in which they lived. He denies the sacred historians to have been inspired; but considers, upon the whole, the evidence of their fidelity and veracity to be so strong, that it would be a greater miracle to admit the possibility of their accounts being forgeries, than to admit the truth of the Christian religion. Christ, he considers as a mere man, and, in consequence, denies the immaculate conception, together with the doctrine of the atonement, of election, and reprobation, and of the eternity of a future punishment. He believed in the existence of a God, infinite in wisdom, power and goodness, and considered the system of the universe the best possible; the apparent imperfections and