Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 25.djvu/420

H he would be ‘a beast for ever, after the order of Melchisedeck,’ and Swift reported the witticism in the ‘Journal to Stella,’ which contains many other notices of Henley. Three letters from him to Swift in 1708–10 are in the latter's ‘Works,’ xv. 294–6, 339–44. Henley died of apoplexy in August 1711, and it appears from a letter written in 1733 that Swift continued his friendship to the sons. The widow afterwards married, as his second wife, her relative, Henry Bertie, third son of James, first earl of Abingdon. Henley left three sons, of whom the eldest, Anthony, M.P. for Southampton from 1727 to 1734, was a jester like his father, as appears from his letter to his constituents in the excitement over the excise bill, which is printed in ‘Notes and Queries,’ 2nd ser. xii. 107; and the younger sons were Robert Henley, earl of Northington [q. v.], and Bertie, a prebendary of Bristol (d. 1760). One of his sisters married Sir Theodore Jansen [q. v.], the other was the wife of Henry Cornish, M.P. The royal assent was given on 22 May 1712 to a bill arranging for the payment of the portions of his younger children (Journals of House of Commons, April and May 1712).

An anecdote on ‘Honest Ned,’ which originally came from Henley, is introduced into No. 11 of the ‘Tatler,’ and Nichols in a note thereto states that he was understood ‘on good authority’ to be the author of some papers in that periodical. The first letter in No. 26 was probably one of his communications, and so was the letter in No. 193, under the character of Downes, the prompter, in which Harley's administration, then just formed, was ridiculed under the disguise of a change of managers at the theatre. When the whig ‘Medley’ was started by Maynwaring as a counterblast to the tory ‘Examiner,’ one of the papers was written by Henley, and he is said to have aided William Harrison (1685–1713) [q. v.] in his continuation of the ‘Tatler.’ An anecdote told by him respecting the death of Charles II is inserted in Burnet's ‘History of his own Time,’ and was severely criticised by Bevil Higgons in his volume of ‘Remarks’ on that work (pp. 280–2). Pope said of the ‘Memoirs of Scriblerus’ that Henley contributed ‘the life of his music-master, Tom D'Urfey,’ and added ‘a chapter by way of episode.’ It is noted that his strength lay in describing the manners and foibles of servants, and possibly some of the pretended communications from them in the ‘Spectator’ came from his pen. He sang well, and played several instruments with skill, and was a recognised authority in musical matters. The Purcells shared in his patronage. The songs composed by Daniel Purcell for the opera of ‘Brutus of Alba’ were dedicated on their publication in 1696 to Norton and Henley, and the music written by that master for Oldmixon's opera of ‘The Grove, or Love's Paradise,’ was worked out on a visit to Henley and other friends in Hampshire. He himself wrote several pieces for music, and almost finished Daniel Purcell's opera of ‘Alexander.’ Garth dedicated to him his ‘Dispensary,’ and he was a member of the Kit-Cat Club. His portrait by Kneller was engraved by John Smith in 1694. 

HENLEY, JOHN (1692–1756), generally known as, an eccentric London preacher, was born 3 Aug. 1692 at Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, where his father, the Rev. Simon Henley, had succeeded John Dowell, his grandfather by his mother's side, as vicar of the parish. Henley was educated at Melton Mowbray grammar school, and privately at Oakham, Rutlandshire, where he devoted special attention to Greek and Hebrew. He entered St. John's College, Cambridge, in 1709, graduated B.A. in 1712, and M.A. in 1716. The method of teaching prevalent in the university he found to be unduly restrictive. He was ‘uneasy that the art of thinking regularly on all subjects and for all functions was not the prevailing instruction.’ Owing to his impatience of the systems ‘ready carved out for him’ he ‘incurred the danger of losing interest in his studies, as well as incurring the scandal of heterodoxy and ill principle.’ From an early period he seems to have recognised that he had a special vocation for introducing new methods of conveying both secular and religious knowledge. He did not profess to be a reformer, except as regards methods, and was destitute of the intellectual ability necessary to enable him to distinguish himself as an opponent of current creeds. His chief gift, apart from his pompous but effective elocution, was a ready wit which gained much of its piquancy from contrast with the otherwise grave and solemn character of his