founders of Quakerism, for he embodied at once their virtues and faults. They were, in every sense of the word, a remarkable class of men. We have no wish to excuse the glaring errors of their theology, and still less do we desire to justify the wild and measureless extravagances which occasionally marked their conduct. But error in theology and overmuch zeal in displaying their opinions, ought never to hide from our view the sterling virtues which dwelt beneath. We blame their heresy, but we admire their honesty; we admit their fanaticism, but we reverence their devotion. While tyrannous persecution bestrid the land, these stout-hearted men, unscared by the perils that loured on their path, went forward in the prosecution of their high errand. They believed themselves commissioned by a Power, before which all earthly tribunals were but as the small dust in the balance, to proclaim a new revelation to mankind, and they disdained to be driven from their course by human threats or frowns. They were called on to suffer, and they did it manfully. They endured cruel mockings and scourgings; but their faith was steadfast. They brandished no weapons, but they shunned no enemy. Armed only by the naked majesty of innocence, they stood unmoved before the potentates of the world; and in the end, by what Milton finely calls "the unresistible might of weakness," they quelled the fiery rage of their oppressors. While other sects, to avoid the pains of persecution, abandoned their stated meetings, or resorted to obscure places where they might be held in safety, the Society of Friends went openly to their customary places of worship; and when brute violence drove them thence, they assembled, in the broad light of day, beneath the walls of their conventicles, and worshipped God as conscience advised, fearless of what man could do unto them.

Of these singular men, Penn was one of the most favourable specimens. Sprung from a family of proud and ancient name,—the only child of a father whose influence could have procured him extraordinary advancement,-possessed evidently of no inconsiderable portion of ambition-a principle which, indeed, in one form or other, is never absent from a large and noble mind,-endowed with abilities which would have rendered the gratification of a lofty ambition scarcely problematical, and after experiencing all the temptations which society and intercourse with the world could throw in his path, he had the high moral daring and lofty principle to join, heart and hand, with those whom all around him stigmatized as a set of contemptible schismatics. The same spirit bore him on through a long and varied life. He shrunk from no exertions, and shunned no danger. Abroad and at home he went about proclaiming the great truths on which he believed man's salvation to depend. The consistency of his conduct, the unshaken adhesion to his principles at all times, and under all circumstances, is indeed an admirable feature in his character. The stand which he made again and again in defence of freedom of conscience, will immortalize him. To the Independents we must, indeed, ascribe the honour of having been the first to assert, and the first to act upon this great principle; but the Society of Friends has the merit of having carried it out to still greater purity. There is no page in the story of past time on which the eye of the Christian and the philanthropist will rest with

more enduring satisfaction than on that which records the early history of Pennsylvania.

Of Penn as a writer, our admiration must be qualified. He wrote too much to write well. The great majority of his publications were controversial; and it must be owned that many of them give countenance to Burnet's opinion, that he "had a tedious, luscious way of talking," which was apt to tire people. He entered fully into the doctrines common among the quakers of that day, such as the absolute sinfulness of hat-worship; the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit into the mind of every believer, and others equally untenable. His best known works are No cross, no crown; a discourse showing the nature and discipline of the holy cross of Christ;' his Portraiture of Primitive Quakerism;' and A brief account of the rise and progress of the people called Quakers :'—all of which have passed through several editions. A collection of his works was published at London in 1728, in 2 vols. folio, and a collection of his select works at London in 1782, in 5 vols. 8vo.

Talbot, Duke of Shrewsbury.

BORN A. D. 1660.-DIED A. D. 1717.

CHARLES TALBOT, twelfth earl, and first duke of Shrewsbury, was son of Francis, eleventh earl, by Anna Maria, daughter of Robert, second earl of Cardigan. He was educated in the Roman catholic faith of his parents. His father being killed in a duel by the duke of Buckingham, occasioned by the licentious conduct of his countess, he succeeded to the title in the eighth year of his age. At the age of twenty he openly embraced protestantism, having been convinced by the reasonings of Dr Tillotson, to whom he had applied for advice on the subject, that the church in which he had been educated was in error. James, on his accession, laboured hard to persuade Shrewsbury to return to his mother-church, but without effect; he zealously opposed the measures of that monarch for the re-establishment of Roman catholicism, and was one of the illustrious seven, who, in June, 1688, signed the association inviting over the prince: he even mortgaged his estates to aid the cause, and, repairing to Holland, made offer of his purse and sword to William. Burnet informs us that Shrewsbury was much trusted by the prince, and consulted by him in preparing his famous declaration; he was also one of the three peers employed to treat with those sent by James.

