer with the patriarch of Alexandria, as he had done already with the other three patriarchs, partly to acquire the knowledge of those churches, and partly to publish and give them a true notion of the church of England; but whether he accomplished his design, is not certain. He went next into Transilvania, where he was entertained for seven years by George Ragotzi the Second, prince of that country; who honoured him with the divinity-chair in his new founded university of Alba Julia (or Weissenburg) and endowed him, though a mere stranger to him, with a very ample salary. During his travels he collated the several confessions of faith of the different sorts of Christians, Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites, Maronites, &c. which he kept by him in their own languages. His constant design and endeavour, whilst he remained in the East, was, to persuade the Christians of the several denominations there, to a canonical reformation of some errors; and to dispose and incline them to a communion or unity with the church of England, but his pious intentions were afterwards defeated by the artifices of court of France. Upon the restoration of king Charles II. Dr. Easier was recalled by his majesty to England, in a letter written to prince Ragotzi. But this unfortunate prince dying 'soon after, of the wounds he received in a battle with the Turks at Gyala, the care of his solemn obsequies was committed to the doctor by his relict, princess Sophia, and he was detained a year longer from England. At length returning in 1661 9 he was restored to his preferments and dignities; and made chaplain in ordinary to king Charles II. After quietly enjoying his large revenues for several years, he died on the 12th of Oct. 1676, in the 69th year of his age-, and was buried in the yard belonging to the cathedral of Durham, where a tomb was erected over his grave, with an inscription. His character appears to have been that of a learned, active, and industrious man; a zealous supporter of the church of England; and a loyal subject. His son, John Basire, esq. who had been receiver general for the four western counties, died ou the 2d of June 1722, in the 77th year of his age.

The principal circumstances of his private life are as follow: In 1704, he married Catherine, daughter of sir Peter Apsley, son and heir of sir Allen aforesaid by whom he had four sons and five daughters. In 1742, he was made one of the privy council. In 1757, upon a change in the ministry, he was constituted treasurer to the present king, then prince of Wales, and continued in that office till the death of George II. At his majesty’s accession, in 1760, he was constituted privy counsellor; but, on account of his age, declined all employments: he had, however, a pension of 2000/, per annum. “I have attended parliament,” says he to Swift, “many years, and have never found that I could do any good; I have, therefore, determined to look to my own affairs a little:” and it has been said, we believe justly, that no person of rank ever knew better how to unite otium cum dignitate. To uncommon abilities he added many virtues, integrity, humanity, generosity: and to these virtues, good breeding, politeness, and elegance. His wit, taste, and learning connected him with all persons eminent in this way, with Pope, Swift, Addison, &c. and from the few letters of his which are published among Swift’s, his correspondence must have been a real pleasure to those by whom it was enjoyed. He preserved, to the close of his life, his natural cheerfulness and vivacity: he delighted in rural amusements, and enjoyed with philosophic calmness the shade of the lofty trees himself had planted. Till within a month of his death, he constantly rode out on horseback two hours in the morning, and drank his bottle of wine after dinner. He used jocosely to declare, that he never could think of adopting Dr. Cadogan’s regimen, as Dr. Cheyne had assured him fifty years before, that he would not live seven years longer, unless he abridged himself of his wine.

He was admitted advocate at the Hague, the 5th of Jarmary 1587; but being soon tired of the bar, went to France, where he remained ten years, and was much esteemed, acquiring both friends and patrons. Achilles de Harlai, first president of the parliament of Paris, got him to be admitted advocate of the parliament of Paris in 1592. In 1602, he went to England with Christopher de Harlai, the presidents son, who was sent ambassador thither by Henry the Great; and the same year, having been named professor of eloquence at Leyden, he settled in that university. He read lectures on history after the death of Morula, and was permitted also to do the same on the civil Jaw. In 1611, the states conferred upon him the office of historiographer in. conjunction with Meursius and in consequence thereof he wrote “The history of the Truce.” Baudius is an elegant prose-writer, as appears from his “Letters,” many of which were published after his death. He was also an excellent Latin poet: the first edition of his poems. was printed in 1587; they consist of verses of all the different measures: he published separately a book of iambics in 1591, dedicated to cardinal Bourbon. Some of his poems he dedicated to the king of England; others to the prince of Wales, in the edition of 1607, and went over to England to present them, where great respect was paid to him by several persons of rank and learning.

, or Belus, who was the eldest sou of Robert Beale, a descendant from the family of Beale, of Woodbridge, in Suffolk, appears to have been educated to the profession of the civil and canon law. He was an exile on account of religion, in queen Mary’s days, but some time after his return, married Editha, daughter of Henry St. Barbe, of Somersetshire, and sister to the lady of sir Francis Walsingham, under whose patronage he first appeared at court. In 1571 he was secretary to sir Francis when sent ambassador to France, and himself was sent in the same character, in 1576, to the prince of Orange. Heylin and Fuller inform us that he was a great favourer of the Puritans, and wrote in defence of their principles. About the year 1564 he wrote in defence of the validity of the marriage between the earl of Hertford and lady Catherine Grey, and against the sentence of the delegates, which sentence was also opposed by the civilians of Spire, and of Paris, whom Beale had consulted. Strype, in his life of Parker, mentions his “Discourse concerning the Parisian massacre by way of letter to the lord Burghley.” His most considerable work, however, is a collection of some of the Spanish historians, under the title “Rerum Hispanicarum Scriptores,” Francf. 1579, 2 vdls. fol. He was by the interest of Walsingham appointed secretary for the northern parts, and a clerk of the privy council. Camden seems to think that his attachment to Puritanism made him be chosen to convey to Fotheringay the warrant for heheading Mary queen of Scots, which he read on the scaffold, and was a witness of its execution. He was also one of the commissioners at the treaty of Bologne, the year before his death, which event happened May 25, 1601, at Barnes, in Surrey. He was interred in the parish church of Allhallows, London Wall.

He now cultivated literature in peace, and settled himself in the comforts of domestic life by marrying the daughter of M. Lavaisse, an advocate of great practice at Thoulouse. A lady of the court called him to Paris about the year 1772, and wished to fix him there, by procuring him the place of librarian to the king; but he did not long enjoy this* promotion; a dropsy in the chest proved fatal the following yean. He left a son and a daughter. His works are: 1. “A Defence of Montesquieu’s ' Esprit des Loix,” against the author of the “Nouvelles Ecclesiastiques,” which is inferior to that which the president de Montesquieu published himself, but for which that writer expressed his thanks. 2. “Mes Pense*es, ou, Le Qu'en dira-t-on?” 1751, 12mo; a book which has not kept up its reputation, though containing a great deal of wit; but the author in his politics is often wide of the truth, and allows himself too decisive a style in literature and morals. The passage in this book which embroiled him with Voltaire is this: “There have been better poets than Voltaire; but none have been ever so well rewarded. The king of Prussia heaps his bounty on men of talents exactly from the same motives as induce a petty prince of Germany to heap his bounty on a buffoon or a dwarf.” 3. “The <f Memoirs of Madame de Maintenon,” 1756, 6 vols. 12mo. which were followed by 9 vols. of letters. In this work many facts are given on conjecture, and others disfigured; nor is Madame de Maintenon made to think and speak as she either thought or spoke. The style has neither the propriety nor the dignity that is proper to history, but the author occasionally writes with great animation and energy, discovering at times the precision and the force of Tacitus, of whose annals he left a translation in manuscript. He had bestowed much study on that philosophic historian, and sometimes is successful in the imitation of his manner. 4. “Letters to M. de Voltaire,” 1761, 12mo, containing sarcastic remarks on Voltaire’s “Age of Louis XIV.” Voltaire refuted these remarks in a pamphlet entitled “Supplement to the age of Louis XIV.” in which he shews it to be an odious thing to seize upon a work on purpose to disfigure it. La Beaumelle in 1754 gave out an “Answer to this Supplement,” which he re-produced in 1761, under the title of “Letters.” To this Voltaire made no reply; but shortly after stigmatized it in company with several others, in his infamous poem the “Pucelle,” where he describes la Beaumelle as mistaking the pockets of other men for his own. The writer, thus treated, endeavoured to cancel the calumny by a decree of the parliament of Thoulouse but other affairs prevented him from pursuing this. Voltaire, however, had some opinion of his talents; and the writer of this article has seen a letter of his in which he says’: “Ce pendard a bien de Pesprit.” “The rascal has a good deal of wit.” La Beaumelle, on the other hand, said: “Personne n'ecrit mieux que Voltaire.” “No one writes better than Voltaire.” Yet these mutual acknowledgments of merit did not prevent their passing a considerable part of their life in mutual abuse. The abb Irail informs us, that la Beaumelle being one day asked why he was continually attacking Voltaire in his books “Because,” returned he, “he never spares me in his and my books sell the better for it.” It is said, however, that la Beaumelle would have left off writing against the author of the Henriade; and even would have been reconciled with him, had he not imagined that it would be impossible to disarm his wrath, and therefore he preferred war to an insecure peace. 5. “Penses de Seneque,” in Latin and French, in 12mo, after the manner of the “Pensees de Ciceron,” by the abbe d'Olivet, whom he has rather imitated than equalled. 6. “Commentaire sur la Henriade,” Paris, 1775, 2 vols. 8vo. Justice and taste are sometimes discernible in this performance, but too much severity and too many minute remarks. 7. A manuscript translation of the Odes of Horace. 8. “Miscellanies,” also in ms. among which are some striking pieces. The author had a natural bent towards satire. His temper was frank and honest, but ardent and restless. Though his conversation was instructive, it had not that liveliness which we perceive in his writings.

In 1693, on the death of John-George II. prince of Anhalt-Dessau, he pronounced a funeral oration, which was printed at Berlin, 1695, 4tp, in the form of a “Sermon Funcbrc,” the subject of which (John xvii. 3.) was pointed out by the prince himself. After residing eight years at Dessau, Beausobre, in 1694, removed to Berlin, where the refugees for the cause of religion, many of them his particular friends, had formed an asylum, and where he might enjoy the menus of educating his family. Here he passed the rest of his life, and exercised his ministry for the space of forty-six years, not only as one of the pastors appointed to supply the churches of the French refugees, but as chaplain to their majesties, an office he had the honour to fill until the death of the queen Sophia-Charlotte. He was besides, counsellor of the royal consistory, inspector of the French college, and a year before his death was appointed inspector of the French churches in Berlin, and of the other churches comprised within the inspection of that city. As every church had its separate pastor, Basnage belonged first to that of Ville-Neuve, but on the death of his friend Mr. Lenfant in 1728, he succeeded him in the church of Werder, where he officiated through the remainder of his life.

As soon as Beausobre became settled at Berlin, he resumed his favourite studies, and particularly his “History of the Reformation,” which he carried down to the Augsburgh confession, and left it in manuscript. In this state it remained until 1784, when it was published at Berlin in 4 vols. 8v6. Its principal object is the origin and progress, of Lutheranism, in treating of which the author has availed himself of Seckendorfl’s history, but has added many vainable materials. It contains also very curious and ample details relative to the progress of the reformation in France and Swisserland; but it nevertheless is not free from objections, both on the score of impartiality and accuracy. In the mean time, the Prussian court having desired M. Beausobre and his friend M. Lenfant to prepare a translation of the New Testament, they shared the labour between them, M. Lenfant taking the Evangelists, Acts, Catholic epistles, and the Apocalypse, and M. Beausobre the epistles of St. Paul. The whole was published in 2 vols. 4to, Amst. 1718, with prefaces, notes, c. A second edition appeared in 1741, with considerable additions and corrections. Their “Introduction” was published separately at Cambridge (translated into English) in 1779; and Dr. Watson, bishop of Llandaff, who inserted it in the third volume of his “Theological Tracts,” pronounces it a work of extraordinary merit, the authors Laving left scarcely any togic untouched, on which the voting student in divinity may he supposed to wunt information. Their only opponent, at the time of publication, was a Mr. Dartis, formerly a minister at Berlin, from which he had retired, and who published a pamphlet, to which Beausobre and Lenfant made separate replies. Beausobre was one of the principal members of a society of literary men of Berlin, who called them the “Anonymi,” and this connection led 'him to be a contributor to the “Bibliothcque Gcrmanique,” of which he was editor from vol. IV. to the time of his death, excepting vol. XL. One of the pieces he wrote for this journal was translated into English, and published at London, 1735, 8vo, under the title of “St. Jatzko, or a commentary on a passage in the plea for the Jesuits of Thorn”. But his most celebrated work was his “Histoire critique de Mauicheisme,” Amst. 1734, 1739, 2 vols. 4to. Of the merit of this work it may, perhaps, be sufficient to give the opinion of a man of no religion, Gibbon, who says that “it is a treasure of ancient philosophy and theology. The learned historian spins, with incomparable art, the systematic thread of opinion, and transforms himself by turns into the person of a saint, a sage, or an heretic. Yet his refinement is sometimes excessive: he betrays an amiable partiality in favour of the weaker side, and while he guards against calumny, he does not allow sufficient scope for superstition and fanaticism,” things, or rather words, which Gibbon js accustomed to use without much meaning. The journalists of Trevoux having attacked this work, gave Mr. IjJeausobre an opportunity of showing his superiority in ecclesiastical history, by an answer published in the BibL Germanique, which perhaps is too long. He wrote also a curious preface to the “Memoirs of Frederick-Henry, prince of Orange,” Amst. 1733. These are all the works which appeared in the life-time of our author, but he left a great many manuscripts, dissertations on points of ecclesiastical history, and sermons, none of which, we believe, have been published, except the “History of the Reformation,” already noticed. M. Beausobre reached the period of old age, without experiencing much of its influence. He preached at the age of eighty with vigour and spirit. His last illness appears to have come on in October 1737, and although it had many favourable intermissions, he died June 5, 1738, in the full possession of his faculties and recollection, and universally regretted by his Hock, as well as by the literary world. The most remarkable encomium bestowed on him, is that of the prince, afterwards Frederick king of Prussia, in a letter to Voltaire, published in the works of the latter. “We are -about to lose one of the greatest men of Germany. This is the famous M. de Beausobre, a man of honour and probity, of great genius, a taste exquisite and delicate, a great orator, learned in the history of the church and in general literature, an implacable enemy of the Jesuits, the best writer in Berlin, a man full of fire and vivacity, which eighty years of life have not chilled; has a little of the weakness of superstition, a fault common enowgh with people of his stamp, and is conscious enough of his abilities to be affected by applause. This loss is irreparable. We have no one who can replace M. de Beausobre; men of merit are rare, and when nature sows them they do not always come to maturity.” The applause of such a man as Beausobre, from Frederick of Prussia to Voltaire, is a curiosity.

, bishop of Kilmore in Ireland, and one of the most pious and exemplary prelates of the seventeenth century, was descended from a good family, and born in the year 1570, at Black Notley in Essex, and being designed for the church, was sent to Emanuel college in Cambridge, where he was matriculated pensioner, March 12, 1584. He was placed under the care of Dr. Cbadderton, who was for many years head of that house, made great progress in his studies, and went early into holy orders. In 1593 he was chosen fellow of his college, and in 1599 took his degree of bachelor in divinity. He then removed from the university to St. Ednmndsbury in Suffolk, where he had a church, aud by an assiduous application to the duties of his function, was much noticed by many gentlemen who lived near that place. He continued there for some years, till an opportunity offered of his going as chaplain with sir Henry Wotton, whom king James had appointed his ambassador to the state of Venice, about the year 1604. While he resided in that city, he became intimately acquainted with the famous father Paul Sarpi, who took him into his confidence, taught him the Italian language, of which he became a perfect master, and translated into that tongue the English Common Prayer Book, which was extremely well received by many of the clergy there, especially by the seven divines appointed by the republic to preach against the pope, during the time of the interdict, and which they intended for their model, in case they had broken absolutely with Rome, which was what they then sincerely desired. In return for the favours he received from father Paul, Mr. Bedell drew up an English grammar for his use, and in many other respects assisted him in his studies. He continued eight years in Venice, during which time he greatly improved himself in the Hebrew language, by the assistance of the famous rabbi Leo, who taught him the Jewish pronunciation, and other parts of rabbinical learning; and by his means it was that he purchased a very fair manuscript of the Old Testament, which he bequeathed, as a mark of respect, to Emanuel-college, and which, it is said, cost him its weight in silver. He became acquainted there likewise, with the celebrated Antonio de Dominis, archbishop of Spalata, who was so well pleased with his conversation, that he communicated to him his secret, and shewed him his famous book “de Kepublica Ecclesiastica,” which he afterwards printed at London. The original ms. is, if we mistake not, among bishop Tanner’s collections in the Bodleian. Bedell took the freedom which he allowed him, and corrected many misapplications of texts of scripture, and quotations of fathers; for that prelate, being utterly ignorant of the Greek tongue, committed many mistakes, both in the one and the other; and some escaped Bedell’s diligence. De Dorninis took all this in good part from him, and entered into such familiarity with him, and found liis assistance so useful, and indeed so necessary to himself, that he used to say, he could do nothing without him. At Mr. Bedell’s departure from Venice, father Paul expressed great concern, and assured him, that himself and many others would most willingly have accompanied him, if it had been in their power. He, likewise, gave him his picture, a Hebrew Bible without points, and a small Hebrew Psalter, in which he wrote some sentences expressing the sincerity of his friendship. He gave him, also, the manuscript of his famous “History of the Council of Trent,” with the Histories of the Interdict and Inquisition, all written by himself, with a large collection of letters, which were written to him weekly from Rome, during the dispute between the Jesuits and Dominicans, concerning the efficacy of grace, which it is supposed are lost. On his return to England, he immediately retired to his charge at St. Edmundsbury, without aspiring to any preferment, and went on in his ministerial labours. It was here he employed himself in translating the Histories of the Interdict and Inquisition (which he dedicated to the king); as also the two last books of the History of the Council of Trent into Latin, sir Adam Newton having translated the two first. At this time, he mixed so seldom with the world, that he was almost totally forgotten. So little was he remembered, that, some years after, when the celebrated Diodati, of Geneva, came over to England, he could not, though acquainted with many of the clergy, hear of Mr. Bedell from any person with whom he happened to converse. Diodati was greatly amazed, that so extraordinary a man, who was so much admired at Venice by the best judges of merit, should not be known in his own country; and he had given up all hopes of finding him out, when, to their no small joy, they accidentally met each other in the streets of London. Upon this occasion, Diodati presented his friend to Morton, the learned and ancient bishop of Durham, and told him how highly he had been valued by father Paul, which engaged the bishop to treat Mr. Bedell with very particular respect. At length sir Thomas Jermyn taking notice of his abilities, presented him to the living of Horingsheath, A. D. 1615: but he found difficulties in obtaining institution and induction from Dr. Jegon, bishop of Norwich, who demanded large fees upon this account. Mr. Bedell was so nice in his sentiments of simony, that he looked upon every payment as such, beyond a competent gratification, for the writing, the wax, and the parchment; and, refusing to take out his title upon other terms, left the bishop and went home, but in a few days the bishop sent for him, and gave him his title without fees, and he removed to Horingsheath, where he continued unnoticed twelve years, although he gave a singular evidence of his great capacity, in a book of controversy with the church of Rome, which he published and dedicated to king Charles I. then prince of Wales, in 1624. It is now annexed to Burnet’s Life of our author". However neglected he lived in England, yet his fame had reached Ireland, and he was, in 1627, unanimously elected provost of Trinity-college in Dublin, but this he declined, until the king laid his positive commands on him, which he obeyed, and on August 16th of that year, he was sworn provost. At his first entrance upon this scene, he resolved to act nothing until he became perfectly acquainted with the statutes of the house, and the tempers of the people whom he was appointed to govern; and, therefore, carTied himself so abstractedly from all affairs, that he passed some time for a soft and weak man, and even primate Usher began to waver in his opinion of him. When he went to England some few months after, to bring over his family, he had thoughts of resigning his new preferment, and returning to his benefice in Suffolk: but an encouraging letter from primate Usher prevented him, and he applied himself to the government of the college, with a vigour of mind peculiar to him.

, a member of the academies of sciences of Paris and Berlin, was born in Catalonia in 1697. Being left an orphan at the age of five years, he was educated by an engineer, a friend of his father’s family, and very early discovered a genius for mathematics. In the course of time he was appointed royal professor of the schools of artillery of la Fere, and superintended the education of some scholars who proved worthy of him. His success in this situation procured him also the place of provincial commissary of artillery, but here' his zeal cost him both places. Having discovered by some experiments that a smaller quantity of powder was sufficient to load a cannon than commonly employed: that, for example, eight pounds of powder would produce the same effect as twelve, which was the usual quantity, he thought to pay court to the cardinal de Fleury, then prime minister, by communicating to him in private a scheme by which government might make so important a saving. The cardinal, who was partial to all schemes of economy, listened with pleasure to this of Belidor, and spoke of it to the prince de Dombes, who was master of the ordnance. The prince was astonished that a mathematician, who served under him, and on whom he had conferred favours, should not have communicated this to him, and irritated by what he considered as a mark of disrespect, dismissed him from the posts he held, and obliged him to leave la Fere. t De Valliere, lieutenant-general of artillery, took upon him on this occasion to justify the prince’s conduct, in a printed memorial, and endeavoured at the same time to refute Belidor’s opinion and experiments, with what success we are not told. Belidor, however, originally born without fortune, was now stripped of the little he had acquired by his talents, and might probably have remained in poverty, had not the prince of Conti, who knew his merit, taken him with him to Italy, and bestowed on him the cross of St. Lewis, an honour which procured him some notice at court. The marshal Bellisle engaged him in his service, and when war-minister, appointed him to the office of inspector of artillery, and gave him apartments in the arsenal at Paris, where he died in 1761. During his laborious and checquered life, he found leisure to write, 1. “Sommaire d‘un cours d’architecture rnilitaire, civil et hydraulique,” 1720, 12 mo. 2. “Nouveau cours de Mathematique, a T usage de I'Artilierie et du Genie,” 4 to, Paris, 1725, a work previously examined by a committee of the academy of sciences, and approved and recommended by them. 3. “La Science des ingenieurs,”. 1729, 4to. 4. “Le Bombardier Francoise,” 1731, 4to. 5. “Architecture Hydraulique,” 1735 1737, 4 vols. 4to. 6. “Dictionnaire portatif de l'ingenieur,” 1738, 8vo. S. “Traite des Fortifications,” 2 vols. 4to. 9. “La science des Ingenieurs dans la concluite des travaux des Fortifications,” 1749, 4to. His biographer says that the most of these works are useful, but that Belidor was not a mathematician of the first order.

, 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.

, brother of the foregoing, was, like him and his other brother William, a great general, an able negociator, and a patron of letters, and was also employed by Francis I. His historical memoirs, from 1513 to 1543, are still remaining; and are to be found with those of his brother William. Whatever pleasure the curious find in perusing these memoirs, the generality of readers complain of the length of his descriptions of the battles and sieges in which he was present; but he cannot be denied the praise of a wise and able man. He died at Perche in 1559. He was prince of Yvetot, by his marriage with Elizabeth Ch^nu, proprietor of that principality.

, more generally known by his Latin name of Gulielmus Belendenus, a native of Scotland, was born in the sixteenth century. We find him mentioned by Dempster as humanity professor atParis, in 1602. He is reported by the Scots to have possessed an eminent degree of favour with James VI. to whom he was master of requests, and “Magister Supplicum Libellortim,” or reader of private petitions, which, it is conceived, must have been only a nominal office, as his more constant residence was in France. By the munificence of that monarch, Bellenden was enabled to enjoy at Paris all the conveniences of retirement. While he continued thus free from other cares, he suffered not his abilities to languish; but employed his time in the cultivation of useful literature. His first work, entitled “Ciceronis princeps,” was printed at Paris in 1608, a work in which he extracted from Cicero’s writings, detached passages, and comprised them into one regular body, containing the rules of monarchical government, and the duties of the prince. To this first edition was prefixed “Tractatus de processu et scriptoribus rei politicae.” “Ciceronis Consul” was the next publication of Bellenden. It appeared also at Paris in 1612, and both were inscribed to Henry prince of Wales. In 1616 was published a second edition, to which was added “Liber de statu prisci orbis,” with a dedication to prince Charles, the surviving brother of Henry. While Bellenden was occupied in the composition of these three treatises, he was so much attracted by the admiration of Cicero, that he projected a larger work, “De Tribus Luminibus Romanorum,” and what he had already written concerning Cicero he disposed in a new order. Death, however, interrupted his pursuit, before he could collect and arrange the materials which related to Seneca and Pliny, but of the time of his death we have no account. The treatises of Bellenden which remain, have been esteemed as highly valuable, and worthy the attention of the learned. They were extremely scarce, but had been much admired by all who could gain access to them. At length they were rescued from their obscure confinement in the cabinets of the curious, by a new edition which appeared at London in 1787, in a form of typography and an accuracy of printing which so excellent an author may jusily be said to merit. It was accompanied with an eloquent Latin preface in honour of three modern statesmen. Dr. Samuel Parr, the author of the preface, and to whom literature is indebted for the restoration of such a treasure, has charged Middleton with having meanly withheld his acknowledgments, after having embellished the life of Cicero by extracting many useful and valuable materials from the works of Bellenden. This, if we mistake not, had been before pointed out by Dr. Warton in the second volume of his “Essay on Pope.”

Benserade had surprising success in what he composed for the court dramatic entertainments. There was an original turn in them which characterised at once the poetical divinities, and the persons who represented them. “With the description of the gods and other personages,” says the author of the “Recueil de bons contes,” supposed to be M. de Calliere, “who were represented in these interludes, he mixed lively pictures of the courtiers, who represented them, discovering their inclinations, attachments, and even their most secret adventures; but in a manner so agreeable and delicate, that those who were rallied were pleased, and his jests left no resentment or concern in their minds.” The sonnet which Benserade sent to a young lady, with his paraphrase on Job, implying that Job could reveal his griefs, but he was obliged to suffer in silence, rendered his name very famous. A parallel was drawn betwixt it and the Urania of Voiture; and a dispute thence arose, which divided the wits, and the whole court. Those who gave the preference to that of Benserade were styled the Jobists, and their antagonists the Uranists. The prince of Conti declared himself a Jobist, and the duchess de Longueville, an Uranist. Benserade wrote rondeaus upon Ovid, some of which are reckoned tolerable, but upon the whole the attempt was too absurd for serious approbation; and his Ovid, without occasioning any controversy, dropt into oblivion almost as soon as it was published, although it appeared in a highly ornamented 4to, printed at Paris, 1676, with engravings to theexpence of which the king contributed 10,000 livres. So much was he attached to the rondeau, that his preface and even his errata are in the same species of composition. The latter is perhaps the best of the whole; as he candidly acknowledges that he can discover but two errors of any consequence, viz. the plan and the execution:

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

The count, however, was not to be detained by the blandishments of friendship he departed from this island, and arrived, after experiencing many hardships and dangers at sea, at the harbour of Usilpatchar in Japan on the 2d of August from whence, not meeting with a very friendly reception, he again immediately set sail, and arrived oirSunday the 28th of August at the island of Formosa. The inhabitants of Formosa at first appeared inclined to treat him with respect and civility, particularly don Hieronymo Pacheco, formerly captain at the port of Cavith at Manilla, who had fled from that employment to the island of Formosa, in consequence of his having in a moment of rage massacred his wife and a Dominican whom he had found in her company but these professions were soon found to be deceitful; for on sending his men on shore to fetch water, they were attacked by a party of twenty Indians, many of them dangerously wounded, and Mr. Panow, the count’s most faithful friend, killed. Don Hieronymo, however, contrived to exculpate himself from any concern in this treachery, and to advise the count to seek revenge by a> conquest of the island but he contented himself with provoking the natives to a second attack, and repulsing them with considerable slaughter. His men, however, insisted on going in quest of the Indians, in order to make them feel their further vengeance. The remonstrances of the count were to no effect; and at length, complying with their desires, he requested don Hieronymo to guide them towards the principal residence of the nation who had given him so bad a reception, where, after a short and unequal conflict, he killed eleven hundred and fifty-six, took six hundred and forty-three prisoners, who had prostrated themselves on the ground to beg for mercy from their assailants, and set fire to their town. The prince of the country, notwithstanding this massacre of his subjects, was introduced to the count by his Spanish friend, and a cordiality at length took place between them to such a degree, that the count entered into a formal treaty for returning and settling at Formosa; but his secret motives for making this engagement appear to have been, the execution of a project he had silently conceived of establishing a colony on the island.

, was born at Hermanstadt, the capital cf Transylvania, about 16SO, and leaving his country in pursuit of employment, engaged with Fritsch, the opulent and spirited bookseller of Leipsic, as corrector of the press, but his turbulent and unsocial character having occasioned a dispute between him and Fritsch, he went to Amsterdam, where his intimate knowledge of Greek recom-r mended him to the superintendance of Wetstein’s edition of Homer, 1702, 2 vols. 12mo, and the magnificent edition of the Onomasticon of Pollux, 2 vols. fol. 1706. Bergler afterwards went to Hamburgh, where he assisted Fabric! us in his Bibl. Grceca, and his edition of Sextus Ernpiricus, Leipsic, 1718, folio. Returning then to Leipsic, he transcribed an ancient scholiast on Homer, published a new edition of Alciphron, with excellent notes, 1715, 8vo, dnd made some progress in an edition of Herodotus, in a new translation of Herodian, more literal than that of Politian, and in an edition of Aristophanes, which was published by the younger Burmann in 1760, 2 vols. 4to. Amidst all these employments, he contributed several excellent papers to the Leipsic “Acta Eruditorum.” It is to him likewise that we owe the Latin translation of the four books of Genesius on the Byzantine history, which is inserted in vol. XXIII. of that collection, published at Venice in 1733, but is not in the fine Louvre edition. For Fritsch, to whom he seems to have been reconciled, he translated a Greek work of Alexander Maurocordato, hospodar of Walachia, which was published, with the original text, under the title “Liber de officiis,” Leipsic, 1722, 4to, and London, 1724, 12mo. For this he was so liberally rewarded by John Nicolas, prince of Walachia, and son to the author, that he determined to ^uit Leipsic, and attach himself to his patron. He went accordingly to Walachia, where the prince had a capital library of manuscripts, collected at a vast expence. Bergler found there the introduction and first three chapters of Eusebius’s “Evangelical Demonstration,” hitherto undiscovered, and sent a copy of them to Fabricius, by whom they were printed in his “Delectus argumentorum,” Hamburgh, 1725, 4to. On the death of the prince, however, Bergler being without support, went to Constantinople, where he died in 1746, after having, it is said, embraced Mahometanism. He was a most accomplished scholar in Greek and Latin, and an accurate editor; but his unsteady turn and unsocial disposition procured him many enemies, aud even among his friends he was rather tolerated than admired.

Having continued some years at Edinburgh, Mr. Berkenhout went to the university of Leyden, where he took the degree of doctor of physic, in 1765, as we learn from his “Dissertatio medica inauguralis de Podagra,” dedicated to his relation baron de Bielfeldt. Returning to England, Dr. Berkenhout settled at Isleworth in Middlesex, and in 1766, published his “Pharmacopoeia Medici,” 12mo, the third edition of which was printed in 1782. In 1769, he published “Outlines of the Natural History of Great Britain and Ireland,” vol. I.; vol. II. appeared in 1770, and vol. III. in 1771. The encouragement this work met with afforded at least a proof that something of the kind was wanted. The three volumes were reprinted together in. 1773, and in 1788 were again published in 2 vols. 8vo, under the title of “Synopsis of the Natural History of Great Britain, &c.” In 1771, he published “Dr. Cadogan’s dissertation on the Gout, examined and refuted” and in 1777, “Biographia Literaria, or a Biographical History of Literature; containing the lives of English, Scotch, and Irish authors, from the dawn of letters in these kingdoms to the present time, chronologically and classically arranged,” 4to, vol.1, the only volume which appeared. The lives are very short, and the author frequently introduces sentiments hostile to religious establishments and doctrines, which could not be very acceptable to English readers. The dates and facts, however, are given with great accuracy, and in many of the lives he profited by the assistance of George Steevens, esq. the celebrated commentator on Shakspeare. This was followed by “A treatise on Hysterical Diseases, translated from the French.” In 1778, he was sent by government with certain commissioners to treat with America, but neither the commissioners nor their secretary were suffered by the congress to proceed further than New- York. Dr. Berkenhout, however, found means to penetrate as far as Philadelphia, where the congress was then assembled. He appears to have remained in that city for some time without molestation but at last on suspicion that he was sent by lord North for the pui'pose of tampering with some of their leading members, he was seized and committed to prison. How long he remained a state prisoner, or by what means he obtained his liberty, we are not informed but we find from the public prints, that he rejoined the commissioners at New York, and returned with them to England. For this temporary sacrifice of the emoluments of his profession, and in consideration of political services, he obtained a pension. In 1780, he published his “Lucubrations on Ways and Means, inscribed to lord North,” proposing certain taxes, some of which were adopted by that minister, and some afterwards by Mr. Pitt. Dr. Berkenhout’s friends at that time appear to have taken some pains to point him out as an inventor of taxes. His next work was “An essay en the Bite of a -Mad Dog, in which the claim to infallibility of the principal preservative remedies against the Hydrophobia is examined.” In the year following Dr. Berkenhout published his “Symptomatology” a book which is too universally known to require any recommendation. In 1788, appeared “First lines of the theory and practice of Philosophical Chemistry,” dedicated to Mr. Eden, afterwards lord Auckland, whom the doctor accompanied to America. Of this book it is sufficient to say, that it exhibits a satisfactory display of the present state of chemistry. His last publication was “Letters on Education, to his son at Oxford,” 1791, 2 vols. 12mo but in 1779, he published a continuation of Dr. Campbell’s “Lives of the Admirals,” 4 vols. 8vo and once printed “Proposals for a history of Middlesex, including London,” 4 vols. fol. which, as the design dropt, were never circulated. There is also reason to suppose him the author of certain humorous publications, in prose and verse, to which he did not think fit to prefix his name, and of a translation from the Swedish language, of the celebrated count Tessin’s letters to the late king of Sweden. It is dedicated to the prince of Wales, his present majesty of Great Britain and was, we believe, Mr. Berkenhout’s first publication. He died the 3d of April 1791, aged 60.

, usually called major Bernardi, an adventurer of whom there is a very prolix, but not very interesting account in the Biographia Britannica, was born at Evesham, in 1657, and was descended from an honourable family which had flourished at Lucca in Italy, from the year 1097. His grandfather Philip, a count of the Roman empire, lived in England as resident from Genoa twenty-eight years, and married a native of this country. His father Francis succeeded to this office but, taking disgust at some measures adopted by the senate of Genoa, resigned, and retiring to Evesham, amused himself with gardening, on which he spent a considerable sum of money, and set a good example in that science to the town. John, his son, the subject of this article, of a spirited and restless temper, having received some harsh usage from his father, at the age of thirteen ran away to avoid his severity, and perhaps without any determinate purpose. He retained, notwithstanding, several friends, and was for some time supported by them, but their friendship appears to have gone little farther for soon after he enlisted as a common soldier in the service of the prince of Orange. In this station he showed uncommon talents and bravery, and in a short time obtained a captain’s commission in the service of the States. In April 1677, he married a Dutch lady of good family, with whom he enjoyed much conjugal happiness for eleven years. The English regiments in the Dutch service being recalled by James II. very few of them, but among those few was Bernard!, would obey the summons, and of course, he could not sign the association, into which the prince of Orange wished the regiments to enter. He thus lost his favour, and having no other alternative, and probably wishing for no other, he followed the abdicated James II. into Ireland who, soon after, sent him on some commission into Scotland, from whence, as the ruin of his master now became inevitable, he once more retired to Holland. Venturing, however, to appear in London in 1695, he was committed to Newgate March 25, 1696, on suspicion of being an abettor of the plot to assassinate king William, and although sufficient evidence could not be brought to prove the fact, he was sentenced and continued in prison by the express decree of six successive parliaments, with five other persons, where he remained for more than forty years. As this was a circumstance wholly without a precedent, it has been supposed that there must have been something in his character particularly dangerous, to induce four sovereigns and six parliaments to protract his confinement, without either legally condemning or pardoning him.