On the settlement of the new government, Shrewsbury was nominated one of the privy-council, appointed secretary of state, and intrusted with the lord lieutenancy of three counties. The confidence which William reposed in him was still farther indicated by the appellation he sportively conferred upon him of his "king of hearts." In his principles, Shrewsbury was a moderate whig, though necessitated to act with the more zealous leaders of that party. The growing dislike of the king to the whigs placed Shrewsbury in a very embarrassing situation; and we find his correspondence, as published by Coxe, opening with a letter to his. majesty, under the date, Sept. 6th, 1689, in which he requests permis

sion to resign office on the plea of ill health and incapacity. The king refused to allow so valuable a servant to retire at that juncture; but on the formation of a tory administration, Shrewsbury fairly threw up the seals, and flung himself into the ranks of the opposition.

William soon perceived the error he had committed in throwing himself into the arms of a party that never could regard him but with secret disaffection, and the first means by which he tried to retrace his steps was his taking the seals of secretary of state from Nottingham and offering them to Shrewsbury. The latter, however, declined to accept of them, and retired to one of his country seats. At last, after a great deal of urging, he was prevailed upon to comply with the king's wishes. In 1694 he again received the seals. His compliance was rewarded with a dukedom, and from this period he was considered the head of the administration.

Shrewsbury was subjected to a serious charge on the apprehension of Sir John Fenwick in 1696. Among other statements made by Fenwick to the lord-high-steward after his apprehension, was this: that the duke of Shrewsbury and Lord Godolphin, while holding office under King William, had entered into correspondence with King James through the medium of Lord Middleton. The lord-high-steward transmitted Fenwick's disclosures to the king, who was then at the Hague, whereupon William evinced his confidence in his minister by instantly sending a copy of the document to Shrewsbury, accompanied with a kind and confidential letter, in which the following observation occurs:— "You are, I trust, too fully convinced of the entire confidence which I place in you, to imagine that such an accusation has made any impression on me, or that, if it had, I should have sent you this paper." The duke received this with all the indignation of conscious innocence, and urged the immediate arraignment of Fenwick, with a view to get at the entire truth. Unfortunately, before the trial came on, his lordship received a serious injury by a fall from his horse, which ruptured a blood vessel, and reduced him to a very weak state of health. In these circumstances, and chagrined perhaps by the disposition which was manifested in some quarters to listen to Fenwick's allegations, the duke again sought permission to resign the seals, but was dissuaded from persisting in his intentions to retire from office by the joint entreaties of the king and the earl of Portland.

Scarcely was Fenwick's affair over, when the feelings of the duke were again deeply wounded by a still more ridiculous charge got up by one Chaloner, a man of infamous character, and long notorious as a coiner and forger of bank-notes. It was alleged that the duke had contrived Sir John Fenwick's escape, and had two hours' conference with him before he left London; but the gross prevarication of the leading witness enabled the lord-justices to treat the accusation with the contempt it deserved. On the king's return from the continent Shrewsbury renewed his importunities for release from office, and at last obtained leave to surrender the seals. He was now successively offered the posts of lord-treasurer, governor of Ireland, and lastly, his choice of any employment under the crown; but he rejected every attempt to draw him again into the administration, and obtained leave to travel on the continent with the view of improving his health.

He paid his respects at Versailles to the king of France, who, as he

says, received him "tolerably civilly." "Nobody was so perfectly civil," he however adds, in his private journal, as my old acquaintance the duke of Lauzun; for he began to tell me how kindly King James had always taken the civility I had shown him when I was sent on the message; and was grounding upon this some farther discourse, when I cut him short, and told him I confessed I had great compassion at that time for his circumstances, but desired that we might not discourse on that, but on any other subject. An hour after, he took occasion to commend the prince of Wales, and wished that by any means I might have an opportunity of seeing so fine a youth. I told him I questioned not his merit, but had no great curiosity; but if I must see him, I would much rather it were here than in England. This reply," adds the duke, "dashed all further discourse of this kind." After a stay of only four days at Paris, the duke proceeded to Montpelier, where he spent three months, and thence proceeded to Geneva. After spending the summer at Geneva, he set out for Rome, where he arrived in November, 1701.