, on account of her being one of the earliest female writers in England, is entitled to some notice in this work, although the most painful research has discovered very little of her personal history. She is frequently called Juliana Barnes, but Berners was her more proper name. She was an Essex lady, and, according to Mr. Ballard, was probably born at Roding in that county, about the beginning of the fifteenth century being the daughter of sir James Berners of Berners Roding, and sister of Richard lord Berners. If, however, as is generally agreed, sir James Berners was her father, her birth could have been very little after 1388 for in that year sir James Berners was beheaded, as an enemy to the public, together with other favourites and corrupt ministers of king Richard the second. The education of Juliana seems to have been the very best which that age could afford, and her attainments were such, that she is celebrated by various authors for her uncommon learning and her other accomplishments, which rendered her every way capable and deserving of the office she bore which was that of pfioress of Sopewell nunnery. This was a cell to, and very near St. Alban’s, -end a good part of the shell of it is still standing. Here she lived in high esteem, and flourished, according to Bale, Tanner, and Ballard, about the year 1460 but if what we have said concerning her birth be the true account, she must have flourished somewhat earlier. She was a very beautiful lady, of great spirit, and loved masculine exercises, such as hawking, hunting, &c. With these sports she used to recreate herself, and so thoroughly was she skilled in them, that she wrote treatises of hawking, hunting, and heraldry. “From an abbess disposed to turn author,” says Mr. Warton, “we might more reasonably have expected a manual of meditations for the closet, or select rules for making salves, or distilling strong waters. But the diversions of the field were not thought inconsistent with the character of a religious lady of this eminent rank, who resembled an abbot in respect of exercising an extensive manerial jurisdiction, and who hawked and hunted in common with other ladies of distinction.” So well esteemed were Juliana Berners’s treatises, and indeed so popular were the subjects on which they were written, that they were published in the veryinfancy of the art of printing. The first edition is said to have been printed at St. Alban’s, in 1481. It was certainly printed at the same place in 1486, in a small folio; and again, at Westminster, by W. de Worde, in 1496, in 4to. Among Cryne’s books in the Bodleian library, there is a black letter copy of this work, “imprynted at London in Paul’s Churchyarde by me Hary Tab.” It was again printed, with wooden cuts, by William Copland, without date, and entitled, “The boke of Hawkyng, Hunting, Fishing, with all the properties and medecynes that are necessary to be kept.” Here the tract on Armory is omitted, which seems to have been first inserted that the work might contain a complete course of education for a gentleman. The same title is in W. Powel’s edition, 1550. The last impression of it was in 4to, at London, in 1595, under the following title, “The gentleman’s academic or the book of St. Albans containing three most exact and excellent books; the first of Hawking, the second of all the proper terms of Hunting, and the last of Armory; all compiled by Juliana Barnes, in the year from the incarnation of Christ, 1486. And now reduced into better method by G. M.” This editor is certainly mistaken in saying that the whole work was composed in 1486. Juliana Berners could scarcely have been living at that time and even if she was not then dead, the book must have been written by her in a more early period of life. It is said, indeed, in the Colophon at the end of the St. Alban’s edition, “And here now endith the Boke of blasyng of armys, translatyt and compylyt togedyr at Saynt Albons the yere from thyncaruacyon of our Lorde Jhesu Crist MCCCCLXXXVI.” But all we can justly infer from hence is, that that part of the work which relates to heraldry was not drawn up by Juliana Berners. It is observable, that though the whole treatise is usually ascribed to her, her name is only subjoined to the book on hawking and hunting and that what relates to the biasing of arms contains no more than abstracts from a performance of Nicholas Upton, written about 1441. It is highly probable, therefore, that this latter part, if it was compiled so late as in 1486, was added by another hand and, indeed, if Juliana Berners was the daughter of sir James Berners, there can be no doubt about the matter. That part of our abbess’s work which relates to hunting, is written in rhyme. It is spoken in her own person in which, being otherwise a woman of authority, she assumes the title of Uame. Mr. Warton suspects the whole to be a translation from the French or Latin. The barbarism of the times strongly appears in the indelicate expressions which Juliana Berners often uses, and which are equally incompatible with her sex and profession. The book on armory begins with the following curious piece of sacred heraldry “Of the offspring of the gentilman Jafeth, come Habraham, Moyses, Aron, and the profettys and also the kyng of the right lyne of Mary, of whom that gentilman Jhesus was borne, very God and man; after his manhode kynge of the land of Jude and of Jues, gentilman by his modre Mary, prince of cote armure, &c.” The most diligent inquirers have not been able to determine the exact period of Juliana Berners’s decease but from what is mentioned above, it is probable that she died sooner than lias commonly been imagined.

, a naval commander, a native of evonshire, where he was born in 1635, became successful against the Buccaneers who infested the Atlantic ocean, and distinguished himself at the famous battle of Southwold-bay, for which he was knighted. In 1682, he commanded the Gloucester frigate, on board of which the duke of York embarked for Scotland; but by the carelessness of the pilot, the vessel was lost at the mouth of the Humber. In the midst of this confusion, sir John retained that presence of mind for which he was always remarkable, and by that means preserved the duke and as many of his retinue as the long-boat would carry. Soon after he was promoted to a flag, and commanded as vice-admiral under lord Dartmouth, at the demolition of Tangier, and on his return was made a commissioner of the navy; which post he enjoyed till his death. He was in great favour with king James II. who made choice of him to command under lord Dartmouth, when the prince of Orange landed in England; and when his lordship left the fleet, the whole command devolved on sir John Berry, who held it till the ships were laid up. After the revolution sir John continued in his posts, and was frequently consulted by king William, who entertained a high opinion of his abilities in military affairs; but he was poisoned in the beginning of February, 1691, on board one of his majesty’s ships at Portsmouth, where he was paying her off, in the 56th year of his age. The cause of this catastrophe was never discovered, and it was probably accidental. His body v/as brought to London and interred at Stepney, and a fine monument afterwards erected to his memory.

, an eminent French anatomist, was born at Tremblay in Britanny, Sept. 21, 1712. At the age of three he was left an orphan, yet learned Latin almost without a master, and was sent afterwards to Rennes to complete his education. He then went to Paris, and studied medicine with such success, that, in 1737, he took his doctor’s degree at Rheims, and in 1741 was admitted a regent member of the faculty of Paris. About the end of that year he accepted the place of physician to the prince of Moldavia, but after two years returned to France. The academy of sciences which had in his absence chosen him a corresponding member, now, in 1744, admitted him to the honour of being an associate without the intermediate rank of adjunct. The fatigues, however, which he had encountered in Moldavia, and his assiduous application to anatomical studies, had at this time impaired his health, and, joined to a nervous temperament, threw him into a state of mental debility which interrupted his studies for three years. He was afterwards recommended to travel, and it was not until the year 1750 that he recovered his health and spirits, and was enabled to resume his studies at Gahard, a retired spot near Rennes. There also he employed some part of his time in the education of his children, and his reputation brought him extensive practice. On Feb. 21, 1781, he was seized with a complaint in his breast, which carried him off in four days. Before and after his long illness, he had furnished several valuable papers to the memoirs of the academy of sciences, particularly three on the circulation in the foetus. His principal publications were, 1. “Traite d'Osteologie,” 1754, 4 vols. 12mo, a very popular work at that time, and still deserving of perusal. It was intended as the first part of a general course of anatomy. 2. “Lettre au D sur le nouveau systeme de la Voix,” Hague, 1745, 8vo. This being answered by Ferrein, or his pupil Montagnat, our author, without putting his name to it, defended his doctrine in “Lettres sur le nouveau systeme de la Voix, et sur les arteres lymphatiques,” 1748. 3. “Consultation sur la legitimite' des naissances tardives,” 1764 and 1765, 8vo. His chief argument here seems to be the simple position that if there are early births, there may also be late births. 4. “Memoire sur les consequences relatives a la pratique, deduites de la structure des os parietaux,” inserted in the Journal de Medicine, 1756. He left in manuscript Memoirs on Moldavia, which his son Rene Joseph, an eminent physician of Paris, intends to publish.

, one of the most eminent Italian scholars of the last century, was born at Mantua, July 18, 1718. After having studied among the Jesuits in his own country and at Bologna, he entered that society as a noviciate in 1736. He then commenced a new course of studies, including the belles lettres, from 1739 to 1744, at Brescia, where cardinal Quirini, count Mazzuchelli, count Duranti, and other learned men, formed an illustrious academy, and there he became first noticed by some poetical compositions for scholastic exercises. When sent to Bologna to pursue his theological course, he continued to court his muse, and wrote for the theatre of the college, his tragedy of “Jonathas.” The number of literary characters in this city surpashed that which he had found at Brescia. The Institute recently founded by count Marsigli, the Clementine academy of design, the school of the astronomical poet Manfredi, and the growing reputation of his learned and ingenious pupils Zanotti, Algarotti, &c. contributed to fix the attention of the literary world on Bologna. In this society Bettinelli completed his education, and attained the age of thirty. In 1748, he went to Venice to teach rhetoric, and was frequently employed in a similar manner in other places. His superiors intended him for a display of his oratorical talents, but the weakness of his lungs obliged him to decline this. In 1751, he was appointed director of the college of nobles at Parma, and remained here superintending "their poetical and historical studies for eight years, occasionally visiting the principal vines of Italy, on business, or for health. In 1755, ne travelled through part of Germany, to Strasburgh and Nancy, and returned through Germany to Italy, bringing with him two young princes, the sons or nephews of the prince of Hohenlohe, who had intrusted him with their education. The following year he took a trip to France with the eldest of these princes, and resided at Paris, in the college of Louis-le-Grand. It was during this trip that he wrote the celebrated letters of Virgil which were printed at Venice with those of Frugoni and Algarotti. The opinions, and we may add, the literary heresies, very ingeniously urged in these letters against the reputation of the two great luminaries of Italian poetry, and especially against Dante, created him many enemies, and what gave him most uneasiness, involved him with Algarotti. (See Algarotii). From Paris he made several excursions into Normandy, Lorraine, &c. and paid a visit to Voltaire. From Geneva he went to Marseilles, &c. and arrived at Parma in 1759. The same year he went to Verona, where he resided until 1767, and resumed his offices of preaching and education. He was afterwards for some years at Modena, and when the order of the Jesuits was suppressed, he was appointed professor of rhetoric. On his return to his own country, he applied to his literary pursuits with fresh ardour, and published many works, and having regretted that he had published so much without writing any thing to please the fair sex, doubtless owing to his ecclesiastical character, he afterwards endeavoured to make up for this. in some respect by publishing his correspondence between two ladies, his letters to Lesbia, and lastly, his twenty-four dialogues on love. These he published in 1796, when the war raged in all parts of Italy, and when the siege of Mantua by the French obliged him to leave it. He then removed to Verona, but in 1797, after the surrender of Mantua, he returned again, and although now almost in his eightieth year, resumed his literary labours with his accustomed spirit. In 1799, he began a new edition of his works, which was completed at Venice in 1801, in 24 vols. 12mo. He still preserved his usual gaiety and health at the age of ninety, until Sept. 13, 1805, when he died after fifteen days illness, with the firmness, says his biographer, of a philosopher and a Christian.

Beza did not return to Geneva when the conference ended: being a Frenchman, queen Catherine de Medicis would have him stay in his own country, where he preached frequently before the king of Navarre, and the prince of Conde, in Paris. The king of Navarre, though of the religion of the Protestants, declared himself against them, in order to preserve the title of viceroy; but the prince of Conde, the illustrious family of Coligny, and others, more zealous for the reformation, began to excite the Protestants to arm in their defence. Opposed to this party, was a league formed by the pope, the emperor, the king of Spain, and the catholic Swiss cantons. This soon brought on the civil war, in the course of which Beza attended the prince of Conde, and was at the battle of Dreux, in 1562, in which the generals of both armies were taken prisoners and during the imprisonment of the prince of Conde, Beza remained with admiral Coligny, and did not return to Geneva, until after the peace of 1563, when he Tesumed his place in the academy or college which Calvin bad founded. That celebrated reformer died in the following year, and Beza succeeded him in all his offices, and was now considered as the ostensible head and main support of the reformed party both in France and Geneva. In 1570 he returned again to France to be present at the synod of Kochelle. The queen of Navarre and the admiral Coligny had requested the council of Geneva to permit bim to take this journey, and when he arrived at Rochelle he was unanimously chosen president of the synod, which was a kind of general assembly of deputies from all the reformed churches in France. He was afterwards frequently interrupted in his academical business at Geneva, particularly in 1574, when sent on an important negociation to Germany, and he frequently assisted at conferences on religious points both in Germany and Swisserland.

, called one of the wise men of Greece, was born at Priene, a small town of Caria, abqut 570 B. C. He was in great repute in Greece, under the reigns of Halyattes and Croesus, kings of Lydia. Though born to great riches, he lived without splendour, expending his fortune in relieving the needy, and although esteemed the most eloquent orator of his time, he desired to reap no other advantage from this talent, than that of glory to his country. In his pleadings he shewed such discrimination, as never to undertake any cause which he did not think just. It was usual to say of a good cause that it was one which Bias would have undertaken, yet we are not told by what means he knew that a cause was good before it was tried. On one occasion, certain pirates brought several young women to sell as slaves at Priene. Bias purchased them, and maintained them, until he had an opportunity to return them to their friends. This generous action could not fail to increase his popularity, and made him be styled “the prince of the wise men.”

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

In 1755, when a French war was impending, he published a “Treatise on the Scurvy, with remarks on the cure of scorbutic ulcers,” 8vo, and in 1762, an “Essay on the Medical Constitution of Great Britain.” In 1,765 the university of St Andrew’s conferred upon him the degree of M. D. In 1766, he published a volume of “Medical Essays and Observations,” Newcastle, 8vo, containing various papers on the climate and diseases of the West Indies. A few years before his death, he deposited in the library of the infirmary at Leeds, a manuscript volume of 700 pages of medical observations; and presented a treatise on fortification to his royal highness the prince of Wales. He published also a small tract on the naval art of war, which, with some political papers and Mss. in the possession of his widow, form the whole of his works published and unpublished. He died at Knayton, near Thirsk, in May 17il, in the seventy-fifth year of his age.

Mr. Viner having by his will left not only the copy-right of his abridgement, but other property to a considerable amount, to the university of Oxford, to found a professorship, fellowships, and scholarships of common law, he was on the 20th of October, 1758, unanimously elected Vinerian professor; and on the 25th of the same month read his first introductory lecture; one of the most elegant and admired compositions which any age or country ever produced this he published at the request of the vice-chancellor and heads of houses, and afterwards prefixed to the first volume of his Commentaries. His lectures had now gained such universal applause, that he was requested by a noble personage, who superintended the education of our present sovereign, then prince of Wales, to read them to his royal highness; but as he was at that time engaged to a numerous class of pupils in the university, he thought he could not, consistently with that engagement, comply with this request, and therefore declined it. But he transmitted copies of many of them for the perusal of his royal highness who, far from being offended at an excuse grounded on so honourable a motive, was pleased to order a handsome gratuity to be presented to him.

, a man who acquired some fame in the sixteenth century by the shallow pretence of free inquiry, was born in the marquisate of Saluzzo in Italy. He appears to have studied medicine, and for some time practised with reputation, but the various opinions which arose out of the reformation from popery in the beginning of the sixteenth century, having excited his curiosity in no common degree, he determined to try them all, and began with abandoning the principles of popery in which he had been educated, for those of Luther, which he quitted soon after for those of Calvin. Not satisfied with this, he wished to retrace more ancient opinions, embraced those of Arius, then inclined to the doctrines of Paul of Samosata, and finally struck out of his creed all belief in the incarnation and the Trinity, maintaining that Jesus Christ was a mere man, and no more deserving of religious worship than any other man. Stocked with these notions, as well as with his professional knowledge, he had the ambition to propagate the one and practise the other in Germany, Poland, and Transylvania. In Polandhe became physician to the queen of Sigismund Augustus, and having insinuated himself into the good graces of that prince, began to communicate to him his religious opinions, and after some time returned to Italy, where the freedom he took in divulging these occasioned his being shut up in the prison of the inquisition at Pavia. Having, however, contrived to make his escape, he went to Geneva, and became a warm admirer of the opinions of Servetus, who had recently been put to death for oppugning the doctrine of the Trinity. On this, Calvin, after having in vain endeavoured to reclaim him by conference and correspondence, gave him up to justice, which Blandrata escaped by making profession of Calvinism, to which he adhered long enough to reach Poland, where the imposition was detected. At this time, John Sigismund, prince of Trausylvania, appointed him his physician and being a man of skill he found means to insinuate his principles in the families which employed him. In 1566, at Alba Julia, in the presence of the court, he held a public conference against the Lutherans, which lasted ten days, and ended in bringing over the prince and the nobles of Transylvania to unitarianism. An account of this conference was printed in 1568, 4to, entitled “Brevis enarratio disputationis Albanæ de Deo trino et Christo duplici.” On the death of Sigismund, he came a third time into Poland, and was appointed physician and counsellor to king Stephen Battori; but as he found this monarch unfriendly to his religious tenets, he withdrew himself from the unitarians, for which he was severely censured by Socinus, who hoped to have found him an able assistant, and had invited him to Poland with that view. This was the last of his many changes of opinion; for soon after, a nephew whom he had threatened to disinherit, on account of his attachment to popery, put him to death in a violent quarrel, which perhaps he had provoked for the purpose. This appears to have taken place some time between 1585 and 1592. He gave so little satisfaction to any party, that all considered his death as a judgment on his apostacy. Blandrata’s works are in Sandius’s Anti-Trinitarian library.

Notwithstanding he was thus qualified for entering into orders, which, according to his father’s intention, he had hitherto chiefly in view, and that his patrimony was by this time almost wholly exhausted; yet such was his diffidence, that he attempted rather, by teaching mathematics, to defray the expence attending the farther prosecution of his theological studies. By this means he not only increased his reputation, but (what laid the foundation of his future fortune) was introduced to an intimate friendship with John Vandenburg, burgomaster of Leyden. By this new connection he was recommended to the curators, to compare the Vossian manuscripts (purchased in England for the public library at Leyden) with the catalogue of sale; which he executed with such accuracy as procured him the esteem of the university, and recommended him in so particular a manner to Mr. Vandenburg, that this gentleman became ever after solicitous for his advancement and observing the amazing progress Boerhaave made in whatever he applied to, persuaded him to join the study of physic to philosophy and theology. As a relaxation therefore from divinity, and in complaisance to this gentleman, he dipt into physic, being duly prepared for it by his acquaintance with the learned languages, mathematics, and natural philosophy and he resolved to take a degree in physic before his ordination. The study of medicine commencing with that of anatomy, he diligently perused Vesalius, Fallopius, and Bartholin, oftentimes himself dissecting and attending the public dissections of professor Nuck. He next applied himself to the fathers of physic, beginning with Hippocrates and, in their chronological order, reading carefully all the Greek and Latin physicians but soon finding that the later writers “were almost wholly indebted to that prince of physicians for whatever was valuable in them, he resumed Hippocrates, to whom alone in this faculty he devoted himself for some time, making extracts, and digesting them in such a manner, as to render those inestimable remains of antiquity quite familiar to him.” He afterwards made himself acquainted with the best modern authors, particularly with Sydenham, whom he usually styled the immortal Sydenham. He next applied to chemistry, which so captivated him, that he sometimes spent days and nights successively in the study and processes of this art. He made also a considerable proficiency in botany not contented with inspecting the plants in the physic-garden, he sought others with fatigue in fields, rivers, &c. and sometimes with danger in almost inaccessible places, thoroughly examining what he found, and comparing them with the delineations of authors.

He is well known by a number of works in a peculiar style, some of which were not remarkable for decency; but these he wrote in Latin, “lest the bishops,” he said, “should condemn them.” He was not more a friend to the Jesuits than his brother; and he described them as “men who lengthened the creed, and shortened the commandments.” As dean of the chapter of Sens, he was appointed to harangue the celebrated prince of Conde, when he 'passed through the city. This great commander took particular pleasure on these occasions in disconcerting his panegyrists; but the doctor, perceiving his intention, counterfeited great confusion, and addressed him in the following manner: “Your highness will not be surprised, I trust, at seeing me tremble in your presence at the head of a company of peaceful priests; I should tremble still more, if I was at the head of 30,000 soldiers.” He manifested a contempt of fanaticism, as well as of decorum, by his “Historia Flagellantium, &c.” or, an account of the extravagant, and often indecent, practice of discipline by flagellation, in the popish church. It was translated into French; and not many years ago (viz. 1777, 4to. and again in 1782, 8vo.) by M. de Lolme, into English. In his treatise “De antiquo jure presbyterorum in regimine ecclesiastico,” he endeavours to shew, that in the primitive times the priests participated with the bishops in the government of the church. He was also the author of several other publications, displaying much curious learning and a satirical turn, which are now consigned to oblivion.

In the year 732, he received the title of archbishop from Gregory II f. who supported his mission with the same spirit as his predecessor Gregory II.; and under this encouragement he proceeded to erect new churches, and extend Christianity. At this time, he found the Bavarian churches disturbed by one Eremvolf, who would have seduced the people into idolatry, but whom he condemned, according to the canons, and restored the discipline of the church. In the year 738, he again visited Rome; and after some stay, he induced several Englishmen who resided there, to join with him in his German mission. Returning into Bavaria, he established three new bishoprics, at Salczburgh, Frisinghen, and Ratisbon. At length he was fixed at Mentz, in the year 745, and although afterwards many other churches in Germany have been raised to the dignity of archbishoprics, Mentz has always retained the primacy, in honour of St. Boniface. He also founded a monastery at Fridislar, another at Hamenburgh, and one at Ordorfe, in all which the monks gained their livelihood by the labour of their hands. In the year 746, he laid the foundation of the great abbey of Fulda, which continued long the most renowned seminary of religion and learning in all that part of the world. The abbot is now a prince of the empire. In the mean time his connection with England was constantly preserved; and it is in the epistolary correspondence with his own country, that the most striking evidence of his pious views appears. Still intent on his original design, although now advanced in years, he determined to return into Friezeland, and before his departure, acted as if he had a strong presentiment of what was to happen. He appointed Lullus, an Englishman, his successor as archbishop of Mentz, a privilege which the pope had granted him, and ordained him with the consent of king Pepin. He went by the Rhine to Friezeland, where, assisted by Eoban, whom he had ordained bishop of Utrecht, he brought great numbers of pagans into the pale of the church. He had appointed a day to confirm those whom he had baptized; and in waiting for them, encamped with his followers on the banks of the Bordue, a river which then divided East and West Friezeland. His intention was to confirm, by imposition of hands, the converts in the plains of Dockum. On the appointed day, he beheld, in the morning, not the new converts whom he expected, but a troop of enraged pagans, armed with shields and lances. The servants went out to resist; but Boniface, with calm intrepidity, said to his followers, “Children, forbear to fight; the scripture forbids us to render evil for evil. The day which I have long waited for is come; hope in God, and he will save your souls.” The pagans immediately attacked them furiously, and killed the whole company, fifty-two in number, besides Boniface himself. This happened on June 5, 755, in the fortieth year after his arrival in Germany. His body was interred in the abbey of Fulda, and was long regarded as the greatest treasure of that monastery. Boniface’s character has been strangely misrepresented by Mosheim, and by his transcribers, but ably vindicated by Milner, who has examined the evidence on both sides with great precision. His works, principally sermons and correspondence, were published under the title “S. Bonifacii Opera, a Nicolao Serrario,” Mogunt. 1605, 4to.

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."

Lord Delamer, however, had no inclination that an accommodation should take place between king James and the nation. For in a debate in the house of peers, the 3 1st of January, 16S8-9, relative to declaring the throne vacant, lord Delamer said, that “it was long since he thought himself absolved from his allegiance to king James; that he owed him none, and never would pay him any; and, if king James came again, he was resolved to fight against him, and would die single with his sword in his hand, rather than pay him any obedience.” It is intimated by sir John Dalrymple, that lord Delamer was not sufficiently expeditious in joining the prince of Orange when he first landed in England; and that gentleman affirms, that this was never forgiven by king William: but this is an assertion unsupported by any proper evidence. It is certain, that his services in the promotion of the revolution were thought so meritorious at that period, that on the 13th of February, 1688-9, he was sworn a privy counsellor; on the 9th of April following, he was appointed chancellor and under treasurer of the exchequer; on the 12th of the same month, made lord-lieutenant of the city and county of Chester; and on the 19th of July made custos rotulorum of the same county. These last offices, together with that of privy counsellor, he enjoyed for life: but he continued in the others only for about a year. The reason appears to have been, that lord Delamer seems to have wished for more retrenchments of the regal prerogative, than were made at the revolution. That he was desirous of some new limitations of the prerogative, is evident from a protest signed by him, relative to a clause proposed to be added to the bill of rights. He also signed a protest respecting an amendment to the bill for recognizing king William and queen Mary.

a painter, engraver, and antiquary, was born at Brussels in 1583, but when in his third year, the war obliged his parents to remove into Germany. From his earliest years he discovered a taste for painting, which induced his father to place him under Giles Van Valkenberg. He afterwards studied in Italy, and travelling over Germany, settled first at Franhendal, and in 1627 at Francfort on the Maine. His paintings, principally fruit and flowers, were much admired, but he perhaps had more reputation as an antiquary, in which capacity, the earl of Arundel sent him into Italy to Mr. Petty, who was then collecting for his lordship, and retained him in his service as long as he lived. After the death of this patron, Vander Borcht was employed by the prince of Wales (afterwards Charles II.) and lived in esteem at London several years, till he returned to Antwerp, where he died in 1660. As an engraver we have some few etchings by him; among the rest the “Virgin and Child,” a small upright print, from Parmigiano, engraved at London in 1637; a “Dead Christ, supported by Joseph of Arimathea,” from the same master, and “Apollo and Cupid,” a small upright oval from Perin del Vago.

, an eminent physician of Piedmont, who flourished about the middle of the 16th century, was a disciple of Fallopius, and took his degree of doctor in medicine at Padua. It appears by his writings, that he was a diligent observer, and enjoyed a considerable share of practice. He was in succession physician and aulic counsellor to Charles IX. Henry II. of France, and to William prince of Orange. He was also skilled in the practice of surgery, and published, “De curandis vulneribus sclopetorum,” Venet. 1560, 8vo. This has been frequently reprinted, and continued, for a long time, to be esteemed the most useful manual that had been published on the subject. He wrote also “Commentarioli duo, alter de medici, alter de aegvoti, munere,” Lion. 1565, 8vo; containing rules for the conduct of the physician, the surgeon, and the apothecary, in their attendance upon the sick. But the work by which he is most known, and which produced an important revolution in the practice of medicine, is his “De curatione per sanguinis missione, de incidendae venae, cutis scarificandae, et hirudinum arrigendarum modo,” Antw. 1583, 8vo. Though bleeding had always been occasionally used in the cure of diseases, yet in his time it was nearly constantly superseded by purging medicines, or it was too sparingly used, and seldom repeated. Our author made frequent recourse to it, with complete success, he says, in diarrhoea, dysentery, in fever, the plague, and during pregnancy; and flattered with success, he became, as he advanced in life, more and more bold and free in the use of the lancet, and bleeding became a general remedy all over Europe; but in no country was it carried to such excess as in France, where the professors of medicine, for their too frequent recurrence to it, were held up to ridicule by Le Sage, in his inimitable novel of Gil Bias. The works of Botallus were collected, and published under the title of “Opera Omnia,” in 1660, at Leyden, by I. V. Home.

, a descendant of the preceding, and fourth and last earl of Kilmarnock, was born in 1704, and was but thirteen years old when his father died: he discovered early a genius not unequal to his birth, but found the family estate pretty much encumbered, and great part of the patrimony alienated, which was by no means answerable to his lordship’s generous and noble disposition. It was also his misfortune to be too soon let loose among the gaieties and pleasures of life. As he grew up, instead of applying himself to study, he launched out into the world in pursuit of pleasures which were more expensive than his fortune could support, and by this means considerably reduced his estate, which, from the most probable conjecture, was the true reason of his taking up arms against the king. Indeed, his lordship himself owns in his confession to Mr. Foster (while under sentence), that his rebellion was a kind of desperate scheme, proceeding originally from his vices, to extricate himself from the distress of his circumstances; for he says, “the true root of all was his careJess and dissolute life, by which he had reduced himself to great and perplexing difficulties; that the exigency of his affairs was in particular very pressing at the time of the rebellion; and that, besides the general hope he had of mending his fortune by the success of it, he was also tempted by another prospect of retrieving his circumstances, by following the Pretender’s standard.” It does not appear that his lordship was in the original design of the rebellion: on the contrary, he declared both in his speech at the bar of the house of lords, and in his petition to the king after his sentence, that it was not tilt after the battle of Preston Pans that he became a party in it, having, till then, neither influenced his tenants or followers to assist or abet the rebellion; but, on the contrary, influenced the inhabitants of the town of Kilmarnock, and the neighbouring boroughs, to rise in arms for his majesty’s service, which had so good an effect, that two hundred men from Kilmarnock very soon appeared in arms, and remained so all the winter at Glasgow and other places. It is said, that when the earl joined the Pretender’s standard, he was received by him with great marks of esteem and distinction; was declared of his privy-council, made colonel of the guards, and promoted to the degree of a general (though his lordship himself says, he was far from being a person of any consequence among them). How he behaved in these stations (quite new to him, and foreign from his former manner of life), we cannot determine; but common fame says, he displayed considerable courage till the fatal battle of Culloden, when he was taken, or rather surrendered himself, prisoner, to the king’s troops, though involuntarily, and with a design to have facilitated his escape: for he acknowledged to Mr. Foster, whilst under sentence, that when he saw the king’s dragoons, and made towards them, he thought they had been Fitz-James’s horse; and that if he could have reached them by mounting behind one of the dragoons, his escape would have been more certain, than when he was on foot. Yet, in his speech to the house of lords, he made a merit of having surrendered himself, at a time when he said he could easily have made his escape, and in this he owned, when in a state of repentance, that he had not spoken truth. His lordship was brought to the Tower, and on Monday the 28th of July, 174-6, was, together with the earl of Cromartie, and lord Balmerino, conducted to Westminster-hall, and at the bar of the lord high-steward’s court, arraigned, and pleaded guilty to his indictment, submitting himself to his majesty’s mercy and clemency. On the Wednesday following, the three lords were again brought from the Tower to receive sentence, when the lord Kilmarnock being asked by the lord high-steward, if he had any thing to offer why sentence of death should not be passed upon him, his lordship, addressing himself to his grace and the whole august assembly, then consisting of an hundred and thirty-six peers, delivered an eloquent speech, after which, sentence of death was pronounced upon him, and he returned to the Tower. After this, he presented petitions to the king, the prince of Wales, and duke of Cumberland, wherein he set forth his family’s constant attachment to the revolution interest, and that of the illustrious house of Hanover; his father’s zeal and activity in support of both in the rebellion in 1715, and his own appearing in arms (though then but young) under his father, and the whole tenour of his conduct ever since that time. But the services of his forefathers could not satisfy the public demand for justice, nor avail him so far as to procure him pardon. He was beheaded on Towerhill, August 18, 1746, and was interred in the Tower church, with this inscription upon his coffin, viz. “Gulielmus Comes de Kilmarnock, decollat. 18 Augusti, 1746, aetat. suae 42.” His lordship’s whole deportment, from the time he was condemned till his execution, was suitable to one in his unhappy circumstances. He gave the most lively marks of a sincere humiliation and repentance for all his miscarriages, and his behaviour in the hour of death was resigned, but strictly decent and awful. He had himself observed, with great truth, that for a man who had led a dissolute life, and yet believed the consequences of death, to put on an air of daringness and absolute intrepidity, must argue him either to be very stupid or very impious. He was a nobleman of fine address and polite behaviour; his person was tall and graceful; his countenance mild, but his complexion pale; and he had abilities, which, if they had been properly applied, might have rendered him capable of bringing an increase of honour to his family, instead of ruin and disgrace. His lordship lived and died in the public profession of the church of Scotland, and left behind him a widow (who was the lady Anne Livingston, daughter of James earl of Linlithgow and Callander (attainted in 1715), with whom he had a considerable fortune), and three sons, the eldest of whom his lordship had educated in the principles of duty and loyalty to his majesty, and in whose service he fought against the rebels. He succeeded, upon the death of Mary, countess of Errol, in 1758, to her estate and honours, his mother having been undoubted heir of line of that noble family, and he was the sixteenth earl of Errol. He died June 3, 1778, leaving issue.

, D. D. Savilian professor of astronomy in Oxford, F. R. S. and member of the academies of sciences and belles-lettres of Paris, Berlin, Petersburgh, and Bologna, was born at Shireborn in Gloucestershire in 1692, and educated at Northleach in the same county. Thence he was admitted a commoner of Balliol-college in Oxford, March 15, 1710: where he took the degree of B. A. Oct. 14, 1714, and of M. A. Jan. 21, 1716. He was ordained deacon and priest in 1719, and instituted the same year to the vicarage of Bridstow in Herefordshire. He never had any other preferment in the church, except the small rectory or sinecure of Landewy Welfry, in the county of Pembroke, and diocese of St. David: and his institution to this bears date the Jst of March 1719. It is presumed that the bishop of Hereford, to whom he was chaplain, was his patron to the vicarage; and Mr. Molyneux, who was then secretary to the prince of Wales, procfcred him the sinecure.

, a noted historian and physician of the seventeenth century, was born in the county of Norfolk, and admitted in Caius college in Cambridge, February 20, 1643. He took his degree of bachelor of physic in 1653, and was created doctor in that faculty September 5, 1660, by virtue of the king’s mandatory letters. On the first of December the same year, he was, in pursuance of king Charles’s mandate, elected master of his college, upon the resignation of Dr. Bachcroft. About the year 1670, or as some think not until 1685, he was appointed keeper of the records in the Tower of London; in which office he employed himself in perusing those most valuable monuments in his possession, with a view to his historical works. Some time after, he was chosen regius professor of physic in the university of Cambridge. In 1679, he wrote a letter to Dr. Sydenham, on the influence of the air, &c. which is published among that learned person’s works. But his largest and most considerable performance was, “An Introduction to the old English History,” in which he maintains these three propositions: 1. That the representatives of the commons in parliament, viz. knights, citizens, and burgesses, were not introduced till the forty-ninth of Henry III.; 2. That William, duke of Normandy, made an absolute conquest of the nation; 3. That the succession to the crown of England is hereditary (descending to the nearest of blood), and not elective: And “A complete History of England, from the first entrance of the Romans, unto the end of the reign of king Richard II.” in three vols. fol. about which he was employed several years, and which was printed 1685 and 1700, usually bound in two volumes. In the year 1681 he was chosen one of the representatives for the university of Cambridge, in that parliament which met at Oxford; and again in 1685, in the parliament of king James II. He was likewise physician in ordinary to this king; and, on the twenty -second of October, 1688, was one of those persons who gave in their depositions concerning the birth of the pretended prince of Wales. He died on the nineteenth of August, 1700. He was an accurate writer, and a curious and diligent searcher into our ancient records; but his impartiality has been called in question, particularly by those who contend for the higher antiquity of parliaments, and a larger proportion of popular influence in the constitution. Tyrell wrote his “General History of England,” in opposition to that of Brady. Dr. Gilbert Stuart, who hated all Scotch historians except himself, maintains that Hume executed his History on Brady’s principles; allowing Brady to pdssess an excellent understanding and admirable quickness, Dr. Stuart asserts also, that he was the slave of a faction. Dr. Brady’s other publications were, “An Answer to Mr. Petyt’s Book on Parliaments,” London, 1681, 8vo;- and “An Historical Treatise of Cities and Burghs or Boroughs,” ibid. 1690, fol. reprinted 1704.

, a painter of portrait and history, was born at Prague, in 1660; and having spent about four years in the school of John Schroeter, principal painter at that court, a kind of jealousy of his rising merit was excited in the mind of his master, which Brandel resented, and removed from him; and at the age of about iy years, commenced a master himself. Schroeter’s jealousy is thus accounted for by one of Brandel’s biographers. When in the fourth year of his apprenticeship, he was ordered 'to paint an altar-piece, which having executed in one day, he devoted the remainder of the time allowed to his pleasures, and when his master upbraided him with this apparent negligence of his orders, he produced the picture, which excited in Schroeter equal jealousy and astonishment. Most of the churches at Prague and Breslau are embellished with his works; and the prince of Hazfeld is said to have given 100 ducats for one picture of St. Jerome at half length. He spent most of his time at Prague, where the wealth which he acquired was dissipated by profusion and irregular conduct so that he died poor, in 1739, and was buried by charitable contributions. The Jesuits and monks, however, honoured his memory by appointing for him a solemn funeral procession, in which 300 tapers of wax were carried by ecclesiastics. Brandel was distinguished by a ready invention, an expeditious manner of painting, and natural colouring, except that his shadows were sometimes too black. His pencil was broad, easy, and free.

, a painter, was born at Poli, not far from Rome, in 1633, and studied in the school of Lanfranc. The greater part of the churches and palaces at Rome were embellished by his pencil. His best pictures arc his “St. Rocco,” in the church of Ripatta, and the “Forty Martyrs” in the Stigmata. An imagination full of fire, a great facility, a feeble and incorrect colouring, characterise his performances. He worked with uncommon rapidity, always preferring his pleasures and money to fame. He died at Rome in 1691, aged 58, prince of the academy of St. Luc, and chevalier of the order of Christ. His daughter was married to the celebrated Rosa da Tivoli, of whom Giacinto conceived a mean opinion, because he painted only beasts. By this contemptuous behaviour Rosa was so incensed, that he collected all the clothes belonging to his bride, on the morning after marriage, and sent them back to her father with a message, “that his daughter’s person was fortune enough to make her husband happy; and that a good painter of beasts was as likely to become rich, as a bad painter of men.”

, one of the supporters of the reformation, was born at Wile in Suabia, in 1499, a city of which his father had been mayor for many years. He was educated at Heidelberg school and university, and when only fifteen years old commenced bachelor. Such was his thirst for learning, that he usually rose at midnight to his studies, which became afterwards so much a habit, that he never slept longer than midnight. At eighteen he took his master’s degree in arts, and about the same time the perusal of some of Luther’s writings induced him to change his mind in many important points, which he endeavoured to communicate to his fellow-students by lecturing to them from the gospel of St. Matthew, and his auditors increasing, it was objected to him by those who were jealous of his talents, that he was not fit for such a work, not being in orders. To remove that, he entered into orders, and became a very popular preacher. He was then called to be pastor at Hall in Suabia, where he gave such satisfaction that the senate confirmed him in the office, although he was only twenty-three years old. When Muncer and his adherents rose in arms in Germany, and threatened to besiege Hall, he not only wrote against these enthusiasts, but encouraged the citizens to defend the place, which they did with great bravery. We find him aftersvards attending a conference of the reformed clergy for the purpose of reconciling the contention between Luther and Zuinglius, respecting the real presence; and in 1530 he was at the diet of Augsburgh, where the celebrated confession of faith was drawn up. When Ulric, prince of Wirtemberg, meditated the introduction of the reformed religion in his dominions, and particularly in the university of Tubingen, he employed Brentius in that seat of learning, who accomplished the purpose to his entire satisfaction. In 1547, when the emperor Charles V. and his army came to Hall, Brentius found it necessary to make his escape; and some letters of his being found, in which he justified the protestant princes for taking arms against the emperor, he became still in more danger; but on the emperor’s removing his army, he returned to Hall again. In 1548, however, when the emperor had published the Interim, Brentius declared himself so strongly against it, that the emperor sent a commissary to Hall, charging him to bring Brentius to him, alive or dead. The magistrates and citizens would have still protected him, but, as the emperor threatened to destroy their city if he were not given up, they connived at his escape, and presently after Ulric prince of Wirtemberg afforded him an asylum, until he got to Basil. He remained^ in this kind of banishment until 1550, when Christopher duke of Wirtemberg, in room of his father Ulric deceased, resolved to restore the ministers who were driven away by the Interim, and to complete the reformation; and therefore sent for Brentius to his castle at Stutg&rd, where he might have his advice and assistance. Here at his request, Brentius drew up a confession of faith, including the controverted points, which the duke intended to send to the council of Trent; and the year after the pastor of Stutgard dying, Brentius was chosen in his room, and held the situation for life. In 1557 he went to the conferences at Worms, which ended unsatisfactorily, as the popish representatives would not admit the authority of scripture in deciding their controversies. A more important service he performed in his old age. As there were many monasteries in Wirtemberg, from which the friars had been expelled, he persuaded his prince to convert them into schools, which was accordingly done, and Brentius visited them once in two years, directing and encouraging their studies. He died in 1570, and was buried with every mark of public respect. His works were printed together in 8 vols. fol. at Tubingen, 1576 i)0: most of them had been printed separately at various periods of his life. His opinions coincided in general with those of Luther, except on the subject of the real presence, in which he held some sentiments peculiar to himself, although perhaps essentially not very different from those of the Lutheran church.

In 1737 he went a third time to London, where he was introduced to Lyttelton and others, the political and literary adherents of the prince of Wales, “who,” it is said, “caressed him with uncommon familiarity, and presented him with many elegant and valuable tokens of his friendship.” Amidst such society, he had every thing to point his ambition to fame and independence, and readily caught that fervour of patriotic enthusiasm which was the bond of union and the ground of hope in the prince’s court.

Browne has experienced the fate of many of his contemporaries whose fame died with them, and whose writings have been left to be revived, under many disadvantages, by an age of refined taste and curiosity. The civil wars which raged about the time of his death, and whose consequences continued to operate for many years after, diverted the public mind from the concerns of poetry. The lives of the poets were forgotten, and their works perished through neglect or wantonness. We have no edition of Browne’s poems from 1625 to 1772, when Mr. Thomas Davies, the bookseller, was assisted by some of his learned friends in publishing them, in three small volumes. The advertisement, prefixed to the first volume, informs us that the gentlemen of the king’s library procured the use of the first edition of “Britannia’s Pastorals,” which had several manuscript notes on the margin, written by the rev. William Thomson, one of the few scholars of his time who studied the antiquities of English poetry. Mr. Thomas Warton contributed his copy of the “Shepherd’s Pipe,” which was at that time so scarce that no other could be procured. Mr. Price, the librarian of the Bodleian library, sent a correct copy of the Elegy upon the death of Henry prince of Wales, from a manuscript in that repository; and Dr. Farmer furnished a transcript of the “Inner Temple Mask” from the library of Emanuel college, which had nevr before been printed. With such helps, a correct edition might have been expected, but the truth is, that the few editions of ancient poets, (Suckling, Marvel!, Carew, &c.) which Davies undertook to print, are extremely deficient in correctness. Of this assertion, which the comparison of a few pages with any of the originals will amply confirm, we have a very striking instance in the present work, in which two entire pages of the Book I. of Britannia’s Pastorals were omitted.

, a celebrated French writer, was born at Rouen, Aug. 26, 1688, and commenced his noviciate among the Jesuits of Paris, Sept. 8, 1704. In 1706, he began his philosophical course in the royal college, and in 1708 was sent to Caen to complete his studies that he might take orders. Some of his pieces are dated from that city in 1710 and 1712, and one from Bourges in 1719. He appears indeed to have passed several years in the country, where he taught rhetoric. In 1713, he returned to Paris to study theology, and in 1722 he was again at Paris, where he took the vows in the society of Jesuits, and was intrusted with the education of the prince of Talmont. About the same time he assisted in the “Memoirs of the Arts and Sciences,” and continued his labours in that journal until 1729, when he was obliged to leave Paris for some time for having assisted in publishing father Margat’s History of Tamerlane, which it appears had g=ven offence. His absence, however, was not long, and on his return, or soon after, he was employed in continuing the “History of the Gallican church,” of which six volumes had been published by fathers Longueval and Fontenay. In 1725, he was appointed professor of mathematics, and filled that chair for six years with much reputation. It was probably in this situation that he read his lecture, on the “use of mathematical knowledge in polite literature,” now printed in the second volume of his works, nor did his various public employments prevent his publishing many other works, which were well received by the public. In 1722 he published, but without his name, his “Morale Chretienne,” Paris, a small volume, of which four editions were soon bought up. In 1723, he also published the first of his three letters, entitled “Examen du poema (de M. Racine) sur la grace,” 8vo, and in 1724, “La vie de Timperatrice Eleonore,” taken from that by father Ceva; the same year, “Abreg des vertus de soeur Jeanne Silenie de la Motte des Goutes,” Moulins, 12mo; and a new edition of father Mourgues “Traite de la Poesie Francoise,” with many additions, 12mo. But the work which contributed most to his reputation was his “Greek Theatre,” entitled “Theatre des Grecs, contenant des traductions ct analyses des tragedies Grecques, des discours et des remarques concernant la theatre Grec, &c.” 1730, 3 vols. 4to, and often reprinted in 12mo, in France and Holland. This useful work, not now in such high reputation as formerly, is yet well known in this country by the translation published by Mrs. Charlotte Lennox in 1760, 3 vols. 4to; to which the earl of Corke and Orrery contributed a general preface, and translated the three preliminary discourses: Dr. Sharpe, Dr. Grainger, and Mr. Bourryau translated some other parts, and Dr. Johnson contributed a dissertation on the Greek comedy, and the general conclusion of the work, which, in this translation, is certainly highly polished and improved. “Brumoy,” says Dr. Warton, “has displayed the excellencies of the Greek tragedy in a judicious and comprehensive manner. His jtranslations are faithful and elegant; and the analysis of those plays, which on account of some circumstances in ancient manners would shock the readers of this age, and would not therefore bear an entire version, is perspicuous and full. Of all the French critics, he and the judicious Fenelon have had the justice to confess, or perhaps the penetration to perceive, in what instances Corneille and Racine have falsified and modernized the characters, and overloaded with unnecessary intrigues the simple plots of the ancients.”

, a Swiss physician and anatomist of eminence, was born at Diessenhofen, the 16th of January, 1653. After passing through the usual school education, he was sent, at the age of sixteen, to Strasburgh, where, applying assiduously to the study of physic and anatomy, he was created doctor in medicine in 1672. For his thesis, he gave the anatomy of a child with two heads, which he met with. He now went to Paris, and attended the schools and hospitals there with such assiduity, as to attract the notice, and gain him the intimacy of Dionis and du Verny, who were present while he made the experiments on the pancreas, which enabled him, some years after, to publish a more accurate description of that viscus, than had been before given, under the title of “Experimenta nova circa Pancreas. Accedit Diatribe de Lympha et genuine Pancreatis usu,” Leidse, 1682, 8vo. He proved that the fluid secreted by the pancreas is not necessary to digestion, and that an animal may live after that viscus is taken out of the body, having tried the experiment upon a dog, which perfectly recovered from the operation. On quitting Paris, he came to London, and was introduced to Dr. Willis, Lower, and Henry Oldenburg, secretary to the royal society. From England he passed to Holland, and studied for some months at Leyden. At Amsterdam he visited Swammerdam and Ruysch, with whom he afterwards corresponded. Returning home he was made professor of medicine at Heidelberg, and first physician to the elector palatine, who conferred on him the title of baron de Brunn in Hamerstein. About the same time, he niarried one of the daughters of the celebrated Wepfer, and was elected honorary member of the academia naturae curios, in return for some ingenious dissertations which he had communicated to them. In 1688 he publised “Dissertatio Anatomica de Glandula pituitaria,” Heidelb. 4to. From this time he became in such great request for his knowledge and success in practice, that he was, in succession, consulted by most of the princes in Germany. Among others, in 1720, he was sent for to Hanover, to attend the prince of Wales, afterwards king George II. In 1715 he published at Heidelberg, “Glandula Duodeni sen Pancreas secundum detectum,” 4to, which was only an improved edition of his “De Glandulis in Duodeno Intestino detectis,” which had been before twice printed. There are some other lesser works, the titles and accounts of which are given by Haller, in his Bib. Anat. In the latter edition of Wepfer’s works are given dissections by our author, of the heads of some persons who died of apoplexy, of whom he had had the care. Though early afflicted with gravel, and in the latter part of his life with gout, he continued to attend to the calls of his patients, though living a great distance from his residence. When in his 74th year, he went in great haste to Munich, to attend the elector Maximilian Emanuel; on his return, he was seized with a fever, which, in a few days, put an end to his life, October 2, 1727.

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

, usually ranked among the German reformers, was born Sept. 28, 1529, at Schonaw near Wittemberg, at which university he was educated, and where he contracted an acquaintance with Melancthon, and while he was studying the scriptures in their original languages, imbibed the principles of the reformation. In 1555 he went into Silesia, where the senate of Grunbergue invited him to superintend a school newly erected in that city. This offer, by Melancthon' s advice, he accepted in the following year, and raised the school to a very high degree of reputation. Melancthon had so good an opinion of him as to declare that no young man could be supposed unfit for a university, who had been educated under Bucholtzer. Nor was he less celebrated as a preacher; and upon account of his services in promoting the reformation, enjoyed the favour and patronage of Catherine, widow of Henry duke of Brunswick, Ernest prince of Anhalt, and other persons of rank. He died at Freistad in Silesia, Oct. 14, 1584. He composed a chronology from the beginning of the world to the year 1580, under the title of “Isagoge chronologica,” which was often reprinted.

During the pontificate of Adrian VI. who succeeded Leo, the facade of S. Lorenzo was altogether laid aside, and Michel Angelo endeavoured to resume his labours on the monument of Julius II. for which the heirs of Julius were impatient, and threatened to make the artist accounjt for the monies received in the pontificate of Julius. He found a friend, however, in the cardinal Giuliano de Medici, who commissioned him to build a library and new sacristy to the church of S. Lorenzo, to serve as a mausoleum for the Medici family; and also to execute monuments to the memory of the dukes Giuliano and Lorenzo, to be placed in it; and these works took up the whole Of Michel Angelo’s attention during the short pontificate of Adrian VI. which lasted only twenty months, ending Sept. 14, 1523. During the first part of the pontificate of his successor Clement VII. formerly Giuliano de Medici, Michel Angelo went on with the chapel and library of S. Lorenzo, which Giuliano had ordered, and executed a statue of Christ, of the size of nature, to be placed on an altar in the church of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva, at Rome, and which is still in that church, but on a pedestal at the entrance of the choir. During the wars which succeeded, we find him employing his talents on works of fortification at Florence, when besieged by the prince of Orange, but hearing of some treacherous plans to undermine the republic, he withdrew secretly to Ferrara, and thence to Venice. Being, however, solicited by persons high in office not to abandon the post committed to his charge, he returned, and resumed his situation, until the city surrendered to the pope, when he was obliged to secrete himself in an obscure retreat. The pope having by a public manifesto given him assurances, that if he would discover himself he should not be molested, qn condition that he would furnish the two monuments in St. Lorenzo, already begun, Michel Angelo, on this, with little respect for the persons his genius was to commemorate, and with less affection for his employer, hastened to complete his labour; not with any ardour of sentiment, but as a task which was the price of his liberty.

With regard to Mr. Burgh’s character, he was a man of great piety, integrity, and benevolence. He had a warmth of heart which engaged him to enter ardently into the prosecution of any valuable design; and his temper was communicative and chearful. Whilst his health permitted it, he had great pleasure in attending a weekly society of some friends to knowledge, virtue, and liberty, among whom were several persons of no small note in the philosophical and literary world. He had once the honour of being introduced to his present majesty, when prince of Wales, and to the late princess dowager of Wales, from whom he met with a most gracious reception, and with whom he had much discourse on the subject of education, and other important topics. In his compositions, our author paid greater regard to strength than elegance; and he despised, perhaps unjustly, that nice attention to arrangement of language which some writers think desirable; and which is indeed desirable, when thereby the force and vigour of style are not obstructed. Mr. Burgh’s widow died in 1788.

During the affair of the popish plot, Dr. Burnet was often consulted by king Charles, upon the state of the nation; and, about the same time, refused the vacant bishopric of Chichester, which his majesty offered him, “provided he vvould entirely come into his interest.” But, though his free access to that monarch did not procure him preferment, it gave him an opportunity of sending his majesty a most remarkable letter , in which, with great freedom, he reprehends the vices and errors both of his private life and his government The unprejudiced part he acted during the time the nation was inflamed with the discovery of the popish plot; his candid endeavours to save the lives of Staley and the lord Stafford, both zealous papists; his temperate conduct in regard to the exclusion of the duke of York; and the scheme of a prince regent, proposed by him, in lieu of that exclusion; are sufficiently related in his “History of his own Time.” In 1682, when the administration was wholly changed in favour of the duke of York, he continued steady in his adherence to his friends, and chose to sacrifice all his views at court, particularly a promise of the mastership of the Temple, rather than break off his correspondence with them. This year our author published his “Life of sir Matthew Hale,” and his “History of the Rights of Princes, in disposing of ecclesiastical Benefices and Church-lands;” which being attacked bv an anonymous writer, Dr. Burnet published, the same year, “An answer to the Animadversions on the History of the Rights of Princes.” As he was about this time much resorted to by persons of all ranks and parties, as a pretence to avoid the returning of so many visits, he built a laboratory, and, for above a year, went through a course of chemical experiments. Upon the execution of the lord Russel, with whom he was familiarly acquainted, he was examined before the house of commons, with respect to that lord’s speech upon the scaffold, in the penning of which he was suspected to have had a hand. Not long after, he refused the offer of a living of three hundred pounds a year, in the gift of the earl of Halifax, who would have presented him, on condition of his residing *till in London. In 1683, he went over to Paris, where he was well received by the court, and became acquainted with the most eminent persons, both popish and protestant. This year appeared his “Translation and Examination of a Letter, writ by the last General Assembly of the Clergy of France to the Protestants, inviting them to return to their Communion, &c.;” also his “Translation of Sir Thomas More’s Utopia,” with a “Preface concerning the Nature of Translations.” The year following, the resentment of the court against our author was so great, that he was discharged from his lecture at St, Clement’s, by virtue of the king’s mandate to Dr. Hascard, rector of that parish; and in December the same year, bv an order from the lord-keeper North to sir Harbottle Grimstone, he was forbidden preaching any more at the Rolls chapel. In 1685 came out our author’s “Life of Dr. William Bedell, Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland.” Upon the death of king Charles, and accesion of king James, having obtained leave to go out of the kingdom, he went first to Paris, where he lived in great retirement, to avoid being involved in the conspiracies then forming in favour of the difke of Monmbuth. But, having contracted an acquaintance with brigadier Stouppe, a protestant officer in the French service, he was prevailed upon to take a journey with him into Italy, and met with an agreeable reception at Rome and Geneva. After a tour through the southern parts of France, Italy, Switzerland, and many places of Germany, of which he has given an account, with reflections on their several ojovernments, &c. in his “Travels,” published in 1687, he came to Utrecht, and intended to have settled in some quiet retreat within the Seven Provinces; but, being invited to the Hague by the prince and princess of Orange, he repaired thither, and had a great share in the councils then carrying on, concerning the affairs of England. In 1687, our author published a “Translation of Lactantius, concerning the Death of the Persecutors.” The high favour shewn him at the Hague disgusting the English court, king James wrote two severe letters against him to the princess of Orange, and insisted, by his ambassador, on his being forbidden the court; which, at the king’s importunity, was done; though our author continued to be employed and trusted as before. Soon after, a prosecution for high-treason was commenced against him, both in Scotland and England; but the States refusing, at the demand of the English court, to deliver him up, designs were laid of seizing his person, and even destroying him, if he could be taken. About this time Dr. Burnet married Mrs. Mary Scott, a Dutch lady of large fortune and noble extraction. He had a very important share in the whole conduct of the revolution in 1688; the project of which he gave early notice of to the court of Hanover, intimating, that the success of this enterprise must naturally end in an entail of the British crown upon that illustrious house. He wrote also several pamphlets in support of the prince of Orange’s designs, which were reprinted at London in 1689, in 8vo, under the title of “A Collection of eighteen Papers relating to the affairs of Church and State during the Reign of King James II. &c.” And when his highness undertook the expedition to England, our author accompanied him as his chaplain, notwithstanding the particular circumstances of danger to which he was thereby exposed. At Exeter, after the prince’s landing, he drew up the association for pursuing the ends of his highness’s declaration. During these transactions, Dr. Crew, bishop of Durham, who had rendered himself obnoxious by the part he had acted in the high-commission court, having proposed to the prince of Orange to resign his bishopric in favour of Dr. Burnet, on condition of an allowance of 1000l. per annum out of the revenue, our author refused to accept it on those terms. But king William had not been many days on the throne before Dr. Burnet was advanced to the see of Salisbury, and consecrated March 31, 1689 . Our prelate had scarcely taken his seat in the house of lords, when he distinguished himself by declaring for moderate measures with regard to the clergy who scrupled to take the oaths, and for a toleration of the protestant dissenters; and when the bill for declaring the rights and privileges of the subject, and settling the succession of the crown, was brought into parliament, he was the person appointed by king William to propose naming the duchess (afterwards electress) of Brunswick, next in succession after the princess of Denmark and her issue; and when this succession afterwards took place, he had the honour of being chairman of the committee to whom the hill was referred. This made him considered by the house of Hanover as one firmly attached to their interests, and engaged him in an epistolary correspondence with the princess Sophia, which lasted to her death. This year bishop Buruet addressed a “Pastoral Letter” to the clergy of his diocese, concerning the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to king Wiliiam and queen Mary; in which having grounded their majesties title to the crown upon the right of conquest, some members of both houses took such offence at it, that about three years after, they procured an order for burning the book by the hands of the common executioner. After the session of parliament was over, the bishop went down to his diocese, where, by his pious, prudent, and vigilant discharge of the episcopal functions, he gained universal esteem.

During his short residence in this country, he corresponded with the Irish for the purpose of inducing them to engage in the royal cause; and having engaged lord Inchiquin to receive him in Munster, he landed at Cork, after escaping the imminent danger of shipwreck, in 1648, and on his arrival, adopted measures which were not a little assisted by the abhorrence which the king’s death excited through the country; and in consequence of this favourable impression, the lord lieutenant caused Charles II. to be immediately proclaimed. But Owen O'Neile, instigated by the pope’s nuncio, and supported by the old Irish, raised obstacles in his way, which he determined to overcome by the bold enterprise of attacking the city of Dublin, then held for the Parliament by governor Jones. This enterprise, however, failed, with very considerable loss on the part of the marquis; and soon after Cromwell arrived in Ireland, and having stormed Drogheda, surrendered it to military execution, thus striking tenor into the Irish, so that they becoming dissatisfied with the lord lieutenant, and insisting on his leaving the kingdom, he embarked for France, in 1650, and joined the exiled family. In order to retrieve his affairs, the marchioness went over to Ireland, and having in some measure succeeded in exempting her own estate from forfeiture, she remained in the country, and never saw her husband till after the restoration. In the mean while the marquis was employed in various Commissions in behalf of the king; and he rendered essential service to his cause by rescuing the duke of Gloucester out of the hands of the queen-mother, and preventing her severe treatment from inducing him to embrace the Catholic religion. He was also instrumental in detaching the Irish Catholic regiments from the service of France, one of which he was appointed to command, and in obtaining the surrender of the town of St. Ghilan, near Brussels, to the Spaniards. In a secret embassy to England for the purpose of inquiring into the actual state of the royal party, he had some narrow escapes from the spies of Cromwell; and at length, when Charles II. was restored to the throne of his ancestors, the Marquis accompanied him, and not only recovered his large estates in the county of Tipperary, but was raised to the dignity of duke of Ormond, and officiated as lord high steward of England at the king’s coronation. In 1662, he was again appointed lord lieutenant, and had considerable success in reducing the country to a state of tranquillity; and he promoted various very important and lasting -improvements, particularly with respect to the growth of flax and manufacture of linen. His attachment to earl Clarendon, however, involved him in the odium which pursued that great man; and notwithstanding the purity of his conduct, he was deprived of his government by the machinations of the duke of Buckingham, in 1669; but in the same year he was elected to the office of chancellor of the university of Oxford. In 1670 a desperate design was formed ' against him by colonel Blood, whom he had imprisoned in Ireland on account of his having engaged in a plot for the surprisal of D.ublin castle. Blood, being at this time in London, determined to seize his person, in his return from an entertainment given in the city to the Prince of Orange; and in the prosecution of his purpose, his accomplices dragged the duke out of his coach, and placed him behind one of them who was on horseback, in order to convey him to Tyburn, and execute him on the pubiic gallows; or, as others say, to take him out of the kingdom, and compel him to sign certain papers relating to a forfeited estate of Blood. The duke by his struggles threw both the man and himself from the horse, and by seasonable assistance he was released from the custody of these assassins. This daring act of violence excited the king’s resentment; but Blood, for certain reasons, having been taken into favour, hi* Majesty requested the duke to forgive the insult. To which message he replied, “that if the king could forgive Blood for attempting to steal his crown, he might easily forgive him for an attempt on his life; and that he would obey his Majesty’s pleasure without inquiring into his reasons.” For seven years the duke was neither in favour with the court nor employed by it; but at length, in 1677, he was surprised by a message announcing the king’s intention to visit him. The object of this visit was to disclose his Majesty’s resolution of appointing him to the lord lieutenancy of Ireland; and this resolution had been adopted by the influence of the duke of York, who had reason to imagine, that the “cabal,” or court party, proposed to introduce the duke of Monmouth into this high station in the room of the earl of Essex, who had been removed. In order to counteract this plan, the duke of York recommended his grace of Ormond to the king, as the most likely person to engage general confidence, and to unite discordant parties in both countries. On this the duke consented, and upon his arrival adopted vigorous measures for disarming the papists and maintaining public tranquillity; and though he did not escape calumny, the king determined to support him against all attempts for removing him, and declared with an oath, *' that while the duke of Ormond lived, he should never be put out of that government." He opposed the duke only in the measure of calling a parliament in Ireland for settling affairs, to which the king would not give his consent. In 1682, when he came over to England to acquaint the king with the state of his government, he was advanced to the dignity of an English dukedom; but, notwithstanding this mark of royal favour, he had given such offence by his importunity with respect to an Irish parliament, that immediately on his return he was apprised of an intention to remove him. Upon the accession of James, the duke caused him to be proclaimed, and soon after resigned his office and came over to England.; Although the duke’s principles did not suit the projects of the new reign, he was treated with respect by the king, and received from him the honour of a visit whilst he was confined to his chamber with the gout. He died at Kingston ^hall, in Dorsetshire, July 21, 1688, in the seventy-eighth year of his age, and was buried in Westminster-abbey.

, earl of Ossory, son of the former, was born in the castle of Kilkenny, July 9, 1634. He distinguished himself by a noble bravery, united to the greatest gentleness and modesty, which very early excited the jealousy of Cromwell, who committed him to the Tower; where, falling ill of a fever, after being confined near eight months, he was discharged. He afterwards went over to Flanders, and on the restoration attended the king to England; and from being appointed colonel of foot in Ireland, was raised to the rank of lieutenant-general of the army in that kingdom. On the 14th of September 1666, he was summoned by writ to the English house of lords, by the title of lord Butler, of Moore-park. The same year, being at Euston in Suffolk, he happened to hear the firing of guns at sea, in the famous battle with the Dutch that began the 1st of June. He instantly prepared to go on board the fleet, where he arrived on the 3d of that month; and had the satisfaction of informing the duke of ^Ibemarle, that prince Rupert was hastening to join him. He had his share in the glorious actions of that and the succeeding day. His reputation was much increased by his behaviour in the engagement off Southwold Bay. In 1673 he was successively made rear-admiral of the blue and the red squadrons; and on the 10th of September, the same year, was appointed admiral of the whole fleet, during the absence of prince Rupert. In 1677 he commanded the English troops in the service of the prince of Orange; and at the battle ojf Mons contributed greatly to the retreat of marshal Luxemburg, to whom Lewis XIV. was indebted for the greatest part of his military glory. His speech, addressed to the earl of Shaftesbury, in vindication of his father, was universally admired: it even confounded that intrepid orator, who was in the senate what the earl of Ossory was in the field. He died July 30, 1680, aged forty-six. The duke of Ormond his father said, “he would not exchange his dead son for any living son in Christendom.”

, lord viscount Torrington, an eminent naval officer, was descended from a family long seated in Kent, his direct ancestor Robert Byng, of Wrotham, inthat county, being high sheriff of it in the 34th year of queen Elizabeth; and he was the eldest son of John Byng, esq. by Philadelphia, daughter of Mr. Johnson, of Loans, Surrey. He was born in 1663, and went a Volunteer to sea in 1678, at the age of fifteen, with the king’s letter given him on the recommendation of the duke of York. In 1681 he quitted the sea-service upon the invitation of general Kirk, governor of Tangier, and served as a cadet in the grenadiers of that garrison; until on a vacancy, which soon happened, the general made him ensign of his own company; and soon after a lieutenant. In 1684, after the demolition of Tangier, lord Dartmouth, general of the sea and land forces, appointed him lieutenant of the Oxford; from which time he constantly kept to the sea-service, remaining likewise an officer in the army several years after. In 1685 he went lieutenant of his majesty’s ship the Phoenix to the East Indies where, engaging and boarding a Zinganian pirate, who maintained a desperate fight, most of those who entered with him were killed, himself much wounded, and the pirate sinking, he was taken out of the sea with scarce any remains of life. In 1688, being first lieutenant to sir John Ashby, in the fleet commanded by lord Dartmouth, fitted out to oppose the designs of the prince of Orange, he was in a particular manner intrusted and employed in the measures then carrying on amongst the most considerable officers of the fleet in favour of that prince; and was the person confided in by them to carry their secret assurances of obedience to his highness, to whom he was privately introduced, at Sherburn, by admiral Russel, afterwards earl of Orford. After his return to the fleet, lord Dartmouth sent him with capt. Aylmer, and capt. Flastings, to carry a message of submission to the prince at Windsor; and made him captain of the Constant Warwick, a ship of the fourth rate. In 1690 he commanded the Hope, a third rate, and was second to sir George Rooke, in the battle off Beachy head. In the years 1691 and 1692, he was captain of the Royal Oak, and served under admiral Russel, who commanded in chief their Majesty’s fleet. In F693, that great officer distinguished him in a particular manner, by promoting him to the rank of his first captain; in which station he served in 1694 and 1695 in the Mediterranean, where the designs of the French against Barcelona were prevented: and also the next year, 1696, in the Channel, to oppose the intended invasion of king James with a French army from the coast of France; which, upon the appearance of the fleet, was laid aside. In 1702, upon the breaking out of the war, he accepted of the command of the Nassau, a third rate, and was at the taking and burning of the French and Spanish fleets at Vigo. The year following he was made rearadmiral of the red, and served in the fleet commanded by *ir Cloudesley Shovel, in the Mediterranean; who detached him with a squadron to Algiers, where he renewed and improved our treaties with that government. In 1704 he served in the grand fleet in the Mediterranean, and commanded the squadron that attacked and cannonaded Gibraltar; and, by landing the seamen, whose valour was very remarkably displayed on this occasion, the town was taken. He was in the battle of Malaga, which followed soon after, and, for his behaviour in that action, had the honour of knighthood conferred on him by his Majesty. In the winter of this year he was sent oat with a squadron to cruise against the French, which he^ did with great success, taking about twenty of their largest privateers in about two months time, with the Thetis, a French man of war of fifty guns. In 1705 he was made vice-admiral of the blue: and upon the election of a new parliament, was returned burgess for Plymouth, which place he represented in every succeeding parliament to the year 1721, when he was advanced to the peerage.

During the summer of 1705, he commanded in chief a squadron in the channel, and blocked up the French fleet in Brest, with a much inferior strength. In 1706, king Charles of Spain, the late emperor, being closely beseiged in Barcelona, by sea and land, by the duke of Anjou, and the place reduced to great extremity, and our fleet in the Mediterranean being too weak to relieve it, sir George Byng was appointed to command a strong squadron fitting out in England; in the hastening of which service, he used such diligence and activity, and joined our fleet with such unexpected dispatch, that the saving of that city was entirely owing to it. He assisted at the other enterprizes of that campaign, and commanded the ships detached for the reduction of Carthagena and Alicant, which he accomplished. In 1707 he served in the second post under Sir Cloudesley Shovel, at the seige of Toulon: and the year following was made admiral of the blue, and commanded the squadron which was fitted out to oppose the invasion designed against Scotland by the pretender with a French army from Dunkirk; which he fortunately prevented, by arriving off the Frith of Edinburgh before their troops could land, and obliged them to betake themselves to flight. On his return from this expedition, he was offered by the queen the place of one of the prince of Denmark’s council in the admiralty, which he then declined. He continued to command all that summer in the channel, and upon the marriage of the queen of Portugal, had the honour of conducting her majesty to Lisbon, where a commission was sent to him to be admiral of the white. In 1709 he commanded in chief her majesty’s fleet in the Mediterranean; and, after his return to England, was made one of the commissioners of the admiralty, and continued so till some time before the queen’s death; when, not falling in with the measures of the court, he was removed, but upon the accession of George I. he was restored to that station. In 1715, upon the breaking out of the rebellion which was at first secretly supported with arms "and warlike stores from France, he was appointed to command a squadron, with which he kept such a watchful eye along the French coast, by examining ships even in their ports, and obtaining orders from the court of France to put on shore at Havre de Grace great quantities of arms and ammunition shipped there for the pretender’s service; that, in reward for his services, the king on Nov. 15, 1715, created him a baronet, and gave him a ring of great value, and other marks of his royal favour. In 1717, upon the discovery of some secret practices of the ministers of Sweden against this kingdom, he was sent with a squadron into the Baltic, and prevented the Swedes appearing at sea. In 1718 he was made admiral and commander in chief of the fleet, and being sent with a squadron into the Mediterranean for the protection of Italy, according to the obligation England was under by treaty, against the invasion of the Spaniards, who had the year before surprized Sardinia, and had this year landed an army in Sicily, he gave a total defeat to their fleet near Messina: for which action he was honoured with a letter from the king, written with his own hand, and received congratulatory letters from the emperor and the king of Sardinia; and was further honoured by his imperial majesty with his picture set in diamonds. He remained for some time in these seas, for composing and adjusting the differences between the several powers concerned, being vested with the character of plenipotentiary to all the princes of Italy; and that year and the next he supported the German arms in their expedition to Sicily; and enabled them, by his assistance, to subdue the greatest part of that island. After performing so many signal services, he attended his majesty, by his command, at Hanover, who made him rear-admiral of England, and treasurer of the navy, and, on his return to England, one of his most honourable privy-council; and on Sept 19, 1721 he was called to the peerage by the title of baron Byng, of Southill, in the county of Bedford, and viscount Torrington, in Devonshire; and 1725 was made one of the knights of the bath on the revival of that order. In 1727, his late majesty, on his accession to the crown, placed him at the head of his naval affairs, as first lord of the admiralty, in which station he died, Jan. 17, 1732-3; and was interred at Southill, in Bedfordshire. Lord Torrington married, in 1691, Mary, daughter of James Master, of East Langdon, in the county of Kent, esq. by whom (who died in 1756) he had eleven sons and four daughters. His fourth son, was the unfortunate John Byng, admiral of the blue, who was condemned by the sentence, of a court-martial in 1757, and shot at Portsmouth March 14th of that year, for a breach of the twelfth article of war. From the best accounts published on this affair, it may be concluded that he was a sacrifice to popular clamour artfully directed to the wrong object.

, another skilful navigator. the son of Ferdinand Cabral, a Portuguese nobleman, was appointed commander of the second fleet which the king of Portugal sent to the Indies in 1500. After sailing for a month, he was driven by a storm on an unknown coast, to which he gave the name of Saint Croix, but which is better known since by that of Brazil, and is at present the seat of the Portuguese monarchy. Cabral took possession of this country on April 24, 1500. He then sailed for Sofala in AtVica, where he arrived with only seven out of thirteen ship* with which he left Portugal and having then proceeded to Calecut, he entered into a treaty with the zamorin or emperor, who allowed him to build a factory for the Portuguese, and although die zamorin behaved treache r rously afterwards, Cabral, by chastising his insolence, finally atchieved his purpose. He entered into a similar treaty with the prince of Cananpr, and in 1501 returned to Portugal with his fleet richly laden. Of his future life we have no account, but he wrote a detail of his voyage, which liamusio translated into Italian, and published with some others at Venice.

, an ingenious English writer, was born in London, Feb. 14, 1717, of ancestors belonging to the county of Gloucester. His father, who was a younger brother, had been bred to business as a Turkey merchant, and died in London not long after the birth of his son, the care of whom then devolved on his mother and his maternal uncle Thomas Owen, esq. who adopted him as his future representative. He was sent to Eton, school, where quickness of parts supplied the place of diligence; yet although he was averse to the routine of stated tasks, he stored his mind with classical knowledge, and amuseid it by an eager perusal of works addressed to the imagination. He became early attached to the best English poets, and to those miscellaneous writers who delineate human life and character. A taste likewise for the beauties of rural nature began to display itself at this period, which he afterwards exemplified at his seat in Gloucestershire, and that at Twickenham. In 1734, he entered as a gentleman commoner of St. John’s college, Oxford, and, without wishing to be thought a laborious scholar, omitted no opportunity of improving his mind in such studies as were suitable to his age and future prospects. His first, or one of his first, poetical effusions was on the marriage of the prince of Wales, which was published with the other verses composed at Oxford on the same occasion. In 1737, he became a member of Lincoln’s-inn, where he found many men of wit and congenial habits, but as he had declined taking a degree at Oxford, he had now as little inclination to pursue the steps that lead to the bar; and in 1741, in his twenty-fourth year, he married Miss Trenchard, the second daughter of George Trenchard, esq. of Woolverton in Dorsetshire, a lady who contributed to his happiness for upwards of half a century, and by whom he had a family equally amiable and affectionate. She died Sept. 5, 1806, Laving survived her husband four years.

In 1525, when there was an insurrection among the common people through all Germany, commonly called the war of the peasants, Camerarius went into Prussia, but he returned very soon, and was made professor of the belies lettres in an university which the senate of Nuremberg had just founded under the direction and superintendency of Melancthon. In 1526, when the diet of Spires was held, Albert earl of Mansfelt was appointed ambassador to Charles V. of Spain, and Camerarius to attend him as his Latin interpreter; but this embassy being suspended, Camerarius went no farther than Sslirigen, whence he returned home, and was married the year after to Anne Truchses, a lady of an ancient and noble family, with whom he lived forty-six years very happily, and had four daughters and five sons by her, who all did honour to their family. In 1530, the Senate of Nuremberg sent him with some other persons to the diet of Augsburgh, and four years after offered him the place of secretary; but, preferring the ease and freedom of a studious life to all advantages of a pecuniary nature, he refused it. In 1538, Ulric prince of Wittemberg sent him to Tubingen, to restore the discipline and credit of that university and in 1541, Henry, duke of Saxony, and afterwards Maurice his son, invited him to Leipsic, to direct and assist in founding an university there.

In 1749, he printed, 4. “Occasional thoughts on moral, serious, and religious subjects,” 8vo. In 1754, he was the author of a work, entitled, 5. “The Rational Amusement, comprehending a collection of letters on a great variety of subjects, interspersed with essays, and some little pieces of humour,” 8vo. 6. “An exact and authentic account of the greatest white-herring-fishery in Scotland, carried on yearly in the island of Zetland, by the Dutch only,” 1750, 8vo. 7. “The Highland Gentleman’s Magazine, for Jan. 1751,” 8vo. 8. “A Letter from the Prince of the infernal legions, to a spiritual lord on this side the great gulph, in answer to a late invective epistle levelled at his highness,” 1751, 8vo. 9. “The naturalization bill confuted, as most pernicious to these united kingdoms,” 1751, 8vo. 10. “His royal highness Frederick late prince of Wales deciphered: or a full and particular description of his character, from his juvenile years until his death,” 1751, 8vo. 11. “A Vade Mecum: or companion for the unmarried ladies: wherein are laid down some examples whereby to direct them in the choice of husbands,” 1752, 8vo. 12. “A particular but melancholy account of the great hardships, difficulties, and miseries, that those unhappy and much to be pitied creatures, the common women of the town, are plunged into at this juncture,” 1752, 8vo. 13. “A full and particular description of the Highlands of Scotland,” 1752, 8vo. 14. “The case of the publicans, both in town and country, laid open,” 1752, 8vo. 15. “The Shepherd of Banbury’s rules,” a favourite pamphlet with the common people; and “The history of the war in the East-Indies,” which appeared in 1758 or 1759, under the name of Mr. Watts, are supposed to have been of Mr. Campbell’s composition. Upon the conclusion of the peace of Paris, our author was requested by lord Bute to take some share in the vindication of that peace. Accordingly, he wrote “A description and history of the new Sugar Islands in the West-Indies,” 8vo, the design of which was to shew the value and importance of the neutral islands that had been ceded to us by the French. The only remaining publication of Dr. Campbell’s, that has hitherto come to our knowledge, is, “A Treatise upon the Trade of Great-Britain to America,” 1772, 4to. His last grand work was “A political survey of Britain being a series of reflections on the situation, lands, inhabitants, revenues, colonies, and commerce of this island. Intended to shew that they have not as yet approached near the summit of improvement, but that it will afford employment to many generations, before they push to their utmost extent the natural advantages of Great Britain.” This work, which was published in 1774, in 2 vols. royal 4to, cost Dr. Campbell many years of attention, study, and labour. As it was his last, so it seems to have been his favourite production, upon which he intended to erect a durable monument of his sincere and ardent love to his country, but in the success of it, he is said to have been greatly disappointed; yet a more truly patriotic publication never appeared in the English language. The variety of information it contains is prodigious and there is no book that better deserves the close and constant study of the politician, the senator, the gentleman, the merchant, the manufacturer; in short, of every one who has it in any degree in his power to promote the interest and welfare of Great-Britain; and this praise it may be allowed to deserve, although the accuracy of many of his facts may be disputed, and much of his reasoning appear ill-founded. Among other encomiums produced by Dr. Kippis on the literary merit of his predecessor, that of Mr. Burke, the author of the “Account of the European settlements in America,” is perhaps the most honourable . Dr. Campbell’s reputation was not confined to his own country, but extended to the remotest parts of Europe. As a striking instance of this, we may mention, that in the spring of 1774, the empress of Russia was pleased to honour him with the present of her picture, drawn in the robes rom in that country in the days of Ivan Vassiilievitch, grand duke of Russia, who was contemporary with queen Elizabeth. To manifest the doctor’s sense of her imperial majesty’s goodness, a set of the “Political survey of Britain,” bound in Morocco, highly ornamented, and accompanied with a letter descriptive of the triumphs and felicities of her reign, was forwarded to St. Petersburg, and conveyed into the hands of that great princess, by prince Gregory Orloff, who had resided some months in this kingdom. The empress’s picture, since the death of our author, has been presented by his widow to lord Macartney.

, of an illustrious family in Tartary, and prince of Moldavia, was born in 1673. His father, who was governor of the three cantons of Moldavia, became prince of this province in 1664. Demetrius, being sent early to Constantinople, flattered himself with the prospect of succeeding him; but was supplanted by a rival at the Porte. Being sent in 1710 by the Ottoman minister to defend Moldavia against the czar Peter, he delivered it up to that monarch and, following his new master through his conquests, indemnified himself for all he had lost; for he obtained the title of prince of the empire, with full power and authority over the Moldavians, who quitted their country to attach themselves to his fortunes. He died, 1723, in his territories of the Ukraine, much lamented. He was studious and learned, and is said to have understood eleven languages. He wrote in Latin a “History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire,” A. D. 1300 1683, which was published in an English translation by Tindal, Lond. 1734, fol. Gibbon says it contains strange blunders in Oriental history, though he acknowledges that the author was conversant with the language, annals, and institutions of the Turks. His “System of the Mahometan Religion” was written and printed in the Russian language, by order of czar Peter; his moral dialogues entitled “The World and the Soul,” were printed in Moldavia in Greek and Moldavian “The present state of Moldavia” was printed in Latin his e< Musical Airs with Turkish Words,“and” An Introduction to Music," in Moldavian. He was also the author of other pieces, which were either lost in his shipwreck, or still remain in ms.

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

As Carey was an entertaining companion, he shared the fate of those who mistake the roar of the table for friendship. At first, however, he was not altogether disappointed. The publication of his songs in 1740 in a collection entitled “The Musical Century,” and of his dramatic works in 1743, in a small quarto volume, was encouraged by a numerous subscription. But he who administered to the mirth of others, was himself unhappy; and whether from embarrassed circumstances, domestic uneasiness, or, as has been supposed, the malevolence of some of his own profession, he sunk into despondency, and put an end to his life by a cord, Oct. 4, 1743, at his house in Warner- street, Cold Bath Fields. Carey’s humour, however low, was never offensive to decency, and all his songs have a moral or patriotic tendency. As to his claim to the honour of having composed our great national air of “God save the King,” which his son, the subject of the next article, frequently brought forward, Dr. Burney is of opinion that it was of prior date, written for James II. while the prince of Orange was hovering over the coast; and when the latter became king, was forgot. It is certain that in 1745, when Dr. Arne harmonized it for Drury-lane theatre, and Dr. Burney for Covent-garden, the original author of the melody was wholly unknown. The writer of a “Succinct Account” of Carey, says that he was the principal projector of the fund for decayed musicians, which was held, when first established, at the Turk’s head in Gerrard- street, Soho.

He perhaps wrote upon a greater variety of subjects than any other clergyman of his time. Among his works are enumerated: 1. “Heroici characteres, ad illustriss. equitem Henricum Nevillum,” Oxon. 1603, 4to. Several of his Latin verses are also in the university-book of verses made on the death of sir Philip Sidney, in “Bodleiomnema,” and in other books. 2. “Tithes examined, and proved to be due to the Clergy by a Divine Right,”- Lond. 1606, and '1611, 4to. 3. “Jurisdiction Regal, Episcopal, Papal: Wherein is declared how the Pope hath intruded upon the jurisdiction of Temporal Princes,and of the Church, &c.” Lond. 1610, 4to. 4. “Consensus Ecclesiae Catholicse contra Tridentinos, de Scripturis, Ecclesia, fide, & gratia,” &c. Lond. 1613, 8vo. 5. “A thankful! Remembrance of God’s Mercy. In an Historicall Collection of the great and mercifull Deliverances of the Church and State of England, since the Gospel began ne here to flourish, from the beginning of queene Elizabeth,” Loud. 1614; the third edition came out in 1627, and the fourth in 16 Jo. The historical part is chiefly extracted from Camden’s Annals of queen Elizabeth; and the latter editions are adorned at the beginning of each chapter, with figures engraved in copper, representing the most material things contained in the ensuing description. 6. “Short Directions to know the true Church,” Loud. 1615, &c. 12mo. 7. “Oration made at the Hague before the prince of Orange, and the Assembly of the high and mighty lords, the States General,” Lond. 1619, in one sheet and a half, 4to. 8. “Astrologimania or, the Madness of Astrologers or, an Examination of sir Christopher Heydon’s book entitled ' A Defence of judicial Astrology 1” written about the year 1604, and published at London, 1624, 4to, by Thomas Vicars, B. D. who had married the author’s daughter. It was reprinted at London, 1651. 9. “Examination of those things wherein the Author of the late Appeal (Montague afterwards bishop of Chichester) holdeth the Doctrine of Pelagians and Arminians, to be the Doctrines of the Church of England,” Lond. 1626, and 16S6, 4to. 10. “A joynt Attestation, avowing that the Discipline of the Church of England was not impeached by the Synod of Dort,” Lond. 1628, 4to. 11. “Vita Bernardi Gilpini, viri sanctiss. farnaque apud Anglos aquilonares celeberrimi,” Lond. 1626, 4to, inserted in Dr. W. Bates’s Collection of Lives, Lond. lf.81, 4to. It was also published in English, under this title, “The Life of Bernard Gilpin, a man most holy and renowned amongthe Northerne English,” Lond. 1629, 4to, and 1636, 8vo. 12. “Testimony concerning the Presbyterian discipline in the Low-countries, and Episcopal government in England,” printed several times in 4to and- 8vo, and at London in particular, in 1642, in one sheet. 13. Latin Letter to Mr. Camden, containing some Notes and Observations on his Britannia. Printed by Dr. Smith amongst “Camdeni Epistolae,” N 80. 14-. Several Sermons. 15. He had also a hand in the Dutch Annotations, and in the new translation of the Bible, undertaken by order of the Synod of Dort, but not completed and published till 1637. Two of hU letters to sir Dudley Carleton, are in lord Hardwicke’s publication of sir Dudley’s correspondence. By his first wife, Anne, daughter of sir Henry Killegrew, knt. and widow of sir Henry Neville, of Billingbere, in Berkshire, he had a son, Henry, who was chosen representative for Arundel, in Sussex, in the short parliament which met at Westminster on the 13th -of April 1640. Mr. Henry Carleton embraced the cause of the house of commons in the civil war with king Charles the First, accepted a captain’s commission in the parliamentary army, and in other respects did no honour to his father.

, a political character of considerable fame in Scotland, was the descendant of an ancient family, and born in 1649 at Cathcart in Glasgow. He was educated in divinity and philosophy at Edinburgh and Utrecht, to which his father sent him that he might avoid the political contests which disturbed the reign of Charles II. but he had a zeal which prompted him to interfere in what regarded his country, although removed from it, and he must have given some proofs of a talent for political affairs at a very early period. When England was alarmed about the popish succession, Carstares was introduced to the pensionary Fagel, and afterwards to the prince of Orange, and entrusted with his designs relating to British affairs. During his residence in Holland, his principles both in religion and politics, were strongly confirmed; and upon his return to his native country he entered with zeal into the counsels and schemes of those noblemen and gentlemen who opposed the tyrannical measures of government; and although about this time he took orders in the Scotch church, his mind seemed to have acquired such a decided bias towards towards politics, that he determined to revisit Holland. On his way thither he passed through London, and was employed by Argyle, and the other Scots patriots, in treating with the English, who were for excluding the duke of York from succession to the crown. Towards the close of 1682, he held various conferences with the heads of that party, which terminated in his being privy to what has been called the “Rye-house plot.” Accordingly, he was committed to close custody in the Gate-house, Westminster. After several examinations before the privy council, he was sent for trial to Scotland; and as he refused to give any information respecting the authors of the exclusion scheme, he was put to the torture, which he endured with invincible firmness, but yielded to milder methods of a more insidious nature, and when a pardon was proposed, with an assurance that no advantage should be taken of his answers as evidence against any person, he consented to answer their interrogatories. The privy-council immediately caused to be printed a paper, entitled, “Mr. Carstares’s Confession,” which contained, as he said, a false and mutilated account of the whole transaction; and in direct violation of their promise, they produced this evidence in open court against one of his most intimate friends. This treachery and its conquences very deeply affected him; but as soon as he was cleared, he obtained permission to retire to Holland, towards the close of 1684, or the beginning of 1685, where he was kindly received by the prince of Orange, who appointed him one of his chaplains, caused him to be elected minister of the English protestant congregation at Leyden; and when the prince determined to transport an army to England, Carstares accompanied him as his chaplain, and continued about his person till the settlement of the crown. During the whole of this reign he was the chief agent between the church of Scotland and the court, and contributed by his influence with the king to the establishment of presbytery in Scotland, to which his majesty was disinclined, and to a degree of coalescence or accommodation on the part of the presbyterian clergy with the episcopalians. When an act was passed in 1693, by the Scots parliament, obliging all officers, civil and ecclesiastical, to take an oath of allegiance, and also to sign an assurance (as it was called) declaring William to be king dejure, as well as de facto, the ministers refused to sign the declaration, and appealed to the privy council, who recommended to the king to enforce the obligation. Accordingly, measures were adopted for this purpose; and the body of the clergy applied to Carstares, requesting his interference in their favour. The king persisted in his resolution; orders were renewed in peremptory terms, and dispatches were actually delivered to the messenger to be forwarded next morning. In these critical circumstances Carstares hastened to the messenger at night, demanded the dispatches, which had been delivered to him in the king’s name, and instantly repaired to Kensington, where he found his majesty gone to bed. Having obtained admission into his chamber, he gently waked him, fell on his knees, and asked pardon for the intrusion, and the daring act of disobedience of which he had been guilty. The king at first expressed his displeasure; but when Carstares further stated the case, his majesty caused the dispatches to be thrown into the fire, and directed him to send such instructions to the royal commissioners of the general assembly as he thought most conducive to the public good. In consequence of this seasonable interposition, the oath and assurance were dispensed with on the part of the clergy. By this timely service Carstares acquired the confidence of the presbyterian party to such a degree, and so successfully cultivated the friendship of the earl of Portland, and other men of influence about the court, that he was regarded in the management of Scotch affairs, as a kind of viceroy for Scotland, though he possessed no public character. All applications passed through his hands, all employments, honours, and offices of state, were left to his disposal; and without public responsibility, he engrossed the secret direction of public affairs. Few Scotchmen obtained access to the king, unless through his intervention; and in his correspondence with every department, says a late historian, it is curious to remark how the haughty nobility condescended to stoop and truckle to a presbyterianx clergyman, whom their predecessors in office had tortured and deceived. His moderation, secrecy, and a prudence apparently disinterested, recommended him to king William, who once said of him, in the presence of several of his courtiers, “that he had long known Mr. Carstares; that he knew him well, and knew him to be an honest man” He is represented on the other hand, as a cunning, subtle, insinuating priest, whose dissimulation was impenetrable; an useful friend when sincere; but, from an air of smiling sincerity, a dangerous enemy.

, a loyalist in the time of Charles f. of uncommon firmness and bravery, the descendant of an ancient family, originally from Normandy, but afterwards settled at Guernsey and Jersey, was born at Jersey in 1599, his father Ilelier Carteret, esq. being at that time deputy governor of the island. He entered early into the sea service, and had acquired the character of an experienced officer, when king Charles I. ascended the throne. This circumstance recommending him to the notice and esteem of the duke of Buckingham, he was appointed, in 1626, joint governor of Jersey, with Henry, afterwards lord Jermyn and, in 1C '6 9, he obtained a grant of the office and place of comptroller of all his Majesty’s ships. At the commencement of the civil war, when the parliament resolved to send out the earl of Warwick as admiral of the fleet, they also resolved, that captain Carteret should be vice-ad miral. But he, thinking that he ought not to accept the command without knowing the royal pleasure, addressed himself to the king for direction, who ordered him to decline the employment; and captain, Batten, surveyor-general, was substituted in his place. His Majesty was probably mistaken in this advice; for, if captain Carteret had accepted of the charge, he might probably have prevented the greater part of the fleet from engaging in the cause of the parliament. Captain Carteret, however, likewise quitted the post of comptroller, and retired, with his family, to the island of Jersey, the inhabitants of which were confirmed by him in their adherence to the king; and desirous of more active service, he transported himself into Cornwall, with the purpose of raising a troop of horse. When he arrived in that country, finding there was a great want of powder, he went into France to procure that and other necessary supplies; and was so successful, that, through the remainder of the war, the Cornish army was never destitute of ammunition. This was so important and seasonable a service, that the king acknowledged it by particular approbation; and by conferring upon him, at Oxford, the honour of knighthood, which was speedily followed by his being advanced, on the 9th of May 1645, to the dignity, of a baronet. Returning the same year into Jersey, he found that several of the inhabitants had been induced to embrace the cause of the parliament, on which account he threw some of them into confinement. This was so alarming and offensive to the members at Westminster, that an order was made, that if, for the future, he should put to death any of the island whom he should take prisoners, for every one so slain, three of the king’s men should be hung up. From the words here used, it seems implied that sir George Carteret had actually executed some one or more of the people of Jersey who had appeared for the Parliament; a step highly injudicious, whence, in all the subsequent propositions for peace with the king, sir George was excepted from pardon. When the prince of Wales, and many persons of distinction with him, came into Jersey in 1646, and brought with them very little for their subsistence, they were all chear fully entertained, and at a large expence, by sir George Carteret who, being sensible how much it behoved him to take care for supplies, equipped about half a score small frigates and privateers, which soon struck a terror through the whole channel, and made a number of captures. Upon the prince’s leaving the island, at the positive command of the queen, several of the council chose to stay with sir George; au<=! the chancellor of the exchequer (afterwards earl of Clarendon) resided with him above two years. After the death of the king, sir George Carteret, though the republican party was completely triumphant, and though Charles II. was at the Hague in a very destitute condition, immediately proclaimed him at Jersey, with all his titles. Some months afterwards his Majesty determined to pay a second visit to the island of Jersey, and arrived in the latter end of September 1649, accompanied by his brother the duke of York, with several of the nobility. Here they were supplied by sir George with all necessaries. The king, when prince of Wales, had procured his father’s leave for making sir George Carteret his vice-chamberlain, and he now appointed him treasurer of his navy; which however, at this time, chiefly consisted of the privateers that sir George hue! provided, and of the men of war with prince Rupert. Charles II. staid in the island till the latter end of March 1650, when he embarked for Holland, in order to be more commodiously situated for treating with the Scots, who had invited him into that kingdom. This defiance of sir George Carteret in harbouring the king, and taking many of their trading vessels, enraged the republicans so much, that they determined to exert every nerve for the reduction of Jersey. A formidable armament being prepared, it put to sea in October 1651, under the command of admiral Blake, and major-general Holmes, to the last of whom the charge of the forces for the descent was committed. In this crisis, sir George Carteret prevented the landing of the republican army as long as possible; and when that was effected, and the remaining forts of the island were taken, he retired into Elizabeth castle, resolving to hold it out to the last extremity. The king being safely arrived in France, after the, fatal battle of Worcester, sir George informed him of the state of the garrison, but the king not being able to assist him, he advised sir George Carteret, rather to accept of a reasonable composition, than, by too obstinate a defence, to bring himself and the loyal gentlemen who were with him into danger of being made prisoners of war. Sir George was ambitious that Elizabeth castle should be the last of the king’s garrisons (as was in fact the case) which should yield to the prevailing powers. He determined, therefore, to conceal his majesty’s permission to treat, that the knowledge of it might not renew the cry for a surrender. But, at length, provisions growing scarce, the number of defenders lessening daily by death and desertion, and there being no possibility of supplies or recruits, Elizabeth castle was surrendered in the? latter end of December, and sir George went first to St. Maloes, and afterwards travelled through several parts of Europe. To facilitate his reception at the different courts and places he might be disposed to visit, he obtained from his royal master a very honourable and remarkable certificate of recommendation. In 1657, sir George had given such offence to Oliver Cromwell, by some hostile design or attempt against the English vessels trading to the French ports, that, by the Protector’s interest with cardinal Mazarine, he was committed prisoner to the Bastile from which he was, after some time, released by the intercession of his friends, upon condition of his quitting France. In 1659, however, we find him at Rheims, from whence, he repaired to the king at Brussels, and followed him to Breda. Upon his majesty’s being restored to his kingdoms, sir George Carteret rode, with him in his triumphant entry into the city of London, on the 2<nh of May 1660, and next day he was declared vice-chamberlain of the hoiishold, an-d sworn of the privy council. He was also constituted treasurer of the navy; and at the coronation of the king, he had the honour of being almoner for the day. In the first parliament called by Charles II. in May, 1661, sir George Carteret was elected representative for the corporation of Portsmouth; and it appears, that he was au active member of the house. When the duke of York, 1673, resigned the office of high admiral of England, sir George was constituted one of the commissioners of the admiralty; and“in 1676, he was appointed one of the lords of the committee of trade. He was also vice-treasurer of Ireland, and treasurer of the military forces there. At length, in consequence of his merit and services, the king determined to raise him to the dignity of a peerage; but before the design could be accomplished, he departed this life, on the 14th of January, 1679, being nearly eighty years of age. On the 11th of February following, a royal warrant was issued, in which it is recited,” That whereas sir George Carteret died before his patent for his barony was sued out, liis Majesty authorizes Elizabeth, his widow, and her youngest children, James Carteret, Caroline, wife of sir Thomas S<:ot, kut. and Louisa, wife of sir Robert Atkins, knt. to enjoy their precedency and pre-eminency, as if the said sir George Carterei hail actually been created a baron." Sir George’s rldest son, by his jady Elizabeth, who was his cousin-gr nnan, being the daughter of sir PhiUp Carteret, was ijained Philip after his grandfather. This gentleman eminently distinguished himself in the civil wars, and was khighted by Charles II on his arrival in Jersey. After the king’s restoration, sir Philip Carteret married Jemima, daughter of Edward Montague, the first earl of Sandwich, and perished with that illustrious nobleman, in the great sea-fight with the Dutch, in Solbay, on the 28th of May, 1672. Sir Philip determined, whilst many others left the ship, to share the fate of his father-in-law. His eldest son George was the first lord Carteret, and father to the subject of the following article.

We now come to a part of lord Carteret’s life, including nearly twelve years, from 1730 to 1742, during which he engaged in the grand opposition, that was carried on so long, and with so much pertinacity, against sir Robert Walpole. In this opposition he took a very distinguished part, and was one of its ablest and most spirited leaders. There was scarcely any motion or question on which his eloquence was not displayed. His powers of oratory are allowed to have been eminently great; and it is highly probable, that they were invigorated and increased by that superior ardour which naturally accompanies an attack upon the measures of government. In the session of parliament, 1730-1, he supported the bill against pensioners being permitted to sit in that house; and the motion for discharging the twelve thousand Hessian forces in the pay of Great Britain. In the subsequent session, which opened on the 13th of January, 1731-2, besides speaking in favour of the pension bill, lord Carteret exerted his whole ability against the passing of the act for reviving the salt duty. This tax he asserted to be grievous, pernicious, and insupportable; oppressive to the lower part of the people; and dangerous to public liberty, by the numerous dependents it would create upon the crown. In the next year, the grand objects that engaged the attention of the minority were, the motion for the reduction of the land forces; the produce of the forfeited estates of the SouthSea directors in 1720; and the bill for granting eightythousand pounds for the princess-royal’s marriage settlement, and a sum out of the sinking fund; on which occasions lord Carteret displayed his usual energy and eloquence. In the session which began on the 17th of January, 1733-4, his lordship made the motion for an address to the king, to know who had advised the removal of the duke of Bolton and lord Cobham from their regiments; and took the lead in the memorable debate which arose upon that question, and an, active part in the other matters that were agitated in this and the following sessions. It is observable that, about this time, Dr. Swift had some doubts concerning lord Carteret’s steadiness in the cause of opposition, yet, in the session>f parliament which opened on the 1st of February, 1736-7, his lordship distinguished himself greatly in the several question-s concerning the riots at Edinburgh, and the affair of captain Porteus; and he was the mover, in the house of peers, for the settlement of an hundred thousand pounds a year, out of the civil list, upon the prince of Wales; a matter which excited a very long and violent debate. He exercised the same vigour with regard to all the motions and questions of that busy session; and it is evident, from the records of the times, that he was the prime leader of opposition in the upper house. This character was preserved by lord Carteret in the parliament which met on the 15th of November, 1739; and in the following session, when the minority exerted their whole strength to overturn the administration, he made the motion in the house of peers, Feb. 13, 1740-1, to address his majesty, that he would graciously be pleased to remove sir Robert Walpole from his presence and councils for ever, and prefaced his proposal with the longest, as well as the ablest speech that, he ever appears to have delivered. A year after, when views of opposition were attained, so far as related to the displacing of sir Robert Walpole, lord Carteret, Feb. 12> 1741-42, was appointed one of his majesty’s principal secretaries of state, and then began to change his parliamentary language, opposing the motion for the commitment of the pension -bill, and the bill to indemnify evidences against Robert earl of Orford, not consistently, although with some reason. In September 1742, he was sent to the States General, to concert measures with them, for the maintenance of the liberties of the United Provinces, and the benefit of the common cause and soon after his return, he opposed the motion for discharging the Hanoverian troops in British pay and distinguished himself in favour of the bill for retailing spirituous liquors. In 1743 he waited upon his majesty at Hanover, and attended him through the whole interesting campaign of that year; and the king placed the greatest confidence in his counsels, to which he was the more entitled, as he was eminently ^killed in foreign affairs. On the death of his mother, upon the 18th of October, 1744, he succeeded to the titles of viscount Carteret and earl Granville, and, a few weeks after, resigned the seals as secretary of state, unable to oppose the patriotic party, whom he had suddenly forsaken, and the duke of Newcastle and his brother, Mr. Pelham, who formed analliance with them against him. George II. however, with reluctance parted with a minister who had gained his personal affection by his great knowledge of the affairs of Europe, by his enterprizing genius, and, above all, by his ready compliance with the king’s favourite views. In the beginning of 1746, his lordship made an effort to retrieve his influence in the cabinet, but the duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pelham, who knew his aspiring disposition, refused to admit him into administration, yet mismanaged their intrigues so much, that at first they were themselves obliged to resign, and earl Granvilie was appointed secretary of state, and resumed the reins of administration, in February 1745-6: finding, however, that he could not counteract the accumulated opposition that preponderated against him, he resigned the seals four days after they had' been put into his hands. Still lord Granville’s political antagonists were not able to prevent his receiving,. personal marks of royal favour. On the 22d of June, 1749J he was elected at Kensington, one of the knights companions of the most noble order of the garter, and next year was again brought into the ministry, in connection with the very men by whom he had been so long and so warmly opposed. He was then constituted president of the council, and notwithstanding the various revolutions of administration, was continued in this high post till his decease. When his majesty went to Hanover, in 17- r >2, earl Granville was appointed one of the lords justices of the kingdom and he was in the commissions for opening and concluding the session of parliament, which began on the 31st of May, 1754, and ended on the 5th of June following. The Ifist time in which he spoke in the house of peers, was in opposition to the third reading of the militia-bill, on the 24th of May, 1756, but not with his usual effect. When, in October 1761, Mr. Pitt proposed in council, an immediate declaration of war with Spain, and urged the measure with his usual energy, threatening a resignation, if his advice should not be adopted; lord Granville is said to have replied to him in terms both pointed and personal. Mr. Wood, in the preface to his “Essay on the original Genius and Writings of Homer,” informs us, that “being directed to wait upon his lordship, a few days before he died, with the preliminary articles of the treaty of Paris, he found him so languid, that he proposed postponing his business for another time; but earl Granville insisted that he should stay, saying, it could not prolong his life to neglect his duty; and repeating a passage out of Sarpedon’s speech in Homer, he dwelled with particular emphasis on one of the lines which recalled to his mind the distinguishing part he had taken in public affairs.” After a pause he desired to hear the treaty read and gave it the approbation of a “dying statesman (his own words) on the most glorious war, and most honourable peace, this nation ever saw.” In other respects, lord Granville so much retained his vivacity to the close of his life, as to be able to break out into sallies of wit and humour. He died Jan. 2, 1763, in. the seventy-third year of his age. He was twice married; first at Long-Leat, on the 17th of October, 1710, to Frances, only daughter of sir Robert Worsley, bart.; and secondly, on the 14th of April, 1744, to lady Sophia, daughter of Thomas earl of Pomfret. By his former wife he had three sons and five daughters; by the latter, only one daughter. Lord Granville’s character has been drawn as follows, by the late earl of Chesterfield: “Lord Granville had great parts, and a most uncommon share of learning for a man of quality. He was one of the best speakers in the house of lords, both in the declamatory and the argumentative way. He had a wonderful quickness and precision in seizing the stress of a question, which no art, no sophistry, could disguise in him. In business he was bold, enterprizing, and overbearing. He had been bred up in high monarchical, that is, tyrannical principles of government, which his ardent and impetuous temper made him think were the only rational and practicable ones. He would have been a great first minister in France, little inferior, perhaps, to Richelieu; in this government, which is yet free, he would have been a dangerous one, little less so, perhaps, than lord Strafford. He was neither ill-natured nor vindictive, and had a great contempt for money. His ideas were all above it. In social life he was an agreeable, good-humoured, and instructive companion; a great but entertaining talker. He degraded himself by the vice of drinking, which, together with a great stock of Greek and Latin, he brought away with him from Oxford, and retained and practised ever afterwards. By his own industry, he had made himself master of all the modern languages, and had acquired a great knowledge of the law. His political knowledge of the interest of princes and of commerce was extensive, and his notions were just and great. His character may be summed up, in nice precision, quick decision, and unbounded presumption.”

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

, a celebrated Italian general, was born at Lucca, in Tuscany, in 1284; where, it is said, he was taken up one morning accidentally in a vineyard, where he had been laid and covered with leaves; but others deduce him from an ancient and great family. The former account, however, goes on to inform us that he was found by Dianora, a wi.iow lady, and sister of Antonio, a canon ot rft Michael in Lucca, who was descended from the illustrious family of the Castracani. Antonio be ing priest, and Dianora having no children, they determined to bring him up, christened him Castruccio, by the name of their father, and educated him as carefully as if he had been their own. Antonio designed him for a priest, and accordingly trained him to letters; but Castruccio was scarcely fourteen years old when he began to neglect his books, and to devote himself to military exercises, to wrestling, running, and other athletic sports, which very well suited his great strength of body. At that time the two great factions, the Guelfs and Ghibilins, shared all Italy between them, divided the popes and the emperors, and engaged in their different interests, not only the members of the same town, but even the members of the same family. Francisco, a considerable man on the side of the Ghibilins, observing one day in the market-place, the uncommon spirit and qualities of Castruccio, prevailed with Antonio to let him turn soldier. As nothing could be more agreeable to the inclination of Castruccio, he presently became accomplished in every thing which could adorn his profession. He was eighteen years old when the faction of the Guelfs drove the Ghibilins out of Pavia, and was then made a lieutenant of a company of foot, by Francisco Guinigi, of whom the prince of Milan had solicited succours. The first campaign this new lieutenant made, he gave such proofs of his courage and conduct, as spread his fame all over Lombardy; and Guinigi conceived such an opinion of him, and had so much confidence in him, that, dying soon after, he committed the care of his son and the management of his estate to him. So great a trust and administration made Castruccio more considerable than before but at the same time created him many enemies, and lost him some friends for, knowing him to be of an high and enterprising spirit, many began to fancy his views were to empire, and to oppress the liberty of his country. He went on still, however, to distinguish himself by military exploits, and at last raised so much jealousy in his chief commander, that he was imprisoned by stratagem, with a view of being put to death; but the people of Lucca soon released him, and in a short time after, solemnly chose him their sovereign prince, and there were not then, either in Lombardy or Tuscany, any of the Ghibilins who did not look upon Castruccio as the true head of their faction. Those who were banished their country upon that account fled to him for protection, and promised unanimously, that if he could restore them to their estates, they would serve him so effectually, that the sovereignty of their country should be his reward. Flattered by these promises, and encouraged by the strength of his forces, he entertained a design of making himself master of Tuscany; and to give more reputation to his affairs, he entered into a league with the prince of Milan. He kept his army constantly on foot, and employed it as suited best with his own designs. For the services he did the pope he was made senator of Rome with more than ordinary ceremony. The day of his promotion, he came forth in a habit suitable to his dignity, but enriched with a delicate embroidery, and with two devices artificially wrought in, one before, the other behind. The former was in these words, “He is as it pleases God” the latter, “And shall be what God will have him.” While Castruccio was at Rome, news was brought him which obliged him to return in all haste to Lucca. The Florentines were making war upon him, and had already done him some damage; and conspiracies were forming against him as an usurper, at Pisa and in several places; but Castruccio surmounted all these difficulties, and the supreme authority of Tuscany was just falling into his hands, when a period was put to his progress and his life. An army of 30,000 foot and 10,000 horse appeared against him in May 1328. Of these he destroyed 22,000, with the loss of not quite 1600 of his own men, and was returning from the field of battle; but, happening to halt a little for the sake of thanking and caressing his soldiers as they passed fi,red with an action as fatiguing as glorious, and covered with sweat, a north wind blew upon him, and affected him so, that he fell immediately into a fit of ague. At first he neglected it, believing himself sufficiently hardened against such attacks; but the fit increasing, and with it the fever, his physicians gave him over, and he died in a few days. He was in his forty-fourth year; and from the time he came to appear first in the world, he always, as well in his good as bad fortune, expressed the same steadiness and equality of spirit. As he left several monuments of his good fortune behind him, so he was not ashamed to leave some memorials of his adversity. Thus, when he was delivered from the imprisonment above-mentioned, he caused the irons with which he was loaded, to be hung in the most public room of his palace, where they were to be seen many years after.

, Queen Of England, and first consort of Henry VIII. was the fourth daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, king and queen of Castile and Arragon. She was born in 1485. In the sixteenth year of her age, Nov. 14, 1501, she was married to Arthur, prince of Wales, son of Henry VII. who died a few months after. The king, either from political reasons, or, as some think, because he was unwilling to restore Catherine’s dowry, which was 200,000 ducats, obliged his second son Henry, whom he created prince of Wales, and who was then in his twelfth year, to be contracted to the infanta. The prince resisted this injunction to the utmost of his power; but the king was invincible, and the espousals were at length, by means of the pope’s dispensation, contracted between the parties. Immediately after the accession of Henry VIII. to the crown, in 1509, the king began to deliberate on his former engagements, to which he had many objections, but his privy council, though contrary to the opinion of the primate, gave him their advice for celebrating the marriage. Even the prejudices of the people were averse to an union betwixt such near relations as Henry and his brother’s widow; and the late king is thought to have had an intention to avail himself of a proper opportunity of annulling the contract. In 1527 several circumstances occurred which combined to excite scruples in the king’s mind concerning the lawfulness of his marriage, but probably the chief were what arose from his own passions. The queen was six years older than the king; and the decay of her beauty, together with particular infn-mities and diseases, had contributed, notwithstanding her blameless character and deportment, to render her person unacceptable to him. Though she had borne him several children, they all died in early infancy, except one daughter, Mary; and it was apprehended, that if doubts of Mary’s legitimacy concurred with the weakness of her sex, the king of Scots, the next heir, would advance his pretensions, and might throw the kingdom into confusion. But most of all, Anne Boleyn had acquired an entire ascendant over his affections, and he was now determined on a divorce, and upon consulting them, all the prelates of England, except Fisher, bishop of Rochester, unanimously declared that they deemed his marriage unlawful. In this they were supported by cardinal Wolsey, who had political purposes to answer in breaking off the match with Catherine, although he was no friend to Anne Boleyn. Accordingly Henry determined to apply to the pope, Clement VII. for a divorce, who, though at first disposed to favour Henry’s application, and had actually concerted measures for its successful issue, was overawed by the interference of the emperor, Charles V. Catherine’s nephew; and when the negociation was protracted to such a length as to tire Henry’s patience, the pope, importuned by the English ministers, put into their hands a commission to Wolsey, as legate, in conjunction with the archbishop of Canterbury, or any other English prelate, to examine the validity of the king’s marriage, and of the late pope’s dispensation. He also granted them a provisional dispensation for the king’s marriage with any other person; and promised to issue a decretal bull, annulling the marriage with Catherine; but he enjoined secrecy, and conjured them not to publish these papers, or to make any farther use of them, till his afflxirs with regard to the emperor were in such a train as to secure his liberty and independence. After considerable hesitation and delay, the legates, Campeggio and Wolsey, to whom the pope had granted a new commission for the trial of the king’s marriage, opened their court in London, May 31, 1529, and cited the king and queen to appear before it. They both presented themselves, and the king answered to his name, when called; but the queen, instead of answering to her’s, threw herself at the king’s feet, and appealed to his justice, declaring that she would not submit her cause to be tried by the members of a court who depended on her enemies; and making the king a low reverence, she departed, and never would again appear in that court.

This remarkable act being passed, the queen and the lady llochford were beheaded on Tower-hill on the 12tli of February, about seventeen months after she had been married to the king. The queen confessed the miscarriages of her former life before marriage, which had brought her to this fatal end; but protested to Dr. White, afterwards bishop of Winchester, that she took God and his angels to be her witnesses, upon the salvation of her soul, that she was guiltless of the charge of defiling her sovereign’s bed. Yet the unbounded looseness of her former course of living inclined the world to believe the most scandalous things that could be reported. But all observed the judgment of Heaven upon the lady Rochford, who had been the principal instrument in the death of queen Anne Boleyn, her sister-in-law, and that of her own husband; and her appearing now so enormously profligate tended much to raise their reputations again, in whose fall her malice and artifices had so great a share. It was thought, however, extremely cruel to shew such extraordinary severity against the queen’s kindred for not discovering her former ill life, since the making such a discovery would have been a very hard instance of duty. The duchess dowager of Norfolk being her grandmother, had educated her from a child; and it was said, that for her to have acquainted the king with her grand-daughter’s lewd behaviour, when he intended to marry her, as it was an unheard-of thing, so the not doing it could not have drawn so high a punishment from any but a prince of the king’s temper. However he pardoned her, and most of the rest, though some continued in prison after others were discharged. That other proviso, which obliged a young lady to discover her own frailties, if his majesty should please to make love to her, seemed likewise a strange piece of tyranny; since if a king, especially one of so imperious a disposition as Henry VIII, should design such an honour to any of his subjects, who had failed in, their former life, they must either disgrace themselves by publishing so odious a secret, or run the hazard of being afterwards attainted of high treason. Upon this, some persons, who were inclined to rally the sex, took occasion to say, “that after such a regulation, no one, reputed a virgin, could be induced to marry the king; and therefore it was not so much choice as necessity, that caused him to marry a widow two years after.” But this part of the act was afterwards repealed in the first parliament of king Edward VI.

, sixth and last queen to Henry VIII. celebrated for her learning, whose perfections, though a widow, attracted the heart of this monarch, and whose prudence preserved her from the effects of his cruelty and caprice, was the daughter of sir Thomas Parr, and was married first to Edward Burghe, and secondly to John Neville, lord Latimer, whose widow she was when king Henry cast his affections on her. She was early educated in polite literature, as was the fashion of noble women at that time in England, and in her riper years was much given to reading and studying the Holy Scriptures. Several learned men were retained as her chaplains, who preached to her every day in her privy chamber, and often touched such abuses as were common in the church. The king approved of this practice, and often permitted her to confer with him on religious subjects. But when disease and confinement added to his natural impatience of contradiction, and when in the presence of the bishop of Winchester and others of the popish faction, she had been urging her old topic of perfecting the reformation, the king broke out into this expression after she was retired, “A good hearing it is, when women become such clerks and a thing much to mycomfort, to come in mine old age to be taught by my wife” Winchester failed not to improve this opportunity to aggravate the queen’s insolence, to insinuate the danger of cherishing such a serpent in his bosom, and to accuse her of treason cloaked with heresy; and the king was prevailed upon to give a warrant to draw lip articles to touch her life. The day and hour was appointed, when she was to be seized: but the design being accidentally discovered to her, she waited upon the king, who received her kindly, and purposely began a discourse about religion. She answered, <* That women by -their creation at first were made subject to men; that they, being made after the image of God, as the women were after their image, ought to instruct their wives, who were to learn of them: and she much more was to be taught of his majesty, who was a prince of such excellent learning and wisdom.*' “Not so, by St. Mary,” said the king, “you are become a doctor, Kate, able to instruct us and not to be instructed by us.” To which she replied, “that it seemed he had much mistaken her freedom in arguing with him, since she did it to ejigage him in discourse, to amuse this painful time of his infirmity, and that she might receive profit by his learned discourse; in which last point she had not missed of her aim, always referring herself in these matters, as she ought to do, to his majesty.” “And is it even so, sweetheart?” said the king, “then we are perfect friends again.”

late empress of Russia, whose original name was Sophia Augusta Fredeiuca, the daughter of Christian Augustus, prince of Anhalt-Zerbst-Dornburg, and of the princess of Holstein, was born at Stettin, in Prussian Pomerania, May 2, 1729. In early life she was distinguished by her good humour, intelligence, and spirit, and was fond of reading, reflection, learning, and employment. About the beginning of the year 1744, she was introduced at the court of Petersburg!], where the empress Elizabeth received her very graciously, and formed the scheme of a matrimonial union between her nephew, the grand-duke, afterwards Peter III. and Sophia; who, though instructed under the tuition of her mother in the Lutheran doctrines, embraced the religion of the Greek church, and on this occasion changed her name to that of Catherine Alcxievna. Before the nuptials were celebrated, the grand duke was seized with the small-pox, which so much deformed his face, as to render it for a time almost hideous. This metamorphosis produced a horror in the mind of the young princess at the first Interview, which, however, she had sufficient art to disguise, and which proved no impediment to their marriage, which took place in 1745. At first their attachment appeared to be mutual, but their dispositions and accomplishments were soon discovered to be different. Catherine displayed a superior understanding, which in time Peter felt, and thus the seeds of mutual dislike were very early sown. Their consolations were now also different. Peter had recourse to drinking and gaming, while Catherine entered into all the arcana of political measures, and began to form a party. She also now formed the first of those personal attachments for which she has been so remarkable, with Soltikof, the prince’s chamberlain; and although, when accused, she defended her character with some address and spirit, her intercourse with Soltikof was renewed, and became less secret. At length, the grand chancellor Bestuchef prevailed with the empress to appoint Soltikof minister plenipotentiary from the court of Russia to Hamburgh. For some time Catherine corresponded with him, but in 1755 formed a new connection of the same kind with Stanislaus Poniatowsky, the late king of Poland, and he being appointed plenipotentiary from Poland at the court of Russia, their intimacy was long visible to all, except the grand duke Peter. His jealousy being at length roused, he forbade the grand duchess to be seen with Poniatowsky, and prevailed on the empress to banish Bestuchef, who had been the means of Poniatowski’s mission to the court of Russia, and incensed her majesty against Catherine to such a degree, that it required her utmost cunning to effect a reconciliation, which was however at length brought about, and on the death of the empress Elizabeth, Dec. 25, 1761, Peter III. ascended the throne.

The independence of Cam Tartary, however, soon occasioned an open rupture between the Turkish and Russian parties; and in 1778 it produced a declaration of war. From the measures that were pursued, it sufficiently appeared, that the ambition of the empress would not be satisfied till she had gained entire possession of that peninsula. Her intrigues in the neighbouring courts of Denmark and Sweden tended to render these powers little more than dependencies on her crown; however, in 1780 her influence over them was employed in establishing the famous “armed neutrality,” the purpose of which was to protect the commercial rights of neutral states, then continually violated by the belligerent powers, and particularly by England, which availed itself of its superiority at sea, in preventing France and Spain from receiving naval stores from the Baltic. In this year Catherine had an interview at Mohilow with the emperor of Germany, Joseph II. and they travelled together in familiar intercourse into Russia; the prince of Prussia (afterwards Frederic William II.) also visited her court; and it was customary for the neighbouring princes to make visits of policy or curiosity to Petersburgh, where they were always treated with extraordinary magnificence. In 1782, Catherine, with a view of affording an asylum to the proscribed order of Jesuits, and probably imagining that all the Jesuits of Europe and America would bring into White Russia their treasures and their industry, erected a Roman catholic archbishopric at Mohilow, for the spiritual government of her subjects of that persuasion, and also gave him a Jesuit coadjutor. But the spoils of Paraguay never found their way to Mohilow. This year was marked by an event which indicated Catherine’s respect for the memory of Peter the Great, whom she affected to imitate: it was the erection at Petersburgh of his famous equestrian statue, which was executed by Stephen Falconet of Paris. This, artist conceived the design of having for the pedestal of his statue a huge and rugged rock, in order to indicate to posterity, whence the heroic legislator had set out and what obstacles he surmounted. This rock, the height of which from the horizontal line was 21 feet by 42 in length, and 34 in breadth, was conveyed, with great labour, from a bay on the gulf of Finland to Petersburgh, through the distance of 11 versts, or about 41,250 English feet. On the side next the senate it has this Latin inscription, which is in a style of sublime and proud simplicity: “Petro primo, Catharina secunda;” “Catherine the second to Peter the first.”

In the following year, 1783, she augmented the splendour of her court, by instituting the new order of St. Wolodimir, or Vladimir, and this year, having acquired, without a war, the sovereignty of the Crimea, of the isle of Taman, and a great part of the Kuban, she called the former of these countries Taurida, and the other Caucasus. Thus Catherine gained a point of much importance towards the main object of her ambition, i. e. the destruction of the Turkish empire in Europe; in the view of which she had named the grand duke’s second son Constantine, and had put him into the hands of Greek nurses, that he might be thoroughly acquainted with the language of his future subjects. Instigated by Potemkin, the empress formed a design in 1787 of being splendidly crowned in her new dominions “queen of Taurida;” but the expence being objected to by some of her courtiers, she contented herself with making a grand progress through them. At her new city of Cherson, she had a second interview with the emperor Joseph. She then traversed the Crimea, and returned to Moscow, having left traces in her progress of her munificence and condescension. This ostentatious tour was probably one cause of the new rupture with the Turkish court, in which the emperor of Germany engaged as ally to Russia, and the king of Sweden as ally to the Porte. The latter prevented the empress from sending a fleet into the Mediterranean; and even endangered Petersburgh itself by a sudden incursion into Finland. The danger, however, was averted by the empress’s own vigorous exertions, by the desertion of some of Gustavus’s troops, who would not fight against the Russians, and by an attack of Sweden, on the part of the prince of Denmark, who proceeded as far as Gottenburgh. The Turkish army, though superior to that of the empress, could not resist the efforts of the Russian generals. Potemkin at the head of a numerous army, and a large train of artillery, laid siege to Otchakof, and it was at length taken by storm, with the loss of 25,000 Turks and 12,000 Russians, but the issue of the war was upon the whole unfavourable, and all parties consented to the peace signed in 1792, by which the Dniester was declared to be in future the limit of the two empires. Mr. Pitt at this time had a strong desire to compel Russia to restore Otchakof to the Turks, but not being supported by the nation, this point was conceded. When the French revolution took place, the empress finding Prussia and Austria engaged in opposing it by force of arms, turned her attention to Poland, marched an army thither, overturned the new constitution the Poles had formed, and finally broke the spirit of the Poles by the dreadful massacre made on the inhabitants of the suburbs of Warsaw by her general Suvarof: a new division took place of this illfated country, between Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and afforded precedents for other divisions which the two latter powers little suspected.

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

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

the younger, the son of the former by his wife Ethelreda, daughter of Mr. Frodsham of Elton in Cheshire, was born in 1559, and being very young at the time of his father’s decease, and his mother soon after marrying a second husband, he owed his education chiefly to the care and protection of the lordtreasurer Burleigh, by whom he was first put under the care of Dr. Malim, master of St. Paul’s school, and afterwards removed to Magdalen college in Oxford, where he closely pursued his studies at the time when his father’s poetical works were published; and as a proof of his veneration for his father’s friend, and gratitude for the many kindnesses himself had received, he prefixed a dedication to this work to his patron the lord Burleigh, He left the college before he took any degree, but not before he had acquired a great reputation for parts and learning. He had, like his father, a great talent- for poetry, which he wrote with much facility both in English and in Latin, but it does not appear that he published any thing before he left England, which was probably about the year 1580. He visited several parts of Europe, but made the longest stay in Italy, fprmed an acquaintance with the gravest and wisest men in that country, who very readily imparted to him their most important discoveries in natural philosophy, which he had studied with much diligence and attention., At his return home, which was some time before 1584, he appeared very much at court, and was esteemed by the greatest men there, on account of his great learning and manners. About this time he married his first wife, the daughter of his father’s old friend sir William Fleetwood, recorder of London, by whom he had several children. In the year 1591 he had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him, as well in regard to his own personal merit“as the great services of his father; and some years after, the first alum mines that were ever known to be in this kingdom, were discovered, by his great sagacity, not far from Gisborough in Yorkshire, where he had an estate. In the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign, sir Thomas Chaloner made a journey into Scotland, whether out of curiosity, with a view to preferment, or by the direction of sir Robert Cecil, afterwards earl of Salisbury, who was his great friend, is uncertain; but he soon grew into such credit with king James, that the most considerable persons in England addressed themselves to him for his favour and recommendation. Amongst the rest, sir Francis Bacon, afterwards chancellor, wrote him a very warm letter, which is still extant, which he sent him by his friend Mr. Matthews, who was also charged with another to the king; a copy of which was sent to sir Thomas Chaloner, and Mr. Matthews was directed to deliver him the original, if he would undertake to present it. He accomparried the king in his journey to England, and by his learning, conversation, and address, fixed himself so effectually in that monarch’s good graces, that, as one of the highest marks he could give him of his kindness and confidence, he thought fit to intrust him with the care of prince Henry’s education, August 17, 1603, not as his tutor, but rather governor or superintendant of his household and education. He enjoyed this honour, under several denominations, during the life-time of that excellent prince, whom he attended in 1605 to Oxford, and upon that occasion was honoured with the degree of master of arts, with many other persons of distinction. It does not appear that he had any grants of lands, or gifts in money, from the crown, in consideration of his services, though sir Adam Newton, who was preceptor to prince Henry, appears to have received at several times the sum of four thousand pounds by way of free gift. Sir Thomas Chaloner had likewise very great interest with queen Anne, and appears to have been employed by her in her private affairs, and in the settlement of that small estate which she enjoyed. What relation he had to the court after the death of his gracious master prince Henry, does no where appear; but it is not at all likely that he was laid aside. He married some years before his death his second wife Judith, daughter to Mr. William Biount of London, and by this lady also he had children, to whom he is said to have left a considerable estate, which he had at SteepleClaydon in the county of Buckingham. He died November 17, 1615, and was buried in the parish church of Chiswick in the county of Middlesex. His eldest son William. Chaloner, esq. was by letters patents dated July 20, in the 18th of James I. in 1620, created a baronet, by the title of William Chaloner of Gisborough in the county of York, esq. which title was extinct in 1681. Few or none, either of our historians or biographers, Anthony Wood excepted, have taken any notice of him, though he was so considerable a benefactor to this nation, by discovering the alum mines, which have produced vast sums of money, and still continue to be wrought with very great profit. Dr. Birch, indeed, in his” Life of Henry Prince of Wales,“has given a short account of sir Thomas, and has printed two letters of his, both of which shew him to have been a man of sagacity and reflection. In the Lambeth library are also some letters of sir Thomas Chaloner’s, of which there are transcripts by Dr. Birch in the British Museum. The only publication by sir Thomas Chalouer is entitled” The virtue of Nitre, wherein is declared the sundry cures by the same effected," Lond. 1584, 4to. In this he discovers very considerable knowledge of chemistry and mineralogy.

, son to the preceding, was admitted into Trinity college, Oxford, 1685; but it does not appear that he took any degree. He continued his father’s “Angliae Notitia,” or “Present State,” as long as he lived, and it was continued after his death until 1755, which, we believe, is the last edition. He translated, 1. from French and Spanish, “The manner of making Tea, Coffee, and Chocolate, London,” 1685, 8vo. 2. From Italian into English, “A Treasure of Health,” London, 1686, 8vo, written by Castor Durant de Gualdo, physician and citizen of Rome. 3. “The Arguments of the books and chapters of the Old and New Testament, with practical observations written originally in French, by the rev. Mr. Ostervald, professor of divinity, and one of the ministers of the church at Neufchatel in Swisserland, and by him presented to the society for promoting Christian knowledge,” Lond. 1716, &c. 3 vols. 8vo. Mr. Chamberlay ne was a member of that society. 4. “The Lives of the French Philosophers, translated from the French of M. de Fontenelle, republished since in 1721, under the title of” Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, epitomized, with t[ie lives of the late members of that society,“8vo. 5.” The Religious Philosopher; or, the right use of contemplating the works of the Creator, &c. translated from the original Dutch of Dr. Nieuwentyt,“Lond. 1713, &c. 3 vols. 8vo, reprinted several times since in 8vo, and once in 4to. 6.” The History of the Reformation in and about the Low Countries, translated from the Dutch of Gerrard Brandt,“Lond. 1721, &c. 4 vols. fol. 7.” The Lord’s Prayer in 100 languages, 8vo, which is erroneously attributed by Mr. Whiston the bookseller, in a ms note in his copy of this Dictionary, to a Thomas Chamberlayne. 8. “Dissertations historical, critical, theological, and moral, on the most memorable events of the Old and New Testaments; wherein the spirit of the sacred writings is shewn, their authority confirmed, and the sentiments of the primitive fathers, as well as the modern, critics, with regard to the difficult passages therein, considered and compared; vol. I. comprising the events related in the Books of Moses to which are added, chronological tables, fixing the date of each event, and connecting the several dissertations together,” 1723, folio. He likewise was elected F. R. S. in 1702, and communicated three pieces, inserted in the Philosophical Transactions one, concerning the effects of thunder and lightning at Sampford Courtney in Devonshire, Oct. 7, 1711. 2. An account of the sunk Islands in the Humber, recovered from the sea. 3. Remarks on the Plague at Copenhagen in 1711. It was said of him, that he understood ten languages but it is certain that he was master of the Greek, Latin, French, Dutch, German, Portuguese, and Italian. Though he was well qualified for employment, he had none but that of gentleman usher to George prince of Denmark. After a useful and well-spent life, he died in Oct. 1723. He was then in the commission of the peace for Middlesex and Westminster. He was a very pious and good man, and earnest in promoting the advancement of religion and the interest of true Christianity: for which purpose he kept a large correspondence abroad, in his capacity as secretary to the society for promoting Christian knowledge. By one of bishop Atterbury’s letters it appears that he once endeavoured to obtain the state- paper office, but did not succeed. At this time, in 1702, the bishop, somewhat superciliously, calls him “one Chamberlayne, secretary to the reformers, and to the committee for propagating religion in the Indies.” There are some of tylr. Chamberlayne’s letters in bishop Nicolson’s “Epistolary Correspondence” lately published. The bishop wrote a preface to Mr. Chamberlayne’s “Lord’s Prayer in 100 Languages.”

His first residence in London was in Poland- street, but not, as has been asserted, in the business of a carpenter. At a very early period of his life he was considered as one of the best architects and draughtsmen in Europe; and his abilities introduced him to the patronage of the late John eari of Bute, by whose interest he was appointed to be drawing master to his present majesty, then prince of Wales. The first work of consequence in which he was engaged was the villa of the late earl of Besborougb, at Roehampton, in Surry. He delivered to his lordship his plan as architect, and his estimate as surveyor, and, on being applied to afterward to know whether he would undertake to complete the building himself for the money mentioned in the estimate, he readily consented, and, in the execution of his contract, gave and received that satisfaction which seldom fails to result from the happy concurrence of professional taste and skill with the most distinguished character for punctuality and probity. His conduct on this occasion became the most honourable introduction to considerable employment among the nobility and gentry.

, an ingenious French writer, and one of the victims of the revolution, was born in 1741, in a bailiwick near Clermont, in Auvergne. In supporting a revolution which levelled all family distinctions, he had no prejudices to overcome, being the natural son of a man whom he never knew. This circumstance, however, did not diminish his affection for his mother, who was a peasant girl, to supply whose wants he often denied himself the necessaries of life. He was taken at a very early age into the college des Prassins at Paris, as a bursar, or exhibitioner, and was there known by his Christian name of Nicolas. During the first two years he indicated no extraordinary talents, but in the third, out of the five prizes which were distributed annually, he gained four, failing only in Latin verses. The next year he gained the whole, and used to say, “I lost the prize last year, because 'I imitated Virgil; and this year I obtained it, because I took Buchanan, Sarbievius, and other moderns for my guides.” In Greek he made a rapid progress, but his petulance and waggish tricks threw the class into so much disorder, that he was expelled, and not long after left the college altogether. Thrown now on the world, without friends or money, he became clerk to a procurator, and afterwards was taken into the family of a rich gentleman of Liege, as tutor. After this he was employed on the “Journal Encyclopedique,” and having published his Eloges on Moliere and La Fontaine, they were so much admired as to be honoured with the prizes of the French academy, and that of Marseilles. About this time he had little other maintenance than what he derived from the patronage of the duke de Choiseul and madame Helvetius, and therefore was glad to take such employment as the booksellers offered. For them he compiled a “French Vocabulary,” and a “Dictionary of the Theatres.” While employed on this last, he fancied his talents might succeed on the stage, and was not disappointed. His tragedy of “Mustapha,” acted in 1778, was acknowledged to have great beauties; and Voltaire, who witnessed the performance, said with an exclamation, that he Was reminded of Racine. This was followed by two comedies, fugitive pieces of poetry, letters, epigrams, translations of the Anthology, and of Martial, all which contributed very considerably to his reputation. His poetical “Epistle from a father to a son, on the birth of a grandson,” gained him the prize of the French academy, although it appears inferior to his “L'Homme de Lettres, discours philosop.hic|iic en vers.” At length he gained a seat in the academy, on the death of St. Palaye, on whom he wrote an elegant eloge. His tragedy of “Mustapha” procured him the situation of principal secretary to the prince of Conde, but his love of liberty and independence prevented him from long discharging its duties. After resigning it, he devoted himself wholly to the pleasures of society, where he was considered as a most captivating companion. He also held some considerable pensions, which, however, he lost at the revolution.

, a celebrated French poet, was born at Paris Dec. 4, 1595, and having been educated under Frederic Morel, Nicholas Bourbon, and other eminent masters, became tutor to the children of the marquis de la Trousse, grand marshal of France, and afterwards steward to this nobleman. During an abode of seventeen years in this family, he translated “Guzman d'Alfarache,” from the Spanish, and directed his particular attention to poetry. He wrote odes, sonnets, the last words of cardinal Richelieu, and other pieces of poetry; and at length distinguished himself by his heroic poem called “La Pucelle,” or “France delivree.” Chapelain was thought to have succeeded to the reputation of Malherbe, and after his death was reckoned the prince of the French poets. Gassendi, who was his friend, has considered him in this light; and says, that “the French muses have found some comfort and reparation for the loss they have sustained by the death of Malherbe, in the person of Chapelain, who has now taken the place of the defunct, and is become the arbiter of the French language and poetry.” Sorbiere has not scrupled to say, that Chapelain “reached even Virgil himself in heroic poetry;” and adds, that “he was a man of great erudition as well as modesty.” He possessed this glorious reputation for thirty years; and, perhaps, might have possessed it now, if he had suppressed the “Pucelle:” but the publication of this poem in 1656, ruined his poetical character, in spite of all attempts of his friends to support it. He had employed a great many years about it; the expectation of the public was raised to the utmost; and, as is usual in such cases, disappointed. The consequence of this was, that he was afterwards set as much too low in his poetical capacity as perhaps before he was too high.

, the descendant of a noble family, was born at Bourges in 1655, and came to Paris in his youth, where he was trained up to business, and obtained the place of receiver-general of the finances at Rochelle. During this employment he found leisure to indulge his taste for polite literature, and the prince of Conti having heard of his merits made him one of his secretaries in 1687. The prince also sent him into Svvisserland on political business, and the king being afterwards informed of his talents, employed him in the same capacity. La Chapelle disclosed his knowledge of the politics of Europe in a work printed at Paris in 1703, under the disguise of Basil, in 8 vols. 12mo, entitled “Lettres d'un Suisse a un Francois,” explaining the relative interest of the powers at war. He wrote also “Memoires historiques sur la Vie d'Armand de Bourbon, prince de Conti,” 16$9, 4to, and, if we are not mistaken, translated and published in English in 1711, 8vo. He also wrote poetry, and some dramas, in which last he was an unsuccessful imitator of Racine. In 1688 he was admitted a member of the French academy. He died at Paris in 1723.

, a dramatic poet, and translator of Homer, was born in 1557, as generally supposed, in Kent, but we have no account at what school he was educated: he was, however, sent to the university when he was about seventeen years of age, and spent about two years at Trinity college, Oxford, where he paid little attention to logic or philosophy, but was eminently distinguished for his knowledge in the Greek and Roman classics. About the year 1576 he quitted the university, and repaired to the metropolis, where he commenced a friendship with Shakspeare, Spenser, Daniel, Marlow, and other celebrated wits. In 1595 he published, in 4to, a poem entitled “Ovid’s Banquet of Sauce, a coronet for his mistress philosophy, and his amorous zodiac:” to which he added, a translation of a poem into English, called “The amorous contention of Phillis and Flora,” written in Latin by a friar in 1400. The following year he published in 4to, “The Shield of Achilles,' 7 from Homer; and soon after, in the same year, a translation of seven books of the Iliad, in 4to. In 1600, fifteen books were printed in a thin folio; and lastly, without date, an entire translation of the Iliad, in folio, under the following title:” The Iliads of Homer, Prince of Poets. Never before in any language truly translated. With a comment upon some of his chief places: done according to the Greek by George Chapman. At London, printed by Nathaniel Butter."

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

About a year after this, the king granted to him the wardship of sir Edmund Staplegate’s heir, for which he received 104l. and in the next year some forfeited wool to the value of 71l. 4s. 6d. These, and his other pecuniary advantages, are said to have raised his income to a thousand pounds per annum, a prodigious sum at that time, but quite incredible. Whatever his income was, however, he informs us in the “Testament of Love,” it enabled him to live with dignity and hospitality. In the last year of king Edward III. 1377, he was sent to France, with sir Guichard Dangle, and Richard Stau or Sturry, to treat of a marriage between the prince of Wales, Richard, and a daughter of the French king. Such is Froissart’s account; but the English historians, Hollingshed and Barnes, inform us, that the principal object of this mission was to complain of some infringement of the truce concluded with the French, and that although they were not very successful in that remonstrance, it produced some overtures towards the said marriage, and this ended in a new treaty.

, the brother of Erasmus de Surlet, lord of Chokier (one of the ablest lawyers of his time, who died in 1625), was born at Liege Jan. 14, 1571, of an ancient and noble family. He studied law at the university of Lovaine, and especially the Roman history and antiquities under Lipsius. After taking the degree of doctor in canon and civil law at Orleans, he went to Rome, and was introduced to pope Paul V. On his return to Liege, he received some promotion in the church; and Ferdinand of Bavaria, bishop and prince of Liege, made him vicar-general of his diocese, and one of his counsellors. Chokier was not more esteemed for his learning than for his benevolence, which led him to found two hospitals, one for poor incurables, and the other for female penitents. He died at Liege, either in 1650 or 1651; but his biographers have not specified the particular time, although they notice that he was buried in the cathedral of Liege, under a magnificent tomb. Among his works, are, 1. “Notae in Senecse libellum de tranquillitate animi,” Leige, 1607, 8vo. 2. “Thesaurus aphorismorum politicorum, seu commentarius in Justi-Lipsii politica, cum exemplis, notis et monitis,” Rome, 1610, Mentz, 1613, 4to, and with corrections and the addition of some other treatises, at Liege, 1642, folio. Andrew Hetdemann translated this work into German, but with so little fidelity, as to oblige, the author to publish against it in a volume entitled “Specimen candoris Heidemanni,” Liege, 1625, 8vo. 3. “Notae et dissertationes in Onosandri strategicum,” Gr. and Lat. 1610, 4to, and inserted in the latter editions of his “Aphorismi.” 4. “Tractatus de permutationibus beneficiorunV 1616, 8vo, and afterwards Rome, 1700, folio, with other treatises on the same subject. 5.” De re numjnaria prisci sevi, collata ad aestimationem monetae presentis,“Cologne, 1620, 8vo, Liege, 1649. Another title of this work we have seen is” Monetae antiquae diversarum gentium maxime Romanae consideratio et ad nostram hodiernam reductio.“He published some other works on law subjects and antiquities of the courts of chancery, the office of ambassador, &c. and some of controversy against the protestants, and one against the learned Samuel Marets, entitled ff Apologeticus adversus Samuel Maresii librum, cui titulus, Candela sub modio posita per clerum Romanum,” 1635, 4to; but he had not complete success in proving that the Roman catholic clergy at that time did not hide their candle under a bushel."

, queen of Sweden, one of the few sovereigns whose history is entirely personal, was the only child of the great Gustavus Adolphus, by Maria Eleonora of Brandenburg. She was born Dec. 18, 1626, and succeeded to the throne of her father when she was only five years of age. During her minority, the long war with the German empire, in consequence of the invasion of Gustavus, as supporter of the protestant league, was carried on by able men, and particularly Oxentiern. Her education was conducted upon a very liberal plan, and she possessed a strong understanding, and was early capable of reading the Greek historians. Thucydides, Polybius, and Tacitus, were her favourite authors; but she as early manifested a distaste for the society and occupations of her sex, and delighted in manly sports and exercises. She affected likewise an extraordinary love of letters, and even for abstract speculations. When at the age of eighteen she assumed the reins of government, she was courted by several princes of Europe, but rejected their proposals from various motives, of which the true one appears to have been a conceited sense of superiority, and a desire to rule uncontrouled. Among her suitors were the prince of Denmark, the elector Palatine, the elector of Brandenburgh, the kings of Portugal and Spain, the king of the Romans, and Charles Gustavus, duke of Deux Ponts, her first cousin. Him the people, anxious for her marriage, recommended to her; but she rejected the proposal, and to prevent its renewal, she solemnly appointed Gustavus her successor. In 1650, when she was crowned, she became weary and disgusted with public affairs, and seemed to have no ambition but to become the general patroness of learning and learned men. With this view, she invited to her court men of the first reputation in various studies among these were Grotius, Descartes, Bochart, Huet, Vossius, Paschal, Salmasius, Naude, Heinsius, Meibom, Scudery, Menage, Lucas, Holstenius, Lambecius, Bayle, and others, who did not fail to celebrate her in poems, letters, or literary productions of some other kind, the greatest part of which are now forgotten. Her choice of learned men seems to have been directed more by general fame, than by her own judgment, or taste for their several excellencies, and she derived no great credit either as a learned lady, or as a discriminating patroness of literature. She was much under the influence of Bourdelot the physician, who gained his ascendancy by outrageous flattery: and her inattention to the high duties of her station disgusted her subjects. She was a collector of books, manuscripts, medals, and paintings, all which she purchased at such an enormous expence as to injure her treasury, and with so little judgment, that having procured some paintings of Titian at a most extravagant price, she had them clipped to fit the pannels of her gallery.

, duke of Marlborough, and prince of the holy Roman empire, was eldest son of sir Winston Churchill, and born at Ashe in Devonshire on Midsummerday in 1650. A clergyman in the neighbourhood instructed him in the first principles of literature, and he was for some time educated at St. Paul’s school but his father, having other views than what a learned education afforded, carried him to court in the twelfth year of his age, where he was particularly favoured by James duke of York. He had a pair of colours given him in the guards, during the first Dutch war, about 1666; and afterwards obtained leave to go over to Tangier, then in our hands, and besieged by the Moors, where he resided for some time, and cultivated the science of arms. Upon his return to England, he attended constantly at court, and was greatly respected by both the king and the duke. In 1672, the duke of Monmouth commanding a body of English auxiliaries in the service of France, Churchill attended him, and was soon after made a captain of grenadiers in his grace’s own regiment. He had a share in all the actions of that famous campaign against the Dutch; and at the siege of Nimeguen, distinguished himself so much, that he was particularly taken notice of by the celebrated marshal Turenne, who bestowed on him the name of the handsome Englishman. He appeared also to so much advantage at the reduction of Maestricht, that the French king thanked him for his behaviour at the head of the line, and assured him that he would acquaint his sovereign with it, which the duke of Monmouth also confirmed, telling the king his father how much he had been indebted to the bravery of captain Churchill.

In June, being then lieutenant-general of his majesty’s forces, he was ordered into the west to suppress Monmouth’s rebellion; which he did in a month’s time, with an inconsiderable body of horse, and took the duke himself prisoner. He was extremely well received by the king at his return from this victory; but soon discerned that it only served to confirm the king in an opinion that, by virtue of a standing army, the religion and government of England might easily be changed. How far lord Churchill concurred with or opposed the king, while he was forming this project, has been disputed by historians. According to bishop Burnet, “he very prudently declined meddling much in business, spoke little except when his advice was asked, and then always recommended moderate measures.” It is said he declared very early to lord Galway, that if his master attempted to overturn the established religion, he would leave him; and that he signed the memorial transmitted to the prince and princess of Orange, by which they were invited to fill the throne. Be this as it will, it is certain that he remained with the king, and was entrusted by him, after the prince of Orange was landed in 1688. He attended king James when he marched with his forces to oppose the prince, and had the command of 5000 men; yet the earl of Feversham, suspecting his inclinations, advised the king to seize him. The king’s affection to him was so great, that he could not be prevailed upon to do it; and this left him at liberty -to go over to the prince, which accordingly he did, but without betraying any post, or carrying off any troops. Whoever considers the great obligations lord Churchill lay under to king James, must naturally conclude, that he could not take the resolution of leaving him, and withdrawing to the prince of Orange, but with infinite concern and regret; and that this was really the case, appears from a letter, which he left for the king, to shew the reasons of his conduct, and to express his grief for the step he was obliged to take.

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

When measures were properly settled at home, April 6, 1704, he embarked for Holland; where, staying about a month to adjust the necessary steps, he began his march towards the heart of Germany; and after a conference held with prince Eugene of Savoy, and Lewis of Baden, he arrived before the strong entrenchments of the enemy at Schellenburg, very unexpectedly, on June 21; whom, after an obstinate and bloody dispute, he entirely routed. It was on this occasion that the emperor wrote the duke a letter with his own hand, acknowledging his great services, and offering him the title of a prince of the empire, which he modestly declined, till the queen afterwards commanded him to accept of it. He prosecuted this success, and the battle of Hochstet was fought by him and prince Eugene, on August 2; when the French and Bavarians were the greatest part of them killed and taken, and their commander, marshal Tallard, made a prisoner. After this glorious action, by which the empire was saved, and the whole electorate of Bavaria conquered, the duke continued his pursuit till he forced the French to repass the Rhine. Then prince Lewis of Baden laid siege to Landau, while the duke and prince Eugene covered it; but it was not taken before the 12th of November. He made a tour also to Berlin; and by a short negotiation, suspended the disputes between the king of Prussia and the Dutch, by which he gained the good will of both parties. When the campaign was over, he returned to Holland, and, Dec. 14, arrived in England. He brought over with him marshal Tallard, and 26 other officers of distinction, 121 standards, and 179 colours, which by her majesty’s order were put up in Westminster-hall. He was received by the queen with the highest marks of esteem, and had the solemn thanks of both houses of parliament. Besides this, the commons addressed her majesty to perpetuate the memory of this victory, which she did, by granting Woodstock, with the hundred of Wotton, to him and his heirs for ever. This was confirmed by an act of parliament, which passed on the 14th of March following, with this remarkable clause, that they should be held by tendering to the queen, her heirs and successors, on August 2, every year for ever, at the castle of Windsor, a standard with three fleurs de lys painted thereon. Jan. 6, the duke was magnificently entertained by the city; and Feb. 8, the commons addressed the queen, to testify their thanks for the wise treaty which the duke had concluded with the court of Berlin, by which a large body of Prussian troops were sent to the assistance of the duke of Savoy.

The same year (1730) he quitted the stage, though he occasionally appeared on it afterwards; in particular, when “Papal Tyranny in the reign of king John,” a tragedy of his own, was acted in 1744, he performed the part of Pandulph, the pope’s legate, with great spirit and vigour, though he was at that time above seventy years of age. He died Dec. 12, 1757. His plays, such of them as he thought worth preserving, he collected and published in 2 vols. 4to. Though Pope has made him the prince of dunces, yet he was a man of parts, but vain, and never so happy as when among the great, making sport for people who had more money, but less wit than himself. Dr. Johnson says he was by no means a blockhead, but by arrogating to himself too much, he was in danger of losing that degree of estimation to which he was entitled. Of this we have a proof in a work he published in 1747, entitled “The Character and Conduct of Cicero considered, from the History of his Life by the Rev. Dr. Middleton; with occasional Essays and Observations upon the most memorable Facts and Persons during that Period,” 4to. Cibber was much better qualified to estimate the merits of his brother comedians, than to investigate the conduct of Cicero. As to his moral character, we know not that any thing mean or dishonourable has ever been imputed to him, and his “Letter to Pope,” expostulating with him for placing him in the Dunciad, does some credit to his spirit, and is a more able defence of his conduct than Pope could answer. Although addicted to the promiscuous gallantries of the stage, and affecting the “gay seducer” to the last, he pleased the moral Richardson so well by his flattery, that the latter conceived a high idea of him, and wondered on one occasion, that Dr. Johnson, then a young man, could treat Cibber with familiarity! The best edition of Cibber’s Works is that of 1760, in 5 vols. 12mo. His “Life,” from which much of this article is taken, has been often reprinted.

, son to the preceding, was born at Btixted, March 16, 1730, and was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A,. 1752, and after being elected a fellow, proceeded M. A. 1755. In 1758 he was presented to the rectory of Pepperharrow, in Surrey. He was, like his father, a man of genius and an excellent scholar. His taste and wit gave peculiar charms to his conversation, in which he particularly excelled. His first publication, we believe, was a copy of Greek hexameters on the death of Frederic prince of Wales, in the “Luctus Academias Cantabrigiensis,” 1751. Jn 1755, he published “A Letter to a Friend in Italy, and verses on reading Montfaucon.” In concert with Mr. Itowyer, he projected the improvement of a Latin dictionary, by reducing that of Faber from its present radical to a regular form. One single sheet of this work was completed, when the design dropped for want of due encouragement. In 1759, he published a thanksgiving sermon, for the victory over the French fleet; and the following year, went as chaplain to the embassy at Madrid, and during a residence there of two years, collected the materials of a very curious work which he published on his return, entitled “Letters concerning the Spanish nation, written at Madrid during the years 1760 and 1761,” 1763, 4to. In this year also, he married Anne, daughter of Thomas Grenfield, esq. and soon afterwards attended general James Johnstone to Minorca (of which island that officer had been appointed lieutenant-governor), as secretary and chaplain. In 1767 he published “A defence of the conduct of the lieutenantgovernor, in reply to a printed libel.” On his return from Minorca, about 1768, he was inducted to the vicarages of Willingdon and Arlington, in Sussex, through the interest of his father, by whose resignation also he succeeded to the rectory of Buxted, on which he principally resided, devoting his whole life to literature. In 1769 he resigned Pepperharrow, from a dislike, very honourable to him, of the character of a pluralist. In 1778, he printed proposals for an edition in folio of the “Greek Testament,” with a selection of notes from the most eminent critics and commentators, but sufficient encouragement was not given. The copy, however, is in the possession of his son the rev. James Stanier Clarke, with another that was interleaved and filled with notes by his grandfather Mr. William Clarke. He died November 1786, and was buried at Buxted. He left three sons, and a daughter married to capt. Parkinson of the royal navy. Of his sons, the youngest, capt. George Clarke of the royal navy, a brave and skilful officer, was unfortunately drowned by the upsetting 1 of a pleasure-boat in the Thames, Oct. 1, 1805. It would be unnecessary to add how much the literary honours of this family are likely to be perpetuated by his other sons, the rev. James Stanier Clarke, LL. B. and F. K. S. the biographer of Nelson, and the rev. Edward Daniel Clarke, LL. D. a gentleman of consummate abilities in the antiquities of literature, and author of two volumes of “Travels” just published, which have interested the public in no common degree.

Having arrived at Holland, he met with a very kind reception, and was honoured with a considerable pension by the prince of Orange. He used to preach occasionally at the Hague; and his last sermon was on Christmas-day, 1686, so eloquent and impressive, that the princess of Orange was greatly affected. Claude had not a pleasing voice; which gave pccasion to the witticism of Morus, “that all the voices will be for him except his own” but this did not lessen the effect of his sermons, nor the popularity of the preacher. At the conclusion of the last-mentioned sermon, he was seized with an illness, of which he died Jan. 13, 1687; and his death was just matter of grief to his whole party, who lost a man of great abilities, and one likely to have healed the- animosities which afterwards took place in some of the protestant churches.

, an eminent lawyer, was born March 25, 1644, at Bremen. He was professor of law at Heidelberg, Utrecht, and Francfort on the Oder, where he died August 18, 1719, aged seventy-six, leaving several children. In 1670 the degree of LL. D. was conferred on him by the university of Oxford, at the same time with the prince of Orange, afterwards William III. He was employed in various affairs of importance, and received the dignity of baron of the empire from the emperor, 1713, as a reward for his services. He left several works on the science he professed, among which are “Juris publici prndentia,” Francfort, 1695, 8vo “Hypomnemata Juris,” 1698, 8vo, &c.

, the second of the name, of an ancient family, admiral of France, was born the 16th of February 1516, at Chatillon-sur-Loing. He bore arms from his very infancy. He signalized himself under Francis I. at the battle of Cerisoles, and under Henry II. who made him colonel-general of the French infantry, and afterwards admiral of France, in 1552; favours which he obtained by the brilliant actions he performed at the battle of Renti, by his zeal for military discipline, by his victories over the Spaniards, and especially by the defence of St. Quintin. The admiral threw himself into that place, and exhibited prodigies of valour; but the town being forced, he was made prisoner of war. After the death of Henry II. he put himself at the head of the protestants against the Guises, and formed so powerful a party as to threaten ruin to the Romish religion in France. We are told by a contemporary historian, that the court had not a more formidable enemy, next to Conde, who had joined with him. The latter was more ambitious, more enterprising, more active. Coligni was of a sedater temper, more cautious, and fitter to be the leader of a party; as unfortunate, indeed, in war as Conde, but often repairing by his ability what had seemed irreparable; more dangerous after a defeat, than his enemies after a victory; and moreover adorned with as many virtues as such tempestuous times and the spirit of party would allow. He seemed to set no value on his life. Being wounded, and his friends lamenting around him, he said to them with incredible constancy, “The business we follow should make us as familiar with death as with life.” The first pitcht battle that happened between the protestants and the catholics, was that of Dreux, in 1562. The admiral fought bravely, lost it, but saved the army. The duke of Guise having been murdered by treachery, a short time afterwards, at the siege of Orleans, he was accused of having connived at this base assassination; but he cleared himself of the charge by oath. The civil wars ceased for some time, but only to recommence with greater fury in 1567. Coligni and Conde fought the battle of St. Denys against the constable of Montmorenci. This indecisive day was followed by that of Jarnac, in 1569, fatal to the protestants. Concle having been killed in a shocking manner, Coligni had to sustain the whole weight of the party, and alone supported that unhappy cause, and was again defeated at the affair of Men Icon tour, in Poitou, without suffering his courage to be shaken for a moment. An advantageous peace seemed shortly after to terminate these bloody conflicts, in 1571. Coligni appeared at court, where he was loaded with caresses, in common with all the rest of his party. Charles IX. ordered him to be paid a hundred thousand francs as a reparation of the losses he had sustained, and restored to him his place in the council. On all hands, however, he was exhorted to distrust these perfidious caresses. A captain of the protestants, who was retiring into the country, came to take leave of him: Coligni asked him the reason of so sudden a retreat: “It is,” said the soldier, “because they shew us too many kindnesses here: I had rather escape with the fools, than perish with such as are over-wise.” A horrid conspiracy soon broke out. One Friday the admiral coming to the Louvre, was fired at by a musquet from a window, and dangerously wounded in the right hand and in the left arm, by Maurevert, who had been employed by the duke de Guise, who had proposed the scheme to Charles IX. The king of Navarre and the prince of Cond6 complained of this villainous act. Charles IX. trained to the arts of dissimulation by his mother, pretended to be extremely afflicted at the event, ordered strict inquiry to be made after the author of it, and called Coligni by the tender name of father. This was at the very time when he was meditating the approaching massacre of the protestants. The carnage began, as is well known, the 24th of August, St. Bartholomew’s day, 1572. The duke de Guise, under a strong escort, marched to the house of the admiral. A crew of assassins, headed by one Besme, a domestic of the house of Guise, entered sword in hand, and found him sitting in an elbow-chair. “Young man,” said he to their leader in a calm and tranquil manner, “thou shouldst have respected my gray hairs but, do what thou wilt thou canst only shorten my life by a few days.” This miscreant, after having stabbed him in several places, threw him out at the window into the court-yard of the house, where the duke of Guise stood waiting. Coligni fell at the feet of his base and implacable enemy, and said, according to some writers, as he was just expiring “If at least I had died by the hand of a gentleman, and not by that of a turnspit!” Besme, having trampled on the corpse, said to his companions: “A good beginning! let us go and continue our work!” His body was exposed for three days to the fury of the populace, and then hung up by the feet on the gallows of Montfaucon. Montmorenci, his cousin, had it taken down, in order to bury it secretly in the chapel of the chateau de Chantilli. An Italian, having cut off the head of the admiral, carried it to Catherine de Medicis; and this princess caused it to be embalmed, and sent it to Rome. Coligni was in the habit of keeping a journal, which, after his death, was put into the hands of Charles IX. In this was remarked a piece of advice which he gave that prince, to take care of what he did in assigning the appanage, lest by so doing he left them too great an authority. Catherine caused this article to be read before the duke of Alei^on, whpm she knew to be afflicted at the death of the admiral: “There is your good friend!” said she, “observe the advice he gives the king!” “I cannot say,” returned the duke, “whether he was very fond of me; but 1 know that such advice could have been given only by a man of strict fidelity to his majesty, and zealous for the good of his country.” Charles IX. thought this journal worth being printed; but the marshal de Retz prevailed on him to throw it into the fire. We shall conclude this article with the parallel drawn by the abbe“de Mably of the admiral de Coligni, and of Francois de Lorraine, due de Guise.” Coligni was the greatest general of his time; as courageous as the duke of Guise, but less impetuous, because he had always been less successful. He was fitter for forming grand projects, and more prudent in the particulars of their executioj. Guise, by a more brilliant courage, which astonished his enemies, reduced conjunctures to the province of his genius, and thus rendered himself in some sort master of them. Coligni obeyed them, but like a commander superior to them. In the same circumstances ordinary men would have observed only courage in the conduct of the one, and only prudence in that of the other, though both of them had these two qualities, but variously subordinated. Guise, more successful, had fewer opportunities for displaying the resources of his genius: his dexterous ambition, and, like that of Pompey, apparently founded on the very interests of the princes it was endeavouring to ruin, while it pretended to serve them, was supported on the authority of his name till it had acquired strength enough to stand by itself. Coligni, less criminal, though he appeared to be more so, openly, like Caesar, declared war upon his prince and the whole kingdom of France. Guise had the art of conquering, and of profiting by the victory. Coligni lost four battles, and was always the terror of his victors, whom he seemed to have vanquished. It is not easy to say what the former would have been in the disasters that befell Coligni; but we may boldly conjecture that the latter would have appeared still greater, if fortune had favoured him as much. He was seen carried in a litter, and we may add in the very jaws of death, to order and conduct the longest and most difficult marches, traversing France in the midst of his enemies, rendering by his counsels the youthful courage of the prince of Navarre more formidable, and training him to those great qualities which were to make him a good king, generous, popular, and capable of managing the affairs of Europe, after having made him a hero, sagacious, terrible, and clement in the conduct of war. The good understanding he kept up between the French and the Germans of his army, whom the interests of religion alone were ineffectual to unite; the prudence with which he contrived to draw succours from England, where all was not quiet; his art in giving a spur to the tardiness of the princes of Germany, who, not having so much genius as himself, were more apt to despair of saving the protestantsof France, and deferred to send auxiliaries, who were no longer hastened in their march by the expectation of plunder in a country already ravaged; are master-pieces of his policy. Coligni was an honest man. Guise wore the mask of a greater number of virtues; but all were infected by his ambition. He had all the qualities that win the heart of the multitude. Coligni, more collected in himself, was more esteemed by his enemies, and respected by his own people. He was a lover of order and of his country. Ambition might bear him up, but it never first set him in motion. Hearty alike in the cause of protestantism and of his country, he was never able, by too great austerity, to make his doctrine tally with the duties of a subject. With the qualities of a hero, he was endowed with a gentle soul. Had he been less of the great man, he would have been a fanatic; he was an apostle and a zealot. His life was first published in 1575, 8vo, and translated and published in English in 1576, by Arthur Golding. There is also a life by Courtilz, 1686, 12mo, and one in the “Hommes Illustres de France.”

Collier, however, was of too active a spirit to remain supine, and therefore began the attack upon the revolution: for his pamphlet is said to have been the first written on that side the question after the prince of Orange’s arrival, with a piece entitled “The Desertion discussed in a letter to a country gentleman, 1688,” 4to. This was written in, answer to a pamphlet of Dr. Gilbert Burnet, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, called “An Enquiry into the present State of Affairs, &c.” wherein king James is treated as a deserter from his crown; and it gave such offence, that, after the government was settled, Collier was sent to Newgate, where he continued a close prisoner for some months, but was at length discharged without being brought to a trial. He afterwards published the following pieces: 1. A translation of the 9th, 10th, llth, and 12th books of Sleidan’s Commentaries, 1689, 4to. 2. “Vindiciae juris regii, or remarks upon a paper entitled An Enquiry into the measures of submission to the Supreme Authority,” 1689, 4to. The author of this inquiry was also Dr. Burnet. 3. “Animadversions upon the modern explanation of 2 Hen. VII. chap. i. or a king de facto,” 1689, 4to. 4. “A Caution against Inconsistency, or the connection between praying and swearing, in relation to the Civil Powers,” 1690, 4to. This discourse is a dissuasive from joining in public assemblies. 5. “A Dialogue concerning the Times, between Philobelgus and Sempronius, 1690, 4to: to the right honourable the lords, and to the gentlemen convened at Westminster, Oct. 1690.” This is a petition for an inquiry into the birth of the prince of Wales, and printed upon a half sheet. 6. “Dr. Sherlock’s Case of Allegiance considered, with some remarks upon his Vindication,” 1691, 4to. 7. “A brief essay concerning the independency of Church Power,” 1692, 4to. The design of this essay is to prove the public assemblies guilty of schism, upon account of their being held under such bishops as had assumed, or owned such as had assumed, the sees of those who were deprived for not taking the oaths of the new government.

This book gained Comenius such reputation, that the governing powers of Sweden wrote to him in 1633, and offered him a commission for new regulating all the schools in that kingdom; which offer, however, he did not think proper to accept, but only promised to assist with his advice those who should be appointed to execute that commission. He then translated into Latin, a piece which he had written in his native tongue, concerning the new method of instructing youth, a specimen of which appeared under the title of “Pansophiae prodromus,” or “The forerunner of universal learning,” printed at London, 1639, 12mo, and translated by Jer. Collier, 1651. This made him considered as one very capable of reforming the method of teaching; and the parliament of England desired his assistance to reform the schools of this kingdom. He arrived at London, Sept. 1641, but the rebellion then commencing, shewed Comenius that this was not a juncture favourable to his designs; he went therefore to Sweden, whither he had been invited by Lewis de Geer, a gentleman of great merit, who had the public welfare very much at heart. He arrived there in August 1642, and discoursed with Oxenstiern about his method: the result of which conference was, that he should go and fix at Elbing in Prussia, and compose it. la the mean time Lewis de Geer settled a considerable stipend upon him, by which means, being delivered from the drudgery of teaching a school, he employed himself wholly in finding out general methods for those who instructed youth; Having spent four years at Elbing in this study, he returned to Sweden to shew his composition, which was examined by three commissioners, and declared worthy of being made public when completed. He spent two more years upon it at Elbing, and then was obliged to return to Lesna. In 1650 he took a journey to the court of Sigismund Ragotski, prince of Transilvania; where a conference was desired with him on the subject of education. He gave this prince some pieces, containing instructions for regulating the college of Patak, pursuant to the maxims laid down in his “Pansophia;” and, during four years, he was allowed to propose whatever he pleased with regard to the government of that college. After this he returned to Lesna, and did not leave it till it was burnt by the Poles; of which calamity, as we shall see below, Comenius was charged with being the cause. He lost there all his manuscripts, except what he had written on Pansophia, and on the Revelations. He fled into Silesia, thence to Brandenburgh, afterwards to Hamburgh, and lastly to Amsterdam; where he met with so much encouragement, that he was tempted to continue there for the remainder of his life. He printed there, in 1657, at the expence of his Maecenas, the different parts of his new method of teaching. The work is in folio, and divided into four parts. “The whole,” says Bayle, “cost the author prodigious pains, other people a great deal of money, yet the learned received no benefit from it; nor is there, in my opinion, any thing practically useful in the hints of that author.”

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

King Charles now caused him to be sworn one of his privy council; and committed to his care the educating of his two nieces, the princesses Mary and Anne, which important trust he. discharged to the nation’s satisfaction. They were both confirmed by him upon January 23> 1676; and it is somewhat remarkable that they were both likewise married by him: the eldest, Mary, with William prince of Orange, November 4, 1677; the youngest, Anne, with George prince of Denmark, July 28, 1683. The attachment of these two princesses to the protestant religion was owing, in a great measure, to their tutor Compton; which afterwards, when popery came to prevail at the court of England, was imputed to him as an unpardonable crime. In the mean time he indulged the hopeless project of bringing dissenters to a sense of the necessity of an union among protestants; to promote which, he held several conferences with his own clergy, the substance of which he published in July 16SO. He further hoped, that dissenters might be the more easily reconciled to the church, if the judgment of foreign divines should be produced against their needless separation: and for that purpose he wrote to M. le Moyne, professor ef divinity at Leyden, to M. de PAngle, one of the preachers of the protestant church at Charenton near Paris, and to M. Claude, another eminent French divine. Their answers are published at the end of bishop Stillingfleet’s “Unreasonableness of Separation,” 1681, 4to; all concurring in the vindication of the church of England from any errors in its doctrine, or unlawful impositions in its discipline, and therefore in condemning a separation from it as needless and uncharitable. But popery was what the bishop most strenuously opposed; and while it was gaining ground at the latter end of Charles the lid’s reign, under the influence of the duke of York, there was no method he left untried to stop its progress. This zeal was remembered and resented on the accession of James II.; when, to his honour, he was marked out as the first sacrifice to popish fury, being immediately dismissed from the council-table; and on December 16, 1685, from being dean of the royal chapel. Means were also devised to entrap him into some measure which might affect his office as bishop of London, nor could this be difficult in the case of a man so firm and conscientious. The following is a striking instance of the intentions of the court to overturn the national church. Dr. John Sharp, rector of St, Giles’s in the Fields, afterwards archbishop of York, having in some of his sermons vindicated the doctrine of the church of England against popery; the king sent a letter, dated June 14, 1686, to bishop Compton, “requiring and commanding him forthwith to suspend Dr. Sharp from further preaching in any parish church or chapel within his diocese, until he had given the king satisfaction.” In order to understand how Sharp had offended the king, it must be remembered, that king James had caused the directions concerning preachers, published in 1662, to be now reprinted; and reinforced them by a letter directed to the archbishops of Canterbury and York, given at Whitehall, March 5, 1686, to prohibit the preaching upon controversial points; that was, in effect, to forbid the preaching against popery, which Sharp had done. The bishop refusing to suspend Dr. Sharp, because, as he truly alleged, he could not do it according to law, was cited to appear, August y, before the new ecclesiastical commission: when he was charged with not having observed his majesty’s command in the case of Sharp, whom he was ordered to suspend. The bishop, after expressing some surprise, humbly begged a copy of the commission, and a copy of his charge; but was answered by chancellor Jefferies, “That he should neither have a copy of, nor see, the commission neither would they give him a copy of the charge.” His lordship then desired time to advise with counsel; and time was given him to the 16th, and afterwards to the 3 1st of August. Then his lordship offered his plea to their jurisdiction: which being overruled, he protested to his right in that or any other plea that might be made for his advantage; and observed, “that as a bishop he had a right, by the most authentic and universal ecclesiastical laws, to be tried before his metropolitan, precedently to any other court whatsoever.” But the ecclesiastical commissioners would not upon any account suffer their jurisdiction to be called in question; and therefore, in spite of all that his lordship or his counsel could allege, he was suspended on Sept. 6 following, for his disobedience, from the function and execution of his episcopal office, and from all episcopal and other ecclesiastical jurisdiction, during his majesty’s pleasure; and the bishops of Durham, Rochester, and Peterborough, were appointed commissioners to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction within, the diocese of London. But the court did not think fit to meddle with his revenues. For the lawyers had settled that benefices were of the nature of freeholds; therefore, if the sentence had gone to the temporalities, the bishop would have had the matter tried over again in the king’s bench, where he was likely to find justice.

While this matter was in dependence, the princess of Orange thought it became her to interpose in the bishop’s favour; and wrote to the king, earnestly begging him to be gentle tp the bishop, who she could not think would offend willingly. She also wrote to the bishop, expressing the great share she took in the trouble he was fallen into; as did also the prince. The king wrote an answer to the princess, reflecting severely on the bishop, not without some sharpness on her for meddling in such matters. The bishop in the mean time acquiesced in his sentence; but being suspended only as a bishop, and remaining still whole in his other capacities, he made another stand against the king, as one of the governors of the Charter-house, in refusing to admit one Andrew Popham, a papist, into the first pensioner’s place in that hospital. While he was thus sequestered from his episcopal office, he applied himself to the improvement of his garden at Fulham; and having a great genius -for botany, enriched it with a variety of curious plants, domestic and exotic*. His suspension, however, was so flagrant a piece of arbitrary power, that the prince of Orange, in his declaration, could not omit taking notice of it; and when there was an alarm of his highness’s coming over, the court was willing to make the bishop reparation, by restoring him, as they did on Sept. 23, 1688, to his episcopal function. But he made no haste to resume his charge, and to thank the king for his restoration; which made some conjecture, and, as appeared afterwards with good reason, that he had no mind to be restored in that manner, and that he knew well enough what had been doing in Holland. On Oct. 3, 1688, however, he waited upon king James, with the archbishop of Canterbury, and seven other bishops, when they suggested to his majesty such advice as they thought conducive to his interest, but this had no effect. The first part the bishop acted in the revolution, which immediately ensued, was the conveying, jointly with the earl of Dorset, the princess Anne of Denmark safe from London to Nottingham; lest she, in the present confusion of affairs, might have been sent away into France, or put under restraint, because the prince, heir consort, had left king James, and was gone over to the prince of Orange.

* We learn from Mr. Ray and Plu- fore in England. This repository was kenet, that he jwined to his taste for ever open to the inspection of the cugardening, a real and scientific know- rious and scientific and we find Ray, led^e of plants; an attainment not Petiver, and Plukenet, in numerous usual among the great in those days, instances, acknowledging the assistHe collected a greater variety of green- ance they received from the free cornhouse rarities, and planted a greater munication of rare and new plants out variety of hardy exotic trees and shrubs, of the garden at FulUam. Pulteaey'5 than had been seen in any garden be* Sketches. At his return to London, he discovered his zeal for the revolution, and first set his hand to the association begun at Exeter. He waited on the prince of Orange, Dec. 21, at the head of his clergy; and, in their names and his own, thanked his highness fur his very great and hazardous undertaking for their deliverance, and the preservation of the protcstant religion, with the anc; ent laws and liberties of this nation. He gave his royal highness the sacrament, Dec. 30; and upon Jan. 29 following, when the house of lords, in a grand committee, debated the important question, “Whether the throne, being vacant, ou^ht to be filled by a regent or a king?” Compton was one of the two bisiiops, sir Jonathan Trelawny bishop of Bristol being the other, who made the majority for filling up the throne by a king. On February 14, he was again appointed of the privy-council, and made dean of the royal chapel; from both which places king James had removed him: and was afterwards chosen by king William, to perform the ceremony of his and queen Mary’s coronation, upon April 11, 1689. The same year he was constituted one of the commissioners for revising the liturgy, in which he laboured with much zeal to reconcile the dissenters to the church; and also in the convocation, that met Nov. 21, 1689, of which he was president. But the intended comprehension met with insuperable difficulties, the majority of the lower house being resolved not to enter into any terms of accommodation with the dissenters; and his lordship’s not complying so far as the dissenters liked, is supposed to have been the reason of Burnet’s calling him “a weak man, wilful, and strangely wedded to a party.” This however must seem extraordinary to those who consider, that those who are usually called high churchmen have spoken very coolly of him ever since, on that very account: and that even his opposing, as he did, the prosecution against Sacheverell in 1710, declaring him not guilty, and also protesting against several steps taken in that affair, has not been sufficient to reconcile them to his complying so far with the dissenters as he did. The fact appears to have been that the bishop endeavoured to act with moderation, for which no allowance is made in times of violent party- spirit.

At the age of nineteen he took a wife, who brought him a son, called Pe yu. This son died at fifty, but left behind him a son called Tsou-tse, who, in imitation of his grandfather, applied himself entirely to the study of wisdom, and by his merit arrived to the highest offices of the empire. Confucius was content with his wife only, so long as she lived with him; and never kept any concubines, as the custom of his country would have allowed him to have done, because he thought it contrary to the law of nature. He divorced her, however, after some time, and for no other reason, say the Chinese,' but that he might be free from all incumbrances and connexions, and at liberty to propagate his philosophy throughout the empire. In his twenty-third year, when he had gained a considerable knowledge of antiquity, and acquainted himself with the laws and customs of his country, he began to project a scheme of general reformation. All the petty kingdoms of the empire now depend upon the emperor; but then every province was a distinct kingdom, which had its particular laws, and was governed by a prince of its own. Hence it often happened that the imperial authority was not sufficient to keep them within the bounds of their duty and allegiance, and a taste for luxury, the love of pleasure, and a general dissolution of manners, prevailed in all those little courts.

, prince of, the second son of Henry II. prince of Conde, first prince of the blood royal of France, was born in 1629, and appears to have devoted himself to serious studies from his infancy, being at the age of sixteen able to dispute with learned divines on theological topics. It was probably this disposition which inclined his father to devote him to the church, and to procure for him the abbeys of St. Dennis, Cluni, &c. a mode of preferment common in those days. But having the misfortune to lose his father and mother in his infancy, he abandoned his pious pursuits, and engaged in the civil wars on the side which opposed the king; and became above all things attached to theatrical amusements, and even to the company of the players. In his twentyfourth year he married a niece of the cardinal Mazarine, who appears to have in some measure recalled him to his former way of thinking. After the troubles of the kingdom had been composed, and he received into favour, he was made governor of the province of Languedoc, and sent into Catalonia, to co.nmand the royal army as viceroy, where he distinguished himself for bravery and prudence. On his return from his last campaign, he had some conferences with the bishop of Alet, a man of great piety, who effectually revived in him the sentiments of his youth, and from this time the prince lived an example of regularity in religious matters, such as was rare in his family, or in the court. With respect to those of the reformed religion, however, he extended his liberality no farther than the strict letter of the law, and when any of them built churches in his government, contrary to the king’s edicts, he caused them to be demolished, at the same time endeavouring, what was at that time a favourite object, to bring about an union between the catholics and protestants. His wealth he employed in acts of benevolence, and his time in the instruction of his children and dependents in piety and virtue. He died at Pezenas in 1666, in the thirty-seventh year of his age. His “Life and Works” were translated, and published in English, in 1711, 8vo. The latter congist of treatises on the duties of the great; on the obligations of a governor of a province; instructions for various officers under government; and two treatises against plays and shews, with an appendix of the sentiments of the fathers, &c. on the same subject.

Though Dr. Conybeare, by his promotion to the headship of Exeter college, had obtained a considerable rank in the university, he did not, by the change of his situation, make any addition to his fortune. Indeed, the emoluments of his new place were so small, that he was much richer as a private fellow and tutor, than as the governor of his college. It may be presumed that this circumstance in part, and still more the reputation he had acquired by his answer to Tindal, induced the bishop of London, who at that time had great influence in the disposal of ecclesiastical preferments, to exert himself more vigorously in our author’s behalf. This the good prelate so effectually did, that on the death of Dr. Bradshaw, bishop of Bristol, and dean Of Christ church, Oxford, in December, 1732, Dr. Conybeare was appointed to succeed him in the latter dignity. Accordingly the doctor was installed dean of that cathedral in the month of January following. On this occasion, he resigned the headship of Exeter college; and not long after, he gave up likewise the rectory of St. Clement’s, in favour of a friend, the rev. Mr. Webber, one of the fellows of Exeter. On the 6th of June, 1733, dean Conybeare married Miss Jemima Juckes, daughter of Mr. William Juckes, of Hoxton-square, near London; and in the same year he published a sermon, which he had preached in the cathedral of St. Peter, Exon, in August 1732, from 2 Peter iii. 16, on the subject of scripturedifficulties. In the beginning of the next year, he had the honour of entertaining the prince of Orange at the deanery of Christ church. The prince, who had come into England to marry the princess royal, being desirous of visiting Oxford, and some of the places adjacent, took up his residence at Dr. Conybeare’s apartments; and how solicitous the dean was to treat his illustrious guest with a proper splendour and dignity, appears from his having received, by the hands of one of her servants, the especial thanks of queen Caroline on the occasion.

, an esteemed painter of portraits and conversations, was born at Antwerp in 1618, and was a disciple of the old David Ryckaert, under whose direction he applied himself diligently to cultivate those promising talents which he possessed, not only by practising the best rules administered to him by his instructor, but also by studying nature with singular attention. He was a great admirer of Vandyck; and fixing on the manner of that great artist as his model, had the happiness of so far succeeding, that next to him he was esteemed equal to any other painter of his time. In the school of Ryckaert, he had been accustomed to paint conversations, and he frequently composed subjects of fancy, like Teniers, Ostade, and his master; and by that habit he introduced a very agreeable style of portrait-painting in a kind of historical conversations, which seemed much more acceptable to persons of taste than the general manner of painting portraits, and procured him great reputation and riches. In that way he composed several fine pictures for Charles I. and likewise several for the archduke Leopold and the prince of Orange; which latter prince, as a mark of respect, presented Coques with a rich gold chain, and a gold medal, on which the bust of that prince was impressed. He died in 1634. He had an excellent pencil; his portraits were well designed, with easy natural attitudes; he disposed the figures in his composition so as to avoid confusion and embarrassment; he gave an extraordinary clearness of colour to his heads and hands; and his touch was free, firm, and broad a circumstance very uncommon in works of a small size.

, an eminent philanthropist, was born about 1668, bred to the sea, and spent the first part of his life as master of a vessel trading to our colonies. While he resided in that part of the metropolis which is the common residence of sea-faring people, business often obliged him to come early into the city and return late; when he had frequent occasions of seeing young children exposed, through the indigence or cruelty of their parents. This excited his compassion so far, that he projected the Foundling Hospital; in which humane design he laboured seventeen years, and at last, by his sole application, obtained the royal charter for it. He was highly instrumental in promoting another good design, viz. the procuring a bounty upon naval stores imported from the colonies; and was eminently concerned in setting on foot the colonies of Georgia and Nova Scotia. His last charitable design, in which he lived to make some progress, but not to complete, was a scheme for uniting the Indians in North America more closely to the British interest, by an establishment for the education of Indian girls. Indeed he spent a great part of his life in serving the public, and with so total a disregard to his private interest, that towards the latter part of it he was himself supported by the voluntary subscriptions of public-spirited persons; at the head of whom was that truly amiable and benevolent prince Frederic, late prince of Wales. When Dr. Brocklesby applied to the good old man, to know whether his setting on foot a subscription for his benefit would not offend him, he received this noble answer: “I have not wasted the little wealth, of which I was formerly possessed, in self-indulgence or vain expences, and am not ashamed to confess that, in this my old age, I am poor.”

, an English prelate, but better known and perhaps more respected as a poet, was the son of Vincent Corbet, and was born at Ewell in Surrey, in 1582. His father, who attained the age of eighty, appears to have been a man of excellent character, and is celebrated in one of his son’s poems with filial ardour. For some reason he assumed the name of Pointer, or, perhaps, relinquished that for Corbet, which seems more probable: his usual residence was at Whitton in the county of Middlesex, where he was noted for his skill in horticulture, and amassed considerable property in houses and land, which he bequeathed to his son at his death in 1619. Our poet was educated at Westminster school, and in Lenu term, 1597-8, entered in Broadgate hall (afterwards Pembroke college), and the year following was admitted a student of Christ Church, Oxford, where he soon became noted among men of wit and vivacity. In 1605 he took his master’s degree, and entered into holy orders. In 3612 he pronounced a funeral oration in St. Mary’s church, Oxford, on the death of Henry, prince of Wales; and the following year, another on the interment of that eminent benefactor to learning, sir Thomas Bodley. In 1618 he took a journey to France, from which he wrote the epistle to sir Thomas Aylesbury. His “Journey to Fiance,” one of his most humorous poems, is remarkable for giving some traits of the French character that are visible in the present day. King James, who showed no weakness in the choice of his literary favourites, made him one of his chaplains in ordinary, and in 1627 advanced him to the dignity of dean, of Christ Church. At this time he was doctor in divinity, vicar of Cassington near Woodstock, in Oxfordshire, and prebendary of Bedminster Secunda in the church of Sarum.

, the eccentric son of the preceding, was born at Odcombe, in 1577. He was first educated at Westminster-school, and became a commoner of Gloucester-hall, Oxford, in 1596; where continuing about three years, he attained, by mere dint of memory, some skill in logic, and more in the Greek and Latin languages. After he had been taken home for a time, he went to London, and was received into the family of Henry prince of Wales, either as a domestic, or, according to some, as a fool, an office which in former days was filled by a person hired for the purpose. In this situation he was exposed to the wits of the court, who, finding in him a strange mixture of sense and folly, made him their whetstone; and so, says Wood, he became too much known to all the world. In 1608, he took a journey to France, Italy, Germany, &c. which lasted five months, during which he had travelled 1975 miles, more than half upon one pair of shoes, which were once only mended, and on his return were hung up in the church of Odcombe. He published his travels under this title; “Crudities hastily gobbled up in five months travels in France, Savoy, Italy, Rhetia, Helvetia, some parts of High Germany, and the Netherlands, 1611,” 4to, reprinted in 1776, 3 vols. 8vo. This work was ushered into the world by an Odcombian banquet, consisting of near 60 copies of verses, made by the best poets of that time, which, if they did not make Cory ate pass with the world for a man of great parts and learning, contributed not a little to the sale of his book. Among these poets were Ben Jonson, sir John Harrington, Inigo Jones the architect, Chapman, Donne, Drayton, &c. In the same year he published “Coryate’s Crambe, or his Colwort twice sodden, and now served in with other Macaronic dishes, as the second course of his Crudities,” 4to. In 1612, after he had taken leave of his countrymen, by an oration spoken at the cross in Odcombe, he took a long and large journey, with intention not to return till he had spent ten years in travelling. The first place he went to was Constantinople, where he made his usual desultory observations; and took from thence opportunities of viewing divers parts of Greece. In the Hellespont he took notice of the two castles Sestos and Abydos, which Mu­saeus has made famous in his poem of Hero and Leander, He saw Smyrna, from whence he found a passage to Alexandria in Egypt; and there he observed the pyramids near Grand Cairo. From thence he went to Jerusalem; and so on to the Dead Sea, to Aleppo in Syria, to Babylon in Chaldea, to the kingdom of Persia, and to Ispahan, where the king usually resided; to Seras, anciently called Shushan; to Candahor, the first province north-east under the subjection of the great mogul, and so to Lahore, the chief city but one belonging to that empire. From Lahore he went to Agra; where, being well received by the English factory, he made a halt. He staid here till he had learned the Turkish and Morisco, or Arabian languages, in which study he was always very apt, and some knowledge in the Persian and*Indostan tongues, all which were of great use to him in travelling up and down the great mogul’s dominions. In the Persian tongue he afterwards made an oration to the great mogul; and in the Indostan he had so great a command, that we are gravely told he actually silenced a laundry-woman, belonging to the English ambassador in that country, who used to scold all the day long. After he had visited several places in that part of the world, he went to Surat in East-India, where he was seized with a diarrhoea, of which he died in 1617.

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.

, in Latin, Cognatus, a learned writer of the sixteenth century, was born at Nozeret, in Franche-Comte, Jan. 21, 1506. Having a turn for the law, he went to study at Dole in 1526, but not relishing it after six months application, he entered upon a course of divinity, and being introduced to Erasmus, was employed by him as an amanuensis or copyist. Erasmus also instructed him in the learned languages and in polite literature. In 1535 the prince of Orange conferred on him a canonry of St. Antony at Nozeret, in consequence of which preferment, he was obliged to leave Erasmus, who expressed a very high regard for him in several of his letters. When established at Nozeret, he appears to have taught school. In 1553, he accompanied the archbishop of Besancon on a tour into Italy; but being soon after suspected of heresy, he was arrested by order of pope Pius V. and thrown into prison, in which he died in 1567. It is generally agreed that he inclined in some measure to the sentiments of the reformers. His works, of which a collection was published in 1562, 3 ' vols. folio, at Basle, consist of translations from various authors, a treatise on grammar, erroneously ascribed to St. Basil Latin dissertations letters historical and critical treatises, &c. Niceron has an elaborate article on this author; and in 1775 was published at Altorf, “Commentatio de vita Gilberti Cognati, et Commentatio de scriptis,” by Schwartz, 4to. Cousin’s notes upon Lucian are in Bourdelot’s edition of that classic, 1615, folio, but had been published before by himself, in an edition printed at Basil, 1563, and reprinted in 1602, and 1619, 4 vols. 8vo.

, bart. lord chancellor of Ireland, and author of a history of that kingdom, was son to Richard Cox, esq. captain of a troop of horse, and was born at Bandon, in the county of Cork, on the 25th of March 1650. He had the misfortune to become an orphan before he was full three years of age and was then taken care of by his mother’s father, Walter Bird, esq. of Cloghnakilty. But his grandfather also dying when he was about nine years old^ he was then taken under the protection of his uncle, John Bird, esq. who placed him at an ordinary Latin school at Cloghnakiity, where he soon discovered a strong inclination to learning. In 1668, in his eighteenth year, he began to practise as an attorney in several manor courts where his uncle was seneschal, and continued it three years, and was entered of Gray’s Inn in 1671, with a view of being called to the bar. Here he was so much distinguished for his great assiduity and consequent improvement, that in the summer of 1673 he was made one of the surveyors at sir Robert Shaftoe’s reading. He soon after married a lady who had a right to a considerable fortune; but, being disappointed in obtaining it, he took a farm near Cloghnakiity, to which he retired for seven years. Being at length roused from his lethargy by a great increase of his family, he was, hy the interest of sir Robert Southwell, elected recorder of Kinsale in 1680. He now removed to Cork; where he practised the law with great success. But, foreseeing the storm that was going to fall on the protestants, he quitted his practice, and his estate, which at that time amounted to 300l. per ann. and removed with his wife and five children to England, and settled at Bristol. At this place he obtained sufficient practice to support his family genteelly, independently of his Irish estate; and at his leisure hours compiled the History of Ireland;“the first part of which he published soon after the revolution, in 1689, under the title of” Hibernia Anglicana; or the History of Ireland, from the conquest thereof by the English to the 'present time." When the prince of Orange arrived in London, Mr. Cox quitted Bristol, and repaired to the metropolis, where he was made undersecretary of state. Having given great satisfaction to the king in the discharge of this office, Mr. Cox was immediately after the surrender of Waterford made recorder of that city. On the 15th of September 1690, he was appointed second justice of the court of common pleas. In April 1691 Mr. Justice Cox was made governor of the county and city of Cork. His situation now, as a judge and a military governor, was somewhat singular; and he was certainly not deficient in zeal for the government, whatever objections may be made to his conduct on the principles of justice and humanity. During the time of Mr. Cox’s government, which continued till the reduction of Limerick, though he had a frontier of 80 railes to defend, and 20 places to garrison, besides Cork and the fort of Kinsale, yet he did not lose a single inch of ground. On the 5th of November 1692, Mr. justice Cox received the honour of knighthood; in July 1693 was nominated lord chancellor of Ireland, and in October 1706 was created a baronet. On the death of queen Anne, and the accession of king George I. sir Richard Cox, with the other principal Irish judges, was removed from his office, and also from the privy council. He then retired to his seat in the county of Cork, where he hoped to have ended his days in peace; hut his tranquillity was disturbed by several attacks which were made against him in the Irish parliament, but though several severe votes were passed against, him, they were not followed by any farther proceedings. He now divided his time between study, making improvements on his estate, and acts of beneficence. But in April 1733, he was seized by a fit of apoplexy, which ended in a palsy, under which he languished till the 3d of May that year, when he expired without pain, at the age of 83 years one month and a few days.

, a Russian by birth, was a landscape painter in London, but chiefly practised as a drawing-master. He taught in a way that was new and peculiar, and which appears to have been adopted from the hint given by Leonardo da Vinci, who recommends selecting the ideas of landscape from the stains of an old plaster wall, and his method of composing his drawings may be considered as an improvement upon the advice of Da Vinci. His process was to dash out, upon several pieces of paper, a number of accidental large blots and loose flourishes, from which he selected forms, and sometimes produced very grand ideas; but they were in general too indefinite in their execution, and unpleasing in their colour. He published a small tract upon this method of composing landscapes, in which he has demonstrated his process. He also published some other works, the most considerable of which was a folio, entitled “The Principles of Beauty relative to the Human Head,” 1778, French and English, a very ingenious, but somewhat fanciful work, illustrated with engravings by Bartolozzi, showing the gradations of character, from the outline of a feature, 'to the outline of the face, and to each face is applied an head dress in the style of the antique. He also published “The various species of Composition in Nature, in sixteen subjects, on four plates,” with observations and instructions and “The shape, skeleton, and foliage of thirty-two species of Trees,” 1771, reprinted 1736; but, in Mr. Edwards’s opinion, not very creditable to the artist. As a drawingmaster, he had very considerable reputation and employment. He attended for some years at Eton school, and among other pupils of high rank, had the honour of giving some lessons to his royal highness the prince of Wales, He died at his house in Leicester-street, Leicester-square, April, 1786, leaving a son John Cozens, who greatly excelled him as a landscape painter: rejecting his lather’s method of fortuitous blots and dashes, he followed the arrangements of nature, which he saw with an enchanted eye, and drew with an enchanted hand. He owes his fame to those tinted drawings, of which, Mr. Fuseli says, the method has been imitated with more success than the sentiment which inspired them. A collection of his drawings, amounting to ninety-four, the property of Mr. Beckford, were sold by Christie in 1805, and produced 510l. He visited Italy twice, where he appears to have drawn most of these In 1794, he was seized with a mental derangement which continued to his death in 1799.