On the accession of Queen Anne, Shrewsbury was offered the post of master of the horse, which he declined; he however entered into a friendly correspondence with Marlborough and Godolphin, though at the same time he continued to maintain an interchange of letters with the whig leaders. In 1705 he quitted Rome, and taking the route of Germany repaired to Augsburg, where he married the marchioness of Paleotti, an Italian widow-lady, whose acquaintance he had made in Rome. Early in January, 1706, he returned to England. His conduct had for some time back disappointed the whig party. He eventually united with Harley, and accepted the office of lord-chamberlain to Queen Anne, which post he also held under her successor until 1715, when he resigned, either from disgust or indisposition. He died on the 1st of February, 1717, leaving no issue.

James, Earl Stanhope.

BORN A. D. 1673.-DIED A. D. 1720

JAMES STANHOPE, first Earl Stanhope, was the eldest son of the honourable Alexander Stanhope, who for sixteen years filled the office of envoy to the states-general. He was introduced to public life at an early age by his father, whom he accompanied to Spain at the age of eighteen. He afterwards travelled alone into Italy, and served as a volunteer under the duke of Savoy. In 1694 King William presented him with a lieutenant-colonelcy in the foot-guards. He was present at the siege of Namur, where he exhibited extraordinary bravery, and was desperately wounded.

Returning to England, he abandoned the profession of arms for a while, and sought glory under other laurels. Being elected member for Newport in 1700, he became a close attender in the house, and frequently took a leading part in the debates. In the beginning of 1708, when a French invasion in favour of the pretender was expected, Brigadier Stanhope moved to bring in a bill to dissolve the clans in Scotland, in which motion he was supported by Sir David Dalrymple.

The bill was ordered, but afterwards allowed to drop aside. Again the passion of military life came over him, and he entered into the service of the king of Spain, who appointed him major-general of his forces. One of his most brilliant exploits was the reduction of Port-Mahon in Minorca. In 1709 he attempted the relief of Alicant; and although he failed in the attempt, yet he procured an honourable capitulation for the garrison.

On the accession of George I., he again flung himself into political life, and accepted one of the secretaryships of state; and soon after, in spite of a good deal of caballing, he was constituted first lord of the treasury, and chancellor of the exchequer. In 1717 he was promoted to the dignity of a viscount of Great Britain, by the style and title of Lord Viscount Stanhope of Elvaston in the county of Derby, and next year he was further advanced to the dignity of earl.

He died in 1720 while in the midst of official parliamentary business. It is said that his death was occasioned by a sudden determination of blood to the head, excited by an abusive attack made upon him in the house by the duke of Wharton.

Sir John Leake.

BORN A. D. 1666.-DIED A. D. 1720

ADMIRAL LEAKE was the second son of Captain Richard Leake, master-gunner of England,—an appointment considered at that day of no mean consequence. Sir John was born at Rotherhithe in the year 1666; and having entered into the navy at an early age, served as a midshipman on board the Royal Prince, in the ever-memorable seafight which took place between the English and Dutch fleets on the 10th of October, 1673. We find him present at the battle of Bantry-bay, as commander of the Firedrake fire-ship, to which he had been appointed on the 24th of September in the preceding year. His father, who appears to have been a man possessing considerable science in his profession, had invented a particular species of ordnance, which threw a small shell or carcass, like the more modern invention of the cohorn or howitzer. Young Leake having, under his instruction, acquired considerable adroitness in the management of this piece of artillery, threw several carcasses with such effect as to set on fire one of the enemies' line of battle ships, commanded by the Chevalier Coetlogon. Admiral Herbert particularly noticed his merit on the occasion, and rewarded it by promoting him to be captain of the Dartmouth, a ship of forty guns. Shortly after the death of William III. it was determined that a powerful armament should be sent to sea, under the command of the earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, then lord-highadmiral of England. On this occasion Captain Leake was strongly recommended by his friend, Mr Churchill, to his lordship, who appointed him his captain. The death of the king caused the removal of the earl of Pembroke from the admiralty board, for the purpose of making room for Prince George of Denmark, and cancelled the appointment of Mr Leake. As a recompense, however, for this disappointment, he was made captain of the Association, a second rate; and in