, bishop of Durham, the fifth sen of John lord Crewe, of Stean, co. Northampton, by Jemima, daughter and coheir of Edward Walgrave, of Lawford, in Essex, esq. was born at Stean, the 3 1st of January, 1633; and in 1652 admitted commoner of Lincoln college, in Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. Feb. 1, 1655-6; soon after which he was chosen fellow of that college. On June 29th, 1658, he took the degree of M. A. At the restoration he declared heartily in favour of the crown and hierarchy; and in 1663 was one of the proctors of the university. The year following, on the 2d of July, he took the degree of LL. D.; and soon after went into holy orders. August the 12th, 1668, he was elected rector of Lincoln -college, upon the decease of Dr. Paul Hood. On the 29th of April, 1669, he was installed dean of Chichester, and held with that dignity, the praecentorship, in which he had been installed the day before. He was also appointed clerk of the closet to king Charles II. In 1671, upon the translation of Dr. Blandford to the see of Worcester, he was elected hishop of Oxford in his room, on the 16th of June, confirmed June the ISth, consecrated July the 2d, and enthroned the 5th of the same month; being allowed to hold with it, in commendam, the living of Whitney, and the rectorship of Lincoln college, which last he resigned in October 1672. In 1673 he performed the ceremony of the marriage of James duke of York with Maria of Este; and through that prince’s interest, to whom he appears to have been subservient, he was translated, the 22d of October, 1674, to the bishopric of Durham. In the beginning of J6.75, he baptized Katharina- Laura, the new-born daughter of James duke of York. The 26th of April, 1676, he was sworn of the privy council to king Charles II. and upon the accession of king James II. to the crown, he was in great favour with that prince; he was made dean of his majesty’s royal chapel in 1685, in the room of Compton, bishop of London, who had been removed; and within a few days after, was admitted into the privy council. In 1686 he was appointed one of the commissioners in the new ecclesiastical commission erected by king James, an honoqr which he is said to have valued beyond its worth. By virtue of that commission, he appeared on the 9th of August, at the proceedings against Henry bishop of London, and was for suspending him during the king’s pleasure; though the earl and bishop of Rochester, and chief justice Herbert, were against it. Immediately after that bishop’s suspension, commissioners were appointed to exercise all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the diocese of London, of which bishop Crewe was one. The 20th of November following, he was present at, and consenting to, the degradation of Mr. Samuel Johnson, previously to the most severe punishment that was inflicted on that eminent divine; and countenanced with his presence a prosecution carried on, in May 1687, against Dr. Peachy, vice-chancellor of Cambridge, for refusing to admit one Alban Francis, a Benedictine monk, to the degree of master of arts in that university, without taking the oaths. In July the same year, he offered to attend the pope’s nuncio at his public entry into London; but we are told his coachman refused to "drive lijm that way. His name was put again in a new ecclesiastical commission issued out this year, in October; in which he acted, during the severe proceedings against Magdalen college in Oxford, for refusing to elect one Anthony Farmer their president, pursuant to the king’s mandate. The bishop continued acting as an ecclesiastical commissioner till October 1688; when that commission was abolished. Towards the end of the year 1687, he was employed, with the bishops of Rochester and Peterborough, to draw up a form of thanksgiving for the queen’s being with child. But finding that the prince of Orange’s party was likely to' prevail, he absented himself from the council-board, and told the archbishop of Canterbury, that he was sorry for having so long concurred with the courtand desired now to be reconciled to his grace, and the other bishops. Even in the convention that met January 22, 1688-9, to consider of filling the throne, he was one of those who voted, on the 6th of February, that king James II. had abdicated the kingdom. Yet his past conduct was too recent to be forgotten, and therefore he was excepted by name out of the pardon granted by king William and queen Mary, May 23, 1690, which so terrified him, that he went over to Holland, and returned just in time to take the oaths to the new government, and preserved his bishopric. But, in order to secure to himself the possession of that dignity, he was forced to permit the crown to dispose of, or at least to nominate to, his prebends of Durham, as they should become vacant. By the death of his two elder brothers, he became in 1691, baron Crewe of Stean; and, about the 21st of December the same year, he married, but left no issue. During the rest of king William’s reign, he remained quiet and unmolested; and in the year 1710, he was one of the lords that opposed the prosecution then carried on against Dr. Sacheverell, and declared him not guilty; and likewise protested against several steps taken in that affair. He applied himself chiefly, in the latter part of his life, to works of munificence and charity. Particularly, he was a very great benefactor to Lincoln college, of which he had been fellow and rector; and laid out large sums in beautifying the bishop’s palace at Durham; besides many other instances of generosity and munificence of a more private nature. At length, his lordship departed this life on Monday September 18, 1721, aged eighty-eight; and was buried in his chapel at Stean, the 30th of the same month, with an inscription on his monument. He held the see of Durham forty-seven years. Dying without issue, the title of Baron Crewe of Stean became extinct with him.

, a very extraordinary person, was a native of Amsterdam, where he was born in 1.522. It appears that early in life he travelled into Spain and Portugal, but the motives of his journey are not ascertained. He was a man of science; and, according to report, a good poet. The sister arts he at first considered as an amusement only; but at length was obliged to have recourse to engraving for his support, and though the different studies in which he employed his time prevented his application to this art from being so close as it ought to have been, yet marks of genius are discoverable in his works. They are slight, and hastily executed with the graver alone, in an open careless style, so as greatly to resemble drawings made with a pen. He was settled at Haerlem; and there pursuing his favourite studies in literature, he learned Latin, and was made secretary to that town, from whence he was several times employed as ambassador to the prince of Orange, to whom he addressed a famous manifesto, which that prince published in 1566. Had he stopped here, it had been well; but, directing his thoughts to matters which he did not understand, he brought forward an argument as dangerous as it was absurd. He maintained, that all religious communications were corrupted; and that without a supernatural mission, accompanied with miracles, no person hat! any right to administer in any religious office: he therefore pronounced that man to be unworthy the name of a Christian who would enter any place of public worship. This he not only advanced in words, but strove to shew the sincerity of his belief in it by practice; and for that reason would not communicate with either protestant or papist. His works were published in three volumes folio, 1630; and though he was several times imprisoned, and at last sentenced to banishment, yet he does not appear to Lave altered his sentiments. He died at Tergout in 1590, aged 68. It is to his honour as an artist, that he was the instructor of the justly-celebrated Henry Goltzius. Cuerenhert worked conjointly with the Galles and other artists, from the designs of Martin Hemskerk. The subjects are from the Old and New Testament, and consist chiefly of middling-sized plates lengthwise. He also engraved several subjects from Frank Floris.

, an historian, was born in Scotland, in the time of Cromwell’s usurpation, in 1654; his father was minister at Ettrick, in the shire and presbytery of Selkirk. He was educated, according to the custom of the Scotch gentlemen of those times who. were of the presbyterian sect, in Holland, where we may suppose he imbibed his principles of government, and was much with the Scotch and English refugees at the Hague before the revolution, particularly with the earls of Argyle and Sunderland. He came over to England with the prince of Orange; and was honoured with the confidence and intimacy of many leading men among the friends of king William and the revolution. We find him employed, at different times, in the character of a travelling companion or tutor; first to the earl of Hyndford and his brother Mr. William Carmichael, solicitor-general in the reign of queen Anne for Scotland; secondly, with the lord Lome, afterwards so well known under the name of John duke of Argyle; and thirdly, with the lord viscount Lonsdale. In 1703 we find him at Hanover with the celebrated Atldison, and graciously received by the elector and princess Sophia.

According to the records of the Charter-house, he was appointed master July 9, 1624, when he was only in deacon’s orders, which was through the recommendation “of the most excellent prince of Wales.” He is described as a man “of good merit and deserte.” The governors resolved at the same time that no future master should be elected under forty years of age; or who was not in holy orders of priesthood two years before his election; and having not more than one living, and that within thirty miles of London. Sir Robert had grown so very infirm in 1636, that the governors ordered three persons as his assistants.

, the seventh baron and first viscount Stair, was born in 1609, studied at the college of Glasgow, and passed all the regular degrees of learning in that university. On the commencement of the rebellion in the reign of Charles I. he accepted a captain’s commission from the parliament, in the earl of Glencain.'s regiment, but was soon called off to a more suitable province, that of filling a philosophy chair in the university of Glasgow. Having applied himself particularly to the study of the laws, he entered as an advocate in 1648, and became eminent for his judgment and skill, if not for his integrity. When the estates of the nation sent commissioners to Breda to invite Charles II. to Scotland, he was appointed secretary to the embassy, and acquitted himself entirely to his majesty’s satisfaction. He then resumed his practice at the bar, but could not be prevailed upon to take any oaths to the government during the usurpation. When Charles II. was restored to the throne, he conferred on Mr. Dalryrnple the honour of knighthood, appointed him a senator of the college of justice, and in 1671, lord president of the session, in which office his conduct was very unpopular; and in 1682, being dismissed from all his offices, he retired to Holland, where he became such a favourite with William prince of Orange, that when advanced to the throne of these kingdoms, his majesty restored him to his place of lord president, and raised him to the dignity of viscount Stair, lord Glenluce and Stranrawer. His lordship continued to enjoy his high legal office, and the favour of his prince, till his death, Nov. 25, 1695 4 His character as a politician has not been favourably drawn by some historians, particularly Mr. Laing, in. his lately -published “History of Scotland.” His personal character seems liable to less objection, and of his learning no doubt can be justly entertained. He wrote: 1. “The Institutions of the Law of Scotland,” second edit. fol. 1693. 2. “Decisions of the Court of Session from 1661 to 1681,'” 2 vols. fol. 3. “Philosophia nova experimentalis,” published in Holland during his exile, and much commended by Bayle in his Journal. 4. “A Vindication of the Divine Perfections, &c. by a Person of Honour,” 1695, 8vo. 5. “An Apology for his own Conduct,” 4to, the only copy of which extant is said to be in the advocates’ library at Edinburgh. Had lord Orford read much of his history, he needed not have added that “it is not known on what occasion-he published it.”

, brother to the preceding, keeper of the pictures, medals, &c. and antiquary to his majesty, was originally apprenticed to a coach-painter in Clerkenwell, and after quitting his master, went to Rome to pursue the study of painting, where, about the year 1749, an invitation was given him by Roger Kynaston, esq. of Shrewsbury, in company with Mr. (afterwards sir John) Frederick, to accompany them to Naples. From that city they proceeded in a felucca, along the coast of Calabria, crossed over to Messina, and thence to Catania, where they met with lord Charlemont, Mr. Burton, afterwards lord Cunningham, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Murphy. They then sailed together in a ship, hired by lord Charlemont and his party, from Leghorn, with the intention of making that voyage; the felucca followed first to Syracuse, then to the isle of Malta, and afterwards separated; but Mr. Dalton, accompanying the party in the ship, made the voyage to Constantinople, several parts of Greece, and Egypt. This voyage led to his publication, which appeared in 1781, called, “Explanation of the set of prints relative to the manners, customs, &c. of the present inhabitants of Egypt, from discoveries made on the spot, 1749, etched and engraved by Richard Daiton, esq.” On his return to England, he was, by the interest of his noble patron lord Charlemont, introduced to the notice of his present majesty, then prince of Wales, who, after his accession to the throne, appointed him his librarian, an office for which it would appear he was but indifferently qualified, if Dr. Morell’s report be true. Soon after, it being determined to form a noble collection of drawings, medals, &c. Mr. Daltou was sent to Italy in 1763, to collect the various articles suited to the intention. The accomplishment of that object, however, was unfortunately attended with circumstances which gave rise to sir Robert Strange’s memorable letter of complaint to the earl of Bute, in which he says, indignantly, although not altogether unjustly, that “persecution haunted him, even beyond the Alps, in the form of Mr. Dalton.” On this subject it may here be necessary only to refer to sir Robert’s letter, and to the authorities in the note.

, or John of Damascus, a learned priest and monk of the 'eighth century, surnamed Mansur, was born at Damascus about G76. His father, who was rich, and held several considerable offices, had him instructed in the sciences by an Italian monk, named Cosmo, and he was afterwards raised to the highest posts, and became chief counsellor to the prince of the Saracens All these dignities, however, St. John Damascenus resigned, and entered himself a monk in the monastery of St. Sabas near Jerusalem, where he led a pious and exemplary life, and became famous in the church by his piety and writings. It is said, that the caliph Hiocham, having ordered his right hand to be cut off on account of a forged letter by the emperor Leo, the hand was restored to him the night following by a miracle, as he slept; which miracle was universally known, or as much so as many other miracles propagated in the credulous ages. He died about the year 760, aged eighty-four. He left an excellent treatise on the orthodox faith, and several other works published in Greek and Latin, by le Quien, 1712, 2 vols. fol. A book entitled “Liber Barlaam et Josaphat Indite regis,” is ascribed to St. John Damascenus, but without any foundation; it has no date of time or place, but was printed about 1470, and is scarce. There are several French translations of it, old, and little valued. Damascenus may be reckoned the most learned man of the eighth century, if we except our countryman Bede; and, what is less to his credit, ono of the first who mingled the Aristotelian philosophy with the Christian religion. He became among the Greeks what Thomas Aquinas was afterwards among the Latins. Except with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, most of his notions were erroneous, and his learning and fame gave considerable support to the worshipping of images, and other superstitions of that time.

John Danckilkts, of the same family, a designer and engraver, about 1654 settled at Amsterdam; but being invited into England, he went to London, where he designed for the English Juvenal, the plates engraved by Hollar. This artist also engraved some plates. Hesiiy Danckerts, his brother, was also bred an engraver, but afterwards became a landscape-painter. He was born at the Hague, but at an early age travelled into Italy, from whence he came to England. Here he enjoyed the favour of Charles II. who employed him to draw views of the British sea-ports, and royal palaces. During the disturbances which preceded the abdication of James II. he quitted England for Amsterdam, where he died soon after. The landscapes painted by this artist were numerous, anil are chiefly to be found in England. Amongst them are Views of Windsor, Plymouth, Penzance, &c. He also engraved from Vandyk, Titian, Jacopo Palma, &c. Justus Danckerts, of the same family, was a designer, engraver, and print-seller, and resided in Amsterdam. The following plates bear his name: the Portrait of Casimir, king of Poland; a ditto of William III. prince of Orange; the Harbours of Amsterdam, a set of seven pieces. One other of the name remains to be noticed, Cornelius Danckerts. The circumstance of both Milizia and Heinecken dating the birth of this architect in 1.561, and saying that he was born in Amsterdam (the very time and place of the birth of Cornelius Danckerts mentioned above), leads us to suspect some chronological error, if not, indeed, that these two artists were one and the same person. Cornelius was originally a stonemason, but afterwards applied himself to architecture. He constructed in the city of Amsterdam many public and private buildings, highlycreditable to his talents on account of their beauty and convenience, and, amongst others, three of the principal churches, the exchange, and the gate which leads to Haarlem, the most beautiful of the city. He had a son named Peter, who was born at Amsterdam in 1605, and afterwards became painter to Uladislaus, king of Poland.

Dante first found a patron in the great Cane de la Scala, prince of Verona, whom he has celebrated in the first canto of the Inferno; but his high spirit was ill-suited to courtly dependance; and it is very probable he lost the favour of the prince by the frankness of his behaviour. Of this an instance is given in several authors. The disposition of the poet, in the latter part of his life, had acquired a strong tincture of melancholy, which made him less acceptable in the gay court of Verona, where probably a poet was only thought a character fit to find frivolous amusements for his patron. A common jester, or buffoon (a noted personage in those days), eclipsed the character of the hard, and neither the variety of his learning, nor the sublimity of his genius, stood him in any stead. Cane, the prince, perceived that he was hurt by it; and, instead of altering his mode of treatment, very ungenerously exasperated his resentment, by observing one day in public company, that it was very extraordinary, that the jester, whom every one knew to be a worthless fellow, should be so much admired by him, and all his court; while Dante, a man unparalleled in learning, genius, and integrity, was universally neglected. “You will cease to wonder (says Dante), when you consider that similarity of manners is the strongest bond of attachment.” It does not appear whether the prince resented this answer, which he surely must have felt; but it is certain that the prince endeavoured to make the poet an occasional object of merriment in some very low instances, and Dante condescended to meet him even in that humble species of wit. Dante, however, soon found it necessary to seek his fortune elsewhere, and from Verona he retired to France, according to Manetti; and Boccaccio affirms that he disputed in the theological schools of Paris with great reputation, which Boccaccio had a much better opportunity of knowing than Bavle, who takes upon him to question the fact.

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

, the patron of Wales, was the son of Xantus or Santus, prince of Ceretica, now Cardiganshire, and born about the close of the fifth century. Being brought up to the church, he was ordained priest; he then retired to the Isle of Wight, and for some time lived in the accustomed solitude of those times. From this he at length emerged, and went into Wales, where he preached to the Britons. He built a chapel at Glastonbury, and founded twelve monasteries, the principal of which was in the vale of Ross, near Menevia. Of this monastery frequent mention is made in the acts of the Irish saints. The rules he established for his monasteries were, as usual; rigid, but not so injudicious or absurd as some of the early monastic statutes. One of his penances was manual labour in agriculture, and, for some time at least, there was no accumulation of worldly goods, for whoever was admitted as a member, was enjoined to leave every thing of that kind behind him. When the synod of Brevy in Cardiganshire was held in the year 519, St. David was invited to it, and was one of its chief champions against Pelagianism. At the close of this synod, St. Dubricius, archbishop of Caerleon upon Usk, resigned his see to St. David, who translated it to Menevia, now called St. David’s. Here he died about the year 544 in a very advanced age. He is praised by his biographers for his eloquence and powers in conversion, and has, according to them, been in all succeeding ages the glory of the British church. He wrote the “Decrees of the Synod of Victoria,” which he called soon after he became bishop; the “Rules of his Monasteries;” some “Homilies,” and “Letters to king Arthur,” all of which have perished.

In 1616 he retired from Ireland, and found that a change had taken place in the English administration. He continued, however, as king’s serjeant, in the practice of the law, and was often associated as one of the judges of assize. Some of his charges on the circuits are still extant in the British Museum. In 1620 we find him sitting in the English parliament for Newcastle-under-Line, where he distinguished himself chiefly in debates on the affairs of Ireland, maintaining, against Coke and other very high authorities, that England cannot make laws to bind Ireland, which had an independent parliament. Amidst these employments he found leisure to republish his “Nosce Teipsum” in 1622, along with his “Acrostics” and “Orchestra,” a poem on the antiquity and excellency of dancing, dedicated to Charles prince of Wales, originally published in 1596 But this first edition has escaped the researches of modern collectors, and the poem, as we now find it, is imperfect. Whether it was not so in the first edition may be doubted. His biographer thinks it was there perfect, but why afterwards mutilated cannot be ascertained.

His poetical works are numerous, but discover very little taste or talent: 1. “St. Peter’s Complaint, with other Poems,” Loud. 1595, 4to. 2. “Mirum in modo; a glimpse of God’s glory, and the soul’s shape,” ibid. 1602, and 1616, 8vo. 3. “Microcosmus, or the Discovery of the Little World,” Oxon. 1603, 4to. 4. “The Holy Rood of Christ’s Church,” Lond. 1609, 4to, with Sonnets. 5. “Humours Heaven and Earth, with the civil wars of Death and Fortune,” ibid. 1609, 8vo. 6. “Wit’s Pilgrimage,” Lond. 4to, no date. 7. “Muse’s Sacrifice, or Divine Meditations,” ibid. 1612, 12mo. 8. “The Muse’s Tears for the loss of their hope, the heroic and never too much praised Henry, prince of Wales,” ibid. 1613, 4to, &c. &c. &c. Four of these volumes are noticed in the Censura Literaria, one in Beloe’s Anecdotes, and one in the British Bibliographer, by Mr. Haslewood, whose character of Davis’s poetry may be adopted with confidence. “Davis’s poetical attempts are generally heavy, dull, obscure, and inharmonious and his pages are remarkable for inconsistency. One while he is pouring forth celestial rhapsodies, and then * with jerkes of wit (as he terms them) to whip every vice,' blundering on expressions too gross for pen or press, while the reader, who may have been edified by his morality, is left to fill up the blank of a disgusting parenthesis. His witticisms are often feeble puns, double entendres, and occasionally have their point depending on a fabricated name. Yet though the whole of his pieces now class as rare, from their number it seems presumable they were not ill received. To us moderns, however, there seldom appears poignancy in his wit, or nerve in his poetry.”

, a very eminent statesman, and secretary of state in the reign of queen Elizabeth, was, if not a native of Scotland, at least descended from those who were, as himself professed to sir James Mel vile. At what time he came into the court of queen Elizabeth, or in what state, is uncertain. It is most probable, that his parts and learning, together with that extraordinary diligence and wonderful address for which he was always distinguished, recommended him to Mr. Killigrew, afterwards sir Henry Kiiligrew, with whom he went in quality of secretary, at the time he was sent into Scotland, to compliment queen Mary upon the birth of her son. This was in 1566, and there is a good reason to believe that he remained from that time about the court, and was employed in several affairs of great consequence. In 1575, when the states of Brabant and Flanders assumed to themselves the administration of all affairs till his catholic majesty should appoint a new governor of the Low Countries, Mr. Davison was sent over with a public character from the queen to those states, under the plausible pretence of exhorting them to continue in their obedience to his catholic majesty; but, in reality, to see how things actually stood in that part of the world, that her majesty might be the better able to know how to proceed in respect to the several applications made to her from the prince of Orange, and the people of Holland. He executed this commission very successfully, and therefore the queen sent him over as her minister, to pacify the troubles that had arisen at Ghent; and when his presence was no longer necessary there, he was commissioned on her behalf to the States of Holland, in 1579. His conduct there gave equal satisfaction to the queen his mistress, and to those with whom he negotiated. He gave them great hopes of the queen’s assistance and support, and when a sum of money was desired, as absolutely necessary towards providing for their defence, he very readily undertook to procure it upon reasonable security; in consequence of which, a very considerable sum was sent from England, for which all the valuable jewels and fine plate that had been pledged by Matthias of Austria to the States of Holland, and which were the remains of the magnificence of the house of Burgundy, were transported to England. These journies, and the success attending them, gave Mr. Davison great reputation at court, insomuch, that in all matters of a nice and difficult nature, Davison was some way or other continually employed. Thus in 1583, when matters wore a serious aspect in Scotland, he was sent thither as the queen’s ambassador, in order to counteract the French ministers, and to engage the king of Scots and the people, both to slight the offers made them from that country, and to depend wholly upon assistance from England. Affairs in the Low Countries coming at last to a crisis, and the states resolving to depend upon queen Elizabeth, in the bold design they had formed of defending their freedom by force of arms, and rendering themselves independent, Mr. Davison, at this time clerk of the privy council, was chosen to manage this delicate business, and to conclude with them that alliance which was to be the basis of their future undertakings. In this, which, without question, was one of the most perplexed transactions in that whole reign, he conducted things with such a happy dexterity, as to merit the strongest acknowledgments on the part of the States, at the same time that he rendered the highest service to the queen his mistress, and obtained ample security for those expences which that princess thought necessary in order to keep danger at a distance, and to encourage the flames of war in the dominions of her enemy, whom at that juncture she knew to be meditating how he might transfer them into her own. Upon the return of Mr. Davison into England, after the conclusion of this treaty, he was declared of the privy-council, and appointed one of her majesty’s principal secretaries of state, in conjunction with sir Francis Walsingham; so that, at this time, these offices may be affirmed to have been as well filled as in any period that can be assigned in our history, and yet by persons of very different, or rather opposite dispositions; for Walsingham was a man of great art and intrigue, one who was not displeased that he was thought such a person, and whose capacity was still deeper than 'those who understood it best apprehended it to be. Davison, on the other hand, had a just reputation for wisdom and probity; and, though he had been concerned in many intricate affairs, yet he preserved a character so unspotted, that, to the time he came into this office, he had done nothing that could draw upon him the least imputation. It is an opinion countenanced by Camden, and which has met with general acceptance, that he was raised in order to be ruined, and that, when he was made secretary of state, there was a view of obliging him to go out of his depth in that matter, which brought upon him all his misfortunes. This conjecture is very plausible, and yet there is good reason to doubt whether it is well founded. Mr. Davison had attached himself, during the progress of his fortunes, to the potent earl of Leicester; and it was chiefly to his favour and interest that he stood indebted for this high employment, in which, if he was deceived by another great statesman, it could not be said that he was raised and ruined by the same hands. But there is nothing more probable than that the bringing about such an event by an instrument which his rival had raised, and then removing him, and rendering his parts useless to those who had raised him, gave a double satisfaction to him who managed this design. It is an object of great curiosity to trace the principal steps of this transaction, which was, without doubt, one of the finest strokes of political management in that whole reign. When the resolution was taken, in the beginning of October 1586, to bring the queen of Scots? to a trial, and a commission was issued for that purpose, secretary Davison’s name was inserted in that commission; but it does not appear that he was present when that commission was opened at Fotheringay castle, on the llth of October, or that he ever assisted there at all. Indeed, the management of that transaction was very wisely left in the hands of those who with so much address had conducted the antecedent business for the conviction of Anthony Babington, and his accomplices, upon the truth and justice of which, the proceedings against the queen of Scots entirely depended. On the 25th of October the sentence was declared in the star-chamber, things proceeding still in the same channel, and nothing particularly done by secretary Davison. On the 29th of the same month the parliament met, in which Serjeant Puckering was speaker of the house of commons; and, upon an application from both houses, queen Elizabeth caused the sentence to be published, which, soon after, was notified to the queen of Scots; yet hitherto all was transacted by the other secretary, who was considered by the nation in general as the person who had led this prosecution from beginning to end. The true meaning of this long and solemn proceeding was certainly to remove, as far as possible, any reflection upon queen Elizabeth; and, that it might appear in the most conspicuous manner to the world, that she was urged, and even constrained to take the life of the queen of Scots, instead of seeking or desiring it. This assertion is not founded upon conjecture, but is a direct matter of fact; for, in her first answer to the parliament, given at Richmond the 12th of November, she complained that the late act had brought her into a great strait, by obliging her to give directions for that queen’s death; and upon the second application, on the 24th of the same month, the queen enters largely into the consequences that must naturally follow upon her taking that step, and on the consideration of them, grounds her returning no definitive resolution, even to this second application. The delay which followed after the publication of the sentence, gave an opportunity for the French king, and several other princes, to interpose, but more especially to king James, whose ambassadors, and particularly sir Robert Melvile, pressed the queen very hard. Camden says, that his ambassadors unseasonably mixing threatenings with intreaties, they were not very welcome; so that after a few days the ambassadors were dismissed, with small hopes of succeeding. But we are elsewhere told, that, when Melvile requested a respite of execution for eight days, she answered, “Not an hour.” This seemed to be a plain declaration of her majesty’s final determination, and such in all probability it was, so that her death being resolved, the only point that remained under debate was, how she should die, that is, whether by the hand of an executioner, or otherwise. In respect to this, the two secretaries seem to have been of different sentiments. Mr. Davison thought the forms of justice should go on, and the end of this melancholy transaction correspond with the rest of the proceedings. Upon this, sir Francis Walsingham pretended sickness, and did not come to court, and by this means the whole business of drawing and bringing the warrant to the queen to sign, fell upon Davison, who, pursuant to the queen’s directions, went through it in the manner that Camden has related. But it is very remarkable, that, while these judicial steps were taking, the other method, to which the queen herself seemed to incline, proceeded also, and secretary Walsingham, notwithstanding his sickness, wrote the very day the warrant was signed, which was Wednesday, February 1st, 1586-7, to sir Amiss Pawlet and sir Drew Drury, to put them in mind of the association, as a thing that might countenance, at least, if not justify, this other way of removing the queen of Scots. It is true, that Mr. Davison subscribed this letter, and wrote another to the same persons two days after; but it appears plainly from the anssver, that the keepers of the queen of Scots considered the motion as coming from Walsingharn. The warrant being delivered to the lords of the council, they sent it down by Mr. Beale, their clerk, a man of sour and stubborn temper, and who had always shewn a great bitterness against the queen of Scots. The day of his departure does not appear; but queen Mary had notice given her on the Monday, to prepare for death on the Wednesday, which she accordingly suffered. As soon as queen Elizabeth was informed of it, she expressed great resentment against her council, forbad them her presence and the court; and caused some of them to be examined, as if she intended to call them to an account for the share they had in this transaction. We are not told particularly who these counsellors were, excepting the lord treasurer Burleigh, who fell into a temporary disgrace about it, and was actually a witness against Mr. Davison. As for the earl of Leicester and secretary Walsingharn, they had prudently withdrawn themselves at the last act of the tragedy, and took care to publish so much, by their letters into Scotland; but secretary Davison, upon whom it was resolved the whole weight of this business should fall, v.-deprived of his office, and sent prisoner to the Tower, at which nobody seerus to have been so much alarmed as the lord treasurer, who, though himself at that time in disgrace, wrote to the queen in strong terms, and once intended to have written in much stronger. This application bad no effect, for the queen having sent her kinsman Mr. Cary, son to the lord Hunsdon, into Scotland, to excuse the matter to king James, charged with a letter to him under her own hand, in which she in the strongest terms possible asserted her own innocence, there was a necessity of doing something that Davison[?] carry an air of evidence, in support of the turn she had now given to the death of that princess. On the 28th of March following, Davison, after having undergone various examinations, was brought to his trial in the star chamber, for the contempt of which he had been guilty, in revealing the queen’s counsels to her privy counsellors, and performing what he understood to be the duty of his office in quality of her secretary. We have several accounts of this trial, which, in a variety of circumstances, differ from each other. In this, however, they all agree, that the judges, who fined him ten thousand marks, and imprisonment during the queen’s pleasure, gave him a very high character, and declared him to be, in their opinions, both an able ana an honest man. One thing is very remarkable, that, in the conclusion of this business, sir Christopher Wray, chief justice of the queen’s bench, told the court, that though the queen had been offended with her council, and had left them to examination, yet now she forgave them, being satisfied that they were misled b? this man’s suggestions. Sir James Melvile, who wrote at that time, and who seems to have had some prejudice against Davison, said very candidly and fairly upon this occasion, that he was deceived by the council. As soon as the proceeding was over, the queen, to put it out of doubt with the king of Scots, that his mother was put to death without her privity or intention, sent him the judgment given against Davison, subscribed by those who had given it, and exemplified under the great seal, together with another instrument, under the hands of all the judges of England, that the sentence against his mother could not in the least prejudice his title to the succession. As for Mr. Davison, now left to a strange reward for his past services, a long imprisonment, which reduced him to indigence, he comforted himself with the thoughts of his innocence; and, to secure his memory from being blasted by that judgment which had withered his fortune, he had long before written an apology for his own conduct, which he addressed to secretary Walsingham, as the man most interested in it, and who could best testify whether what he affirmed was truth or not. In this he gave a very clear and natural detail of the transaction which cost him all his sufferings. It is allowed by all who have written on this subject, and especially by Camden, that he was a very unhappy, though at the same time a very capable and honest man. As such we have seen him recommended to queen Elizabeth by the treasurer Burleigh, and as such he was strongly recommended by the earl of Essex to king James I. It seems, that noble person stuck fast by him under his misfortunes, which plainly shews the party to which he had always adhered. That lord lost no opportunity of soliciting the queen in his favour, and never let slip any occasion of testifying for him the warmest and thesincerest affection. At length, it seems he was not altogether unsuccessful; for though, upon the death of secretary Walsingham, the queen absolutely rejected his motion, that Mr. Davison should come into his place, yet, afterwards, it seems that she yielded in some degree, as plainly appears by the earl’s letter to king James. That we are under an incapacity of tracing him farther, is owing to the profound silence of the writers of those times.

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

, the second wife of the preceding, and a lady of distinguished ingenuity and merit, was born at a small country house of her father’s at Coulton in Wiltshire, May, 14, 1700. She was the daughter of Bernard Granville, esq. afterward lord Lansdowne, a nobleraan whose abilities and virtues, whose character as a poet, whose friendship with Pope, Swift, and other eminent writers of the time, and whose general patronage of men eyf genius and literature, have often been recorded in biographical productions. As the child of such a family, sh^ could not fail of receiving the best education. It was at Long-Leat, the seat of the Weymouth family, which was occupied by lord Lansdowne during the minority of the heir of that family, that Miss Granville first saw Alexander Pendarves, esq. a gentleman of large property at Roscrow in Cornwall, and who immediately paid his addresses to her; which were so strenuously supported by her uncle, whom she had not the courage to deny, that she gave a reluctant consent to the match; and accordingly it took place in the compass of two or three weeks, she being then in the seventeenth year of her age. From a great disparity of years, and other causes, she was very unhappy during the time which this connexion lasted, but endeavoured to make the best of her situation. The retirement to which she was confined was wisely employed in the farther cultivation of a naturally vigorous understanding: and the good use she made of her leisure hours, was eminently evinced in the charms of her conversation, and in her letters to her friends. That quick feeling of the elegant and beautiful which constitutes taste, she possessed in an eminent degree, and was therefore peculiarly fitted for succeeding in the fine arts. At the period we are speaking of, she made a great proficiency in music, but painting, which afterwards she most loved, and in which she principally excelled, had not yet engaged her practical attention. in 1724 Mrs. Pendarves became a widow; upon which occasion she quitted Cornwall, and fixed her principal residence in London. For several years, between 1730 and 1736, she maintained a correspondence with Dr. Swift. In 1743, as we have seen in the former article, Mrs. Pendarves was married to Dr. Delany, with whom it appears that she had long been acquainted; and for whom he had many years entertained a very high esteem. She had been a widow nineteen years when this connexion, which was a very happy one, took place, and her husband is said to fcave regarded her almost to adoration. Upon his decease in ftiay 1768, she intended to fix herself at Bath, and was in quest of a house for that purpose. But the duchess dowager of Portland, hearing of her design, went down to the place; and, having in her earl v years formed an intimacy with Mrs. Delany, wished to have near her a lady from whom she had necessarily, for several years, been much separated, and whose heart and talents she knew would in the highest degree add to thejiappiness of her own life. Her <*race succeeded in her solicitalions, and Mrs. Delany now passed her time between London and Bulstrode. On the death of the duchess-dowager of Portland, his present majesty, who had frequently seen and honoured Mrs Delany with his notice at Bulstrode, assigned her for her summer residence the use of a house completely furnished, in St. Alhan’s-street, Windsor, adjoining to the entrance of the castle: and, that the having two houses on her hands might not produce any inconvenience with regard to the expence of her living, his majesty, as a farther mark of his royal favour, conferred on her a pension of three hundred pounds a year. On the 15th of April, 1788, after a short indisposition, she departed this life, at her house in St. James’s-place, having nearly completed the 88th year of her age. The circumstance that has principally entitled Mrs. Delany to a place in this work is her skill in painting, and in other ingenious arts, one of which was entirely her own. With respect to painting, she was late in her application to it. She did not learn to draw till she was more than thirty years of age, when she put herself under the instruction of Goupy, a fashionable master of that time, and much employed by Frederic prince of Wales. To oil-painting she did not take till she was past forty. So strong was her passion for this art, that she has frequently been known to employ herself in it, day after day, from six o'clock in the morning till dinner time, allowing only a short interval for breakfast. She was principally a copyist; but a very fine one. The only considerable original work of hers in oil was the Kaising of Lazarus, in the possession of her friend lady JBute. The number of pictures painted by her, considering how late it was in life before she applied to the art, was very great. Her own house was full of them; and others are among the chief ornaments of Calswich, Welsborn, and Ham, the respective residences of her nephews, Mr. Granville and Mr. Dewes, and of her niece Mrs. Port. Mrs. Delany, among her other accomplishments, excelled in embroidery and shell-work; and, in the course of her life, produced many elegant specimens of her skill in these respects. But, what is more remarkable, at the age of 74 she invented a new and beautiful mode of exercising her ingenuity. This was by the construction of a Flora, of a most singular kind, formed by applying coloured papers together, and which might, not improperly, be called a species of mosaic work. Being perfectly mistress of her scissars, the plant or flower which she purposed to imitate she cut out; that is, she cut out its various leaves and parts in such coloured Chinese paper as suited her subject; and, when she could not meet with a colour to correspond with the one she wanted, she dyed her own paper to answer her wishes. She used a black ground, as best calculated to throw out her flower; and not the least astonishing part of her art was, that though she never employed her pencil to trace out the form or shape of her plant, yet when she had applied all the p eces which composed it, it hung so loosely and gracefully, that every one was persuaded that it must previously have been drawn out, and repeatedly corrected by a most judicious hand, before it could have attained the ease and air of truth which, without any impeachment of the honour of this accomplished lady, might justly be called a forgery of nature’s works. The effect was superior to what painting could have produced; and so imposing was her art, that she would sometimes put a real leaf of a plant by the side of one of her own creation, which the eye could not detect, even when she herself pointed it out. Mrs. Delany continued in the prosecution of her design till the 83d year of her age, when the dimness of her sight obliged her to lay it aside. However, by her unwearied perseverance, she became authoress of far the completest Flora that ever was executed by the same hand. The number of plants finished bv her amounted to nine hundred and eighty. This invaluable Flora was bequeathed by her to her nephew Court Dewes, esq. and is now in the possession of Barnard Dewes, esq. of Welsborn in Warwickshire. The liberality of Mrs. Delany’s mind rendered her at all times ready to communicate her art. She frequently pursued her work in company; was desirous of shewing to her friends how easy it was to execute; and was often heard to lament that so few would attempt it. It required, however, great patience and great knowledge in botanical drawing. She began to write poetry at 80 years of age, and her verses shew at least a pious disposition. Her private character is thus given by her friend, Mr. Keate. “She had every virtue that could adorn the human heart, with a mind so pure, and so uncontaminated by the world, that it was matter of astonishment how she could have lived in its more splendid scenes without being tainted with one single atom of its folly or indiscretion. The strength of her understanding received, in the fullest degree, its polish, but its weakness never reached her. Her life was conducted by the sentiments of true piety; her way of thinking, on every occasion, was upright and just; her conversation was lively, pleasant, and instructive. She was warm, delicate, and sincere in her friendships; full of philanthropy and benevolence, and loved and respected by every person who had the happiness to know her. That sun-shine and serenity of mind which the good can only enjoy, and which had thrown so much attraction on her life, remained without a shadow to the last; not less bright in its setting, than in its meridian lustre. That form which in youth had claimed admiration, in age challenged respect. It presented a noble ruin, become venerable by the decay of time. Her faculties remained unimpaired to the last; and she quitted this mortal state to receive in a better world the crown of a well-spent life.”

, one of the French Encyclopaedists, was born at Portets, in the vicinity of Bonrdeanx, in January 1726; was at an early age admitted into the college of the Jesuits, and, when only fifteen years old, was invested with their order. He was a youth of much imagination and sensibility, and at the same time strongly addicted to mental melancholy; during which he almost uninterruptedly directed his thoughts to the two great extremes of futurity, heaven and hell, which distressed him with perpetual agitations of mind. Deleyre, however, did not long continue in this state of mind, but quitted the Jesuit society, and with this, we have no small reason to believe, every religious faith whatever. As he was of plebeian birth, he could have no expectations from the court; his only alternatives were philosophy and the law; and the latter did not exactly correspond, we are told by his eulogist, either with his sensibility or his independence of mind. Montesquieu was at this time the Miecenas of Guienne, and became the patron of Deleyre from a thorough conviction of his talents: he introduced him to Diderot, d'Alembert, J. J. Rousseau, and Duclos; and his destiny was fixed: he decided for philosophy, and became a writer in the Encyclopedic. In this new capacity his hardihood was not inferior to that of his colleagues; the famous, or rather infamous, article on fanaticism was soon known to have been of his production, and it was likely to have been essentially detrimental to him; for he had now fixed his attention upon matrimony, and had obtained the consent of a lady; but the priests of the parish in which the ceremony was to have been celebrated, refused to unite them, in consequence of their having heard that Deleyre was the author of this article. His patronage, however, was at this time increased, and he had found a warm and steady friend in the due de Nivernois, who interfered in the dispute, and Deleyre obtained the fair object of his wishes. The duke had before this solicited, and successfully, the appointment for him of librarian to the infant prince of Parma, who was at this period committed to the immediate care of Condillac. In this situation he continued for some considerable time; and although a dispute respecting the mode of educating their pupil at length separated him from this celebrated logician, he appears to have always entertained for him the highest degree of respect.

, an ingenious electrician, was born in the parish of St. Martin’s, London, in 1710. His father having escaped from France to Holland, upon the revocation of the edict of Nantes, came over to England with king William. He died soon after the birth of his son, who was brought up by his uncle, an officer in the English service, and page of honour to queen Mary, who placed him at Westminster school. Whilst pursuing his studies there, he boarded in the house of Dr. Desaguliers, who instructed him in the mathematics and natural philosophy. At the age of seventeen, before he had left school, he married; and went to Leyden and followed his studies in the university of that place. In 1740, he began to read lectures in experimental philosophy at Edinburgh, and continued them till he was interrupted by the rebellion. He then took up arms for government, and was a volunteer at the battle of Preston-pans. In 1746, he resumed his lectures, and published his discovery of the effects of electricity upon the growth of vegetables. This discovery was afterwards claimed by abbé Nollet; but is very properly assigned to Dr. Demainbray by Dr. Priestley, in his “History of Electricity.” In 1749, Dr; Demainbray went to Dublin, where he read his lectures with much success, as he did afterwards in several of the French universities, who honoured him with prize medals, and admitted him into their societies. In 1753, being then at Paris, he was invited over to England, to read a course of lectures to his present majesty (then prince of Wales) and the duke of York. On his return to England he married a second wife, his first wife having died about the year 1750. In 1755 he read a public course of lectures in the concert-room in Panton-street, and in 1757 in Carey-street, opposite Boswell-court. After this he gave private courses to other branches of the royal family; and on the arrival of her present majesty in England, instructed her in experimental philosophy, and natural history. In 1768, he was appointed astronomer to his majesty’s new observatory at Richmond, and adjusted the instruments there in time to observe the transit of Venus, which happened the ensuing year. Dr. Demainbray died at Richmond Feb. 20, 1782, and was interred in the churchyard of Northall, where he had purchased a small estate.

, an excellent philosopher and divine, was born at Stoughton near Worcester, Nov. 26, 1657; and educated in grammar-learning at Ulockley in. that county. In May 1675 he was admitted of Trinity college, Oxford and when he took his degree of B. A. was already distinguished for his learning and exemplary character. He was ordained deacon by Compton bishop of London, in May 1681; priest by Ward bishop of Salisbury, in July 1682; and was the same month presented to the vicarage of Wargrave in Berkshire. August 1689, he was presented to the valuable rectory of Upminster in Essex: which living, lying at a moderate distance from London, afforded him an opportunity of conversing and corresponding with the most eminent philosophers of the nation. Here in a retirement suitable to his contemplative and philosophical temper, he applied himself with great eagerness to the study of nature, and to mathematics and experimental philosophy; in which he became so eminent, that in 1702 he was chosen F. R. S. He proved one of the most useful and industrious members of this society, frequently publishing in the Philosophical Transactions curious observations and valuable pieces, as may be seen by their Index. In his younger years he published separately, “The artificial Clock-maker; or, a treatise of watch and clock-work, shewing to the meanest capacities the art of calculating numbers to all sorts of movements; the way to alter clock-work; to make chimes, and set them to musical notes; and to calculate and correct the motion of pendulums. Also numbers for divers movements: with the ancient and modern history of clockwork; and many instruments, tables, and other matters, never before published in any other book.” The fourth edition of this book, with large emendations, was published in 1734, 12mo. In 1711 and 1712 he preached “Sixteen Sermons” at Boyle’s lectures; which, with suitable alterations in the form, and notes, he published in 1713 under the title “Physico-theology; or, a demonstration of the beine: and attributes of God from his works of creation,” 8vo. In pursuance of the same design, he published, in 1714, “Astro-theology or, a demonstrationof the being and attributes of God from a survey of the heavens,” illustrated with copper-plates, 8vo. These works, the former especially, have been highly and justly valued, translated into French and several other languages, and have undergone several editions. In 1716 he was made a canon of Windsor, being at that time chaplain to the prince of Wales; and in 1730 received the degree of D. D. from the university of Oxford by diploma, on account of his learning, and the services he had done to religion by his culture of natural knowledge “Ob libros,” as the terms of the diploma run, “ab ipso editos, quibus physicam & mathesin auctiorem reddidit, & ad religionem veramque fidem exornandam revocavit.” When Eleazer Albin published his natural history of birds and English insects, in 4 vols. 4to, with many beautiful cut?, it was accompanied with very curious notes and observations by our learned author. He also revised the “Miscellanea Curiosa,” published in three volumes, 1726, 8vo. He next published “Christo-theology or, a demonstration of the divine authority of the Christian religion, being the substance of a sermon preached at Bath, Nov. 2, 1729, and published at the earnest request of the auditory, 1730,” 8vo. The last work of his own composition was “A Defence of the Churches right in Leasehold Estates. In answer to a book called ‘An Inquiry into the customary estates and TenantRights of those who hold lands of the Church and other Foundations,’ published under the name of Everard Fleetwood, esq.” 1731, 8vo. But, besides his own, he published some pieces of Mr. Ray, and gave new editions of others, with great additions from the author’s own Mss. To him the world is likewise indebted for the “Philosophical Experiments and observations of the late eminent Dr. Robert Hooke, and other eminent virtuosos in his time, 1726,” 8vo; and he communicated to the royal society several pieces, which he received from his learned correspondents.

In 1734 he published, in two volumes, 4to, “A Course of Experimental Philosophy.” On the 30th of January, the following year, he communicated to the royal society an attempt to explain the phenomenon of the horizontal moon appearing bigger than when elevated many degrees above the horizon, supported by an experiment. He likewise published this year, in 8vo, the second edition of “Dr. Gregory’s Elements of Catoptrics and Dioptrics,” translated into English by Dr. Brown to which he added an appendix, containing an account of reflecting telescopes, &c. In February 1738, he made some electrical experiments before the royal society; and, in April the same year, he performed some electrical experiments at the prince of Wales’s house at Cliefden; of which an account was published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 454. In 1739 he communicated to the royal society some thoughts and conjectures concerning the cause of elasticity, which were published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 454, and contributed various other papers, which were also published in the Transactions. He had the honour of reading his lectures before king George II. as well as the rest of the royal family; and he exchanged the living which he had in Norfolk for one in Essex, which he obtained on the presentation of his majesty. He was likewise made chaplain to Frederick prince of Wales.

He seemed now to have vanquished even Envy herself. In all difficult cases, his ministry was employed: and when the prince of East-Friesland quarrelled with his subjects, he was put at the head of the deputation to terminate the disputes. When war with England, alter the king’s restoration, became necessary, he was one of the deputies that prevailed on the states of Guelder and Overyssel to furnish their quota: he was appointed one of the commissioners for the direction of the navy, and made such vigorous dispositions, that he had a fleet in much better condition, and more ready for sea, than the admirals themselves imagined possible; though naval affairs were quite new to him. When it was thought expedient, after Opdam’s defeat and death, that some of their own deputies should command the fleet, he was one of those three that were put in commission. When he came on board, the fleet was shut up in the Texel, and, in order to secure the outward-bound East India fleet, it was necessary for it to put to sea; which, as the wind then stood, the sailors declared impossible. It was the received doctrine, that there were but 10 points of the compass from which the wind could carry ships out, and that 22 were against them. The pensionary was alone of another opinion; and, as he was a great mathematician, soon discovered the falsity of this notion: he discovered, that there were in reality no less than 28 points for them, and but four against them. He engaged to carry one of their greatest ships through the Spaniard’s-gat with the wind at S. S. W. which he performed Aug. 16, 1665; the greatest part of the fleet followed him without the least accident, and the passage has since been called Witt’s-diep. They met with a dreadful storm on the coast of Norway, which lasted two days: De Witt remained upon deck all the time, never changed his cloaths, nor took any refreshment, but in common with the men; and, when he saw a want of hands, obliged his officers to work by his own example. He wrote a plain and accurate relation of all that happened during the expedition, and at his return verified every article of this account so fully to the States, that they gave him solemn thanks for his good services, and offered him a considerable present, which, however, he declined to accept.

When the famous battle in 1666 was fought between the English and Dutch for three days, he was sent by the States to take a full account of the affair; and he drew up one from the best authorities he could obtain, which is justly esteemed a master-piece in its kind, and a proof of his being as capable of recording great actions as of achieving them. In 1667, finding a favourable conjuncture for executing the great design of the warm republicans, he established the perpetual edict, by which the office of stacltholder was for ever abolished, and the liberty of Holland, as it was supposed, fixed on an eternal basis. In 1672, when the prince of Orange was elected captain and admiral-general, he abjured the stadtholdership. A tumult happened at Dort, and the people declared they would have the prince for stadtholder; to which place he came in person on their invitation, and accepted the office. Most of the other towns and provinces followed the example and seditions arose from these pretences, that the De Witts plundered the state, and were enemies to the house of Orange. The pensionary begged his dismission from the post; which was granted, wiih thanks for his faithful services. He did not affect business, when he saw it was no longer in his power to benefit the public; and he deplored in secret the misfortunes of his country, which, from the highest prosperity, fell, as it were, all at once to the very brink of ruin. The invasion of the French, their rapid progress, their own intestine divisions, spread every where terror and confusion; and the prince of Orange’s party heightened these confusions, in order to ruin the De Witts. The mob were encouraged to pull down a house, in which the pensionary was supposed to lie sick; an attempt was made to assassinate the two brothers on the same day, in different places; the count de Monthas, who had married their sister, was ordered to be arrested in his camp as a traitor, though he had behaved with the greatest bravery. Cornelius De Witt, on the accusation of Ticklaer, a barber, of a design of poisoning the prince, was imprisoned and condemned to exile, though his judges could not declare him guilty. The same ignominious wretch persuaded the people, that he would be rescued out of prison; upon which they instantly armed, and surrounded the place, where it unfortunately happened the pensionary was with his brother. They broke open the doors, insisted on their walking down, and barbarously murdered them. They carried their dead bodies to the gallows, where they hung the pensionary a foot higher than his brother; afterwards mangling their bodies, cut their cloaths in a thousand pieces, and sent them about the country, as trophies of conquest; and some of them, it is said, cut out large pieces of their flesh, which they broiled and ate.

, who once enjoyed the reputation of a philosopher, the eldest son of sir Everard Digby, was born at Gothurst in Buckinghamshire, June 11, 1603. At the time of his father’s death, he was with his mother at Gothurst, being then in the third year of his age: but he seems to have been taken early out of her hands, since it is certain that he renounced the errors of popery very young, and was carefully bred up in the protestant religion, under the direction, as it is supposed, of archbishop Laud, then dean of Gloucester. Some have said, that king James restored his estate to him in his infancy; but this is an error; for it was decided by law that the king had no right to it. About 1618 he was admitted a gentleman-commoner of Gloucester-hall, now Worcester college, in Oxford; where he soon discovered such strength of natural abilities, and such a spirit of penetration, that his tutor, who was a man of parts and learning, used to compare him, probably for the universality of his genius, to the celebrated Picus de Mirandula. After having continued at Oxford between two and three years, and having raised the highest expectations of future eminence, he made the tour of France, Spain, and Italy, and returned to England in 1623; in which year he was knighted by the king, to whom he was presented at the lord Montague’s house at Hinchinbroke, October 23. Soon after, he rendered himself remarkable by the application of a secret he met with in his travels, which afterwards made so much noise in the world under the title of the “Sympathetic Powder,” by which wounds were to be cured, although the patient was out of sight, a piece of quackery scarcely credible, yet it was practised by sir Kenelm, and his patient Howell, the letter-writer, and believed by many at that time. The virtues of this powder, as himself assures us, were thoroughly inquired into by king James, his son the prince of Wales, the duke of Buckingham, with other persons of the highest distinction, and all registered among the observations of the great chancellor Bacon, to be added by way of appendix to his lordship’s Natural History; but this is not strictly true; for lord Bacon never published that Appendix, although he does give a story nearly as absurd.

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

, an English painter, was born in London, in 1610. His father was master of the Alienation office; but “spending his estate upon women, necessity forced his son to be the most excellent painter that England hath yet bred.” He was put out early an apprentice to one Mr. Peake, a stationer and trader in pictures, with whom he served his time. Nature inclined him very powerfully to the practice of painting after the life, in which he had some instructions from Francis Cleyne; and, by his master’s procurement, he had the advantage of copying many excellent pictures, especially some of Titian and Van Dyck. How much he was beholden to the latter, may easily be seen in all his works; no painter having ever so happily imitated that excellent master, who was so much pleased with his performances, that he presented him to Charles I. This monarch took him into his immediate protection, kept him in Oxford all the while his majesty continued in that city, sat several times to him for his picture, and obliged the prince of Wales, prince Rupert, and most of the lords of his court, to do the like. Dobson \\as a fair, middle-sized man, of a ready wit and pleasing conversation; but somewhat loose and irregular in his way of living; and, notwithstanding the opportunities he had of making his fortune, died poor at his house in St. Martin’s-lane, in 1647. Although it was his misfortune to want suitable helps in beginning to apply himself to painting, and he was much disturbed by the commotions of the unhappy times tie nourished in, yet he shone out through all disadvantages; and it is universally agreed, that, had his education and encouragement been answerable to his genius, England might justly have been as proud of her Dobson, as Venice of her Titian, or Flanders of her Van Dyck. He was both a history and portrait painter; and there are in the collections of the dukes of Marlborough, Devonshire, Northumberland, and the earl of Pembroke, several of his pictures of both kinds.

Still, however, he preserved theological appearances; and he now meditated a design of publishing a large commentary on the Bible. In order to give the greater éclat to this undertaking, and draw the public attention upon it, it was, announced, that lord Masham presented him with Mss. of Mr. Locke, found in his lordship’s library at Oates; and that he had helps also from Mss. of lord Clarendon, Dr. Watcrland, Gilbert West, and other celebrated men. He began to publish this commentary, 1765, in weekly and monthly numbers; and continued to publish it regularly till it was completed in 3 vols. folio. It was dedicated to his patron bishop Squire, who died in May the year following, 1766; and was lamented (we believe very sincerely) by our commentator, in a funeral sermon dedicated to his widow. This year he took the degree of LL. D. at Cambridge, having been made a chaplain to the king some time before. His next publication was a volume of his poems, in 8vo. In 1769 he published a translation from the French, of “Sermons preached before Lewis XV. during his minority, by Massillon, bishop of Clermont.” They were called “Sermons on the duties of the great,” and inscribed to the prince of Wales. In 1771 he published “Sermons to Young Men,” 3 vols. 12mo. These he dedicated to his pupils Charles Ernst and Philip Stanhope, now earl of Chesterfield, he having become tutor to the latter, by the recommendation of bishop Squire.

Before concluding this part of his history, we shall enumerate such of his publications as remain unnoticed. These were, “An Elegy on the death of the Prince of Wales” “The Sisters, or the History of Lucy and Caroline Sanson,” 2 vols. 12mo, a work very unfriendly to morals; several occasional Sermons; three on “The Wisdom and Goodness of God in the Vegetable Creation,” preached before the Apothecaries’ Company “Thoughts on the glorious Epiphany of our Lord Jesus Christ,” a poem, 1758; “Sermons on the Parables and Miracles;” “Account of the Rise, Progress, &c. of the Magdalen Charity” “A Familiar Explanation of the Poetical Works of Milton,” 1762 “Reflections on Death,” 1763; “Comfort for the Afflicted under every affliction, with suitable devotions,” 1764, 12mo; “The Visitor,” a collection of essays originally printed in the Public Ledger, 1766, 2 vols. 12mo an edition of what is called “Locke’s Common- place book to the Bible,” 4to and in 1776 he issued proposals for a History of Free- Masonry, to be comprized in 2 vols. 4to and had projected an edition of Shakspeare, from which he had great expectations. But of all his works the most curious are, his “Thoughts in Prison, in five parts, viz. the Imprisonment, the Retrospect, public Punishment, the Trial, Futurity:” to which are added, his speech in court before sentence was pronounced on him; his last prayer, written the night before his death; the convict’s address to his unhappy brethren, and other miscellaneous pieces, some of which were written for him by Dr. Johnson. Prefixed to the ms. is the ensuing note by himself: “April 23, 1777. I began these thoughts merely from the impression of my mind, without plan, purpose, or motive, more than the situation and state of my soul. I continued them on a thoughtful and regular plan: and I have been enabled wonderfully in a state, which in better days I should have supposed would have destroyed all power of reflection to bring them nearly to a conclusion. I dedicate them to God, and to the reflecting serious amongst my fellow-creatures; and I bless the Almighty for the ability to go through them, amidst the terrors of this dire place, and the bitter anguish of my disconsolate mind. The thinking will easily pardon all inaccuracies, as I am neither able nor willing to read over these melancholy lines with a curious and critical eye. They are imperfect, but the language of the heart and, had I time and inclination, might and should be improved. But W. D.”

At this period Dodington closely connected himself with sir Robert Walpole, and in 1726 published a poetical epistle addressed to that minister, which is remarkable only for its servility, and which he afterwards, changing the name, addressed to lord Bute. In 1734 he was elected member for Weymouth, and in 1737 he took a very decided part in the contest between George II. and the prince of Wales, in the question about the augmentation of his allowance, and a jointure for the princess. This transaction forms one of the best parts of his “Diary,” lately published. At this time he appears to have acted with some coolness towards sir Robert Walpole, in consequence of which he was, in 1740, dismissed from his seat in the treasury, and joined the ranks of opposition; but although his new friends succeeded in procuring the dismissal of the Walpole administration, Dodington was probably disappointed, since he became principally concerned in that opposition which brought about the downfall of this new administration. On their succession to power in 1745, he was made treasurer of the navy, and sworn of the privycouncil, but his versatility would not permit him to remain steady to this party. In March 1749, the prince of Wales offered him a full return to his favour, and the principal direction of his affairs, to which Dodington agreed, and resigned his office of treasurer of the navy. He now fancied himself at the head of a formidable band, whom he was about to muster and train, when almost immediately an opposition was formed against him in the prince’s household, and, as he informs us, he foresaw there was no prospect of “doing any good.” He continued, however, in the household until the prince’s death, which put an end to the hopes of all his highness’s dependents. For some time, Mr. Dodington, although desirous of regaining his influence at court, found all his efforts unsuccessful but at length, on the sudden change which took place in 1755, he accepted his former post of treasurer of the navy under the duke of Newcastle, which he retained until, another change taking place the following year, he was again left alone, and gave up all hopes of establishing himself at court during that reign. On the accession of his present majesty he was very early received into the confidence of lord Bute, and in 1761 was advanced to the peerage by the title of lord Melcombe, yet he attained no ostensible post, nor indeed did he long survive his baronial honours, as he died at his house at Hammersmith, July 28, 1762.

, an eminent English lawyer, the son of Richard Doddridge, of a Devonshire family, was born at Barnstaple in 1555. In 1572 he was entered of Exeter college, Oxford, where he studied four years; after which he was removed to the Middle Temple, London, where he became a great proficient in the law, and a noted counsellor. In the forty-fifth year of the reign of queen Elizabeth he was Lent reader of that house; and on the 20th of January, 1603-4, he was called to the degree of serjeant-at-law, at which time he had the honour of being appointed serjeant to Henry prince of Wales. From this employment he was raised, in the succeeding year, to be solicitor-general to the king, and on the 25th of June 1607, he was constituted his majesty’s principal serjeantat-law, and was knighted on the fifth of July following. In February 1612-13, he was created M. A. at his chambers in Serjeants Inn by the vice-chancellor, the two proctors, and five other members of the university of Oxford. This peculiar honour was conferred upon him in gratitude for the great service he had done to the university in several law-suits depending between the city of Oxford and the university. On the 22d of April 1013, he was appointed one of the judges of the court of king’s bench, in which, office he continued till his death. In this station he appears to have conducted himself with great integrity as well as ability. However, in April, 162, he and the other judges of the court were called upon to assign their reasons in the house of lords, for having given judgment against admitting five gentlemen to bail, who had been imprisoned for refusing the loan which had lately been demanded by the crown. Sir Nicholas Hyde, lord chief justice, sir John Doddridge, Mr. Justice Jones, and Mr. Justice Whitlocke, each of them spoke upon the occasion, and made the best defence which the nature of the case would admit. If they were guilty of a mistake, which cannot now reasonably be doubted, they seem to have been led into it in the sincerity of their hearts, from the notions they entertained of regal power, and probably from their perceiving the drift of parliament in these proceedings. Sir John Doddridge, in his speech, asserts the,

Mr. Dodwell came the same year to England, and resjded at Oxford for the sake of the public library. Thence he returned to his native country, and in 1672 published, at Dublin, in 8vo, a posthumous treatise of his late learned tutor John Steam, M. D. to which he put a preface of his own. He entitled this book, “De Obstinatione: Opus posthumum Pietatem Chrisdano-Stoicam scholastico more suadens:” and his own preface, “prolegomena Apologetica, de usu Dogmatum Philosophicorum,” &c. in which he apologizes for his tutor; who, by quoting so often and setting a high value upon the writings and maxims of the heathen philosophers, might seem to depreciate the Holy Scriptures. Mr. Dodwell therefore premises first, that the author’s design in that work is only to recommend moral duties, and enforce the practice of them by the authority of the ancient philosophers; and that he does not meddle with the great mysteries of Christianity, which are discoverable only by divine revelation. His second work was, “Two letters of advice. 1. For the Susception of Holy Orders. 2. For Studies Theological, especially such as are rational.” To the second edition of which, in 1681, was added, “A Discourse concerning the Phoenician History of Sanchoniathon,” in which he considers Philo-Byblius as the author of that history. In 1673, he wrote a preface, without his name, to “An introduction to a Devout Life,” by Francis de Sales, the last bishop and prince of Geneva; which was published at Dublin, in English, this same year, in 12mo. He came over again to England in 1674, and settled in London; where he became acquainted with several learned men; particularly, in 1675, with Dr. William Lloyd, afterwards successively bishop of St. Asaph, Litchfield and Coventry, and Worcester . With that eminent divine he contracted so great a friendship and intimacy, that he attended him to Holland, when he was appointed chaplain to the princess of Orange. He was also with him at Salisbury, when he kept his residence there as canon of that church; and spent afterwards a good deal of time with him at St. Asaph. In 1675 he published “Some Considerations of present Concernment; how far the Romanists may be trusted by princes of another persuasion,” in 8vo, levelled against the persons concerned in the Irish remonstrance, which occasioned a kind of schism among the Irish Roman catholics. The year following he published “Two short Discourses against the Romanists. 1. An Account of the fundamental Principle of Popery, and of the insufficiency of the proofs which they have for it. 2. An Answer to six Queries proposed to a gentlewoman of the Church of England, by an emissary of the Church of Rome,” 12mo, but reprinted in 1688, 4to, with “A new preface relating to the bishop of Meaux, and other modern complainers of misrepresentation.” In 1679, he published, in 4to, “Separation of Churches from episcopal government, as practised by the present non-conformists, proved schismatical, from such principles as are least controverted, and do withal most popularly explain the sinfulness and mischief of schism.” This, being animadverted upon by R. Baxter, was vindicated, in 1681, by Mr. Dodwell, in “A Reply to Mr. Baxter’s pretended confutation of a book, entitled, Sepafration of Churches,” &c. To which were added, “Three Letters to Mr. Baxter, written in 1673, concerning the Possibility of Discipline under a Diocesan Government,” &c. 8vo. In 1682 came out his “Dissertations on St. Cyprian,” composed at the reqviest of Dr. Fell, bishop of Oxford, when he was about to publish his edition of that father. They were printed in the same size, but reprinted at Oxford in 1684, 8vo, under the title “Dissertationes Cyprianse.” The eleventh dissertation, in which he endeavours to lessen the number of the early Christian martyrs, brought upon him the censure of bishop Burnet, and not altogether unjustly. The year following, he published “A Discovirse concerning the One Altar, and the One Priesthood, insisted on by the ancients in the disputes against Schism ,” Lond. 8vo. In 1684, a dissertation of his on a passage of Lactantius, was inserted in the new edition of that author at Oxford, by Thomas Spark, in 8vo. His treatise “Of the Priesthood of Laicks,” appeared in 1686, in 8vo. The title was “De jure Laicorum,” &c. It was written in answer to a book published by William Baxter, the antiquary, and entitled “AntiDodwellism, being two curious tracts formerly written by H. Grotius, concerning a solution of the question, whether the eucharist may be administered in the absence of, or want of pastors.” About the same time he was preparing for the press the posthumous works of the learned Dr. John Pearson, bishop of Chester, Lond. 1688, 4to. He published also,“Dissertations on Irenseus,” 1689, 8vo. On the 2d of April, 1688, he was elected, by the university of Oxford, Camden’s professor of history, without any application of his own, and when he was at a great distance from Oxford; and the 21st of May was incorporated master of arts in that university. But this beneficial and creditable employment of professor he did not enjoy long; being deprived of it in November, 1691, for refusing to take the oaths of allegiance to king William and queen Mary. When their majesties had suspended those bishops who would not acknowledge their authority, Mr. Dodwell published “A cautionary discourse of Schism, with a particular regard to the case of the bishops, who are suspended for refusing to take the new oath,” London, 8vo. And when those bishops were actually deprived, and others put in their sees, he joined the former, looking upon the new bishops, and their adherents, as schismatics. He wrote likewise “A Vindication of the deprived Bishops:” and “A Defence of the same,” 1692, 4to, being an answer to Dr. Hody’s “Unreasonableness of Separation,” &c. After having lost his professorship, he continued for some time in Oxford, and then retired to Cookham, a village near Maidenhead, about an equal distance between Oxford and London; and therefore convenient to maintain a correspondence in each place, and to consult friends and books, as he should have occasion. While he lived there, he became acquainted with Mr. Francis Cherry of Shottesbrooke, a person of great learning and virtue, for the sake of whose conversation he removed to Shottesbrooke, where he chiefly spent the remainder of his days. In 1692, he published his Camdenian lectures read at Oxford; and, in 1694, “An Invitation to Gentlemen to acquaint themselves with ancient History” being a preface to Degory Whear’s “Method of reading history,” translated into English by Mr. Bohun. About this time having lost one or more of the Dodwells, his kinsmen, whom he designed for his heirs, he married on the 24th of June, 1694, in the 52d year of his age, a person, in whose father’s house at Cookham he had boarded several times, and by her had ten children . In 1696 he drew up the annals of Thucydides and Xenophon, to accompany the editions of those two authors by Dr. John Hudson and Mr. Edward Wells. Having likewise compiled the annals of Velleius Paterculus, and of Quintilian, and Statius, he published them altogether in 1698, in one volume, 8vo. About the same time he wrote an account of tUe lesser Geographers, published by Dr. Hudson; and “A Treatise concerning the lawfulness of instrumental music in holy offices:” occasioned by an organ being set up at Tiverton in 1696: with some other things on chronology, inserted in “Grabe’s Spicilegium.” In 1701, he published his account of the Greek and Roman cycles, which was the most elaborate of all his pieces, and seems to have been the work of the greatest part of his life. The same year was published a letter of his, inserted in Richardson’s “Canon of the New Testament,” &c. concerning Mr. Toland’s disingenuous treatment of him. The year following appeared “A Discourse [of his] concerning the obligation to marry within the true communion, following from their style of being called a Holy Seed;” and “An Apology for the philosophical writings of Cicero,” against the objections of Mr. Petit; prefixed to Tally’s five books De Finibus, or, of Moral Ends, translated into English by Samuel Parker, gent, as also the annals of Thucydides and Xenophon, Oxoa. 4to. In 1703 he published “A Letter concerning the Immortality of the Soul, against Mr. Henry Layton’s Hypothesis,” 4to and, “A Letter to Dr. Tillotson about Schism,” 8vo, written in 1691.The year following came out, his “Chronology of DionX'Sius Halicarnasseus,” in the Oxford edition of that historian by Dr. Hudson, folio; his “Two Dissertations on the age of Phalaris and Pythagoras,” occasioned by the dispute between Bentley and Boyle; and his “Admonition to Foreigners, concerning the late Schism in England.” This, which was written in Latin, regarded the deprivation of the nonjuring bishops. When the bill for preventing occasional conformity was depending in parliament, he wrote a treatise, entitled, “Occasional Communion fundamentally destructive of the discipline of the primitive catholic Church, and contrary to the doctrine of the latest Scriptures concerning Church Communion;” London, 1705, 8vo. About the same time, observing that the deprived bishops were reduced to a small number, he wrote, “A Case in View considered in a Discourse, proving that (in case our present invalidly deprived fathers shall leave all their sees vacant, either by death or resignation) we shall not then be obliged to keep up our separation from those bishops, who are as yet involved in the guilt of the present unhappy schism,” Lond. 1705, 8vo. Some time after, he published “A farther prospect of the Case in View, in answer to some new objections not then considered,” Lond. 1707, 8vo. Hitherto Mr. Dodwell had acted in such a manner as had procured him the applause of all, excepting such as disliked the nonjurors; but, about this time, he published some opinions that drew upon him almost universal censure. For, in order to exalt the powers and dignity of the priesthood, in that one communion, which he imagined to be the pecuHum of God, and to which he had joined himself, he endeavoured to prove, with his usual perplexity of learning, that the doctrine of the soul’s natural mortality was the true and original doctrine; and that immortality was only at baptism conferred upon the soul, by the gift of God, through the hands of one set of regularly-ordained clergy. In support of this opinion, he wrote “An Epistolary Discourse, proving, from the scriptures and the first fathers, that the soul is a principle naturally mortal; but immortalized actually by the pleasure of God, to punishment, or to reward, by its union with the divine baptismal spirit. Wherein is proved, that none have the power of giving this divine immortalizing spirit, since the apostles, but only the bishops,” Lond. 1706, 8vo. At the end of the preface to the reader is a- dissertation, to prove “that Sacerdotal Absolution is necessary for the Remission of Sins, even of those who are truly penitent.” This discourse being attacked by several persons, particularly Chishull, Clarke, Norris, and Mills afterwards bishop of Waterford, our author endeavoured to vindicate himself in the three following pieces: 1. “A Preliminary Defence of the Epistolary Discourse, concerning the distinction between Soul and Spirit: in two parts. I. Against the charge of favouring Impiety. II. Against the charge of favouring Heresy,” Lond. 1707, 8vo. 2. “The Scripture account of the Eternal Rewards or Punishments of all that hear of the Gospel, without an immortality necessarily resulting from the nature of the souls themselves that are concerned in those rewards or punishments. Shewing particularly, I. How much of this account was discovered by the best philosophers. II. How far the accounts of those philosophers were corrected, and improved, by the Hellenistical Jews, assisted by the Revelations of the Old Testament. III. How far the discoveries fore-mentioned were improved by the revelations of the Gospel. Wherein the testimonies also of S. Irenaens and Tertullian are occasionally considered,” Lond. 1708, 8vo. And, 3. “An Explication of a famous passage in the Dialogue of S. Justin Martyr with Tryphon, concerning the immortality of human souls. With an Appendix, consisting of a letter to the rev. Mr. John Norris, of Bemerton; and an expostulation relating to the late insults of Mr. Clarke and Mr. Chishull,” Lond. 1708, 8vo. Upon the death of Dr. William Lloyd, the deprived bishop of Norwich, on the first of January 1710-11, Mr. Dodwell, with some other friends, wrote to Dr. Thomas Kenn, of Bath and Wells, the only surviving deprived bishop, to know, whether he challenged their subjection? He returned for answer, that he did not: and signified his desire that the breach might be closed by their joining with the bishops possessed of their sees; giving his reasons for it. Accordingly, Mr. Dodwell, and several of his friends, joined in communion with them. But others refusing this, Mr. Dodwell was exceedingly concerned, and wrote, “The case in view now in fact. Proving, that the continuance of a separate communion, without substitutes in any of the late invalidlydeprived sees, since the death of William late lord bishop of Norwich, is schismatical. With an Appendix, proving, that our late invalidly-deprived fathers had no right to substitute successors, who might legitimate the separation, after that the schism had been concluded by the decease of the last survivor of those same fathers,” Lond. 1711, 8vo. Our author wrote some few other things, besides what have been already mentioned *. At length, after a

, born at Aberdeen in Scotland, bore some rank among the learned men of the seventeenth century. He had been in the retinue and service of David Cuningham, bishop of Aberdeen, and Peter Junius, great almoner of Scotland, when they went on an embassy from king James to the court of Denmark, and to the princes of Germany. After his return home, he went to Heidelberg, where the famous Dionysius Gothofredus taught the civil law. Donaldson, having there dictated to some young students a short course of moral philosophy, a young man of Riga in Livonia put the manuscript to the press without his consent, but he seemed not displeased, and informs us of the several editions which were made of that work in Germany, and in Great Britain, under the title “Synopsis moralis philosophise.” He was afterwards professor of natural and moral philosophy, and of the Greek tongue, in the university of Sedan, and was principal of the college sixteen years after which he was invited to open a college at Charenton but that establishment was immediately opposed by law. Mot to remain idle while the law-suit was depending, he set himself to collect from among his papers the several parts of his “Synopsis Oeconomica,” wnich he got printed at Paris in 1620, in 8vo, and dedicated it to the prince of Wales. It was reprinted at Rostoch, 1624, in 8vo. That wherein he reduced into common places, and under certain general heads, all that lies scattered in Diogenes Laertius concerning the same thing, was printed in Greek and Latin, at Francfort, in 1612, under the title of “Synopsis Locorum communium, in qua sapientiae human imago repraesentatur,” &c.

In 1763 he superintended the publication of “Henry Earl of Clarendon’s Diary and Letters,” and wrote the preface which is prefixed to these papers. In June of this year, he accompanied lord Bath to Spa, where he became acquainted with the hereditary prince of Brunswick (the late duke), from whom he received marked and particular attention, and with whom he was afterwards in correspondence. It is known that within a few years there existed a series of letters written by him during his stay at Spa, and also a book containing copies of all the letters which he had written to, and received from, the prince of Brunswick, on the state of parties, and the characters of their leaders in this country, and on the policy and effect of its continental connexions; but as these have not been found among his papers, there is reason to apprehend, that they may have been destroyed, in consideration of some of the persons being still alive, whose characters, conduct, and principles, were the topics of that correspondence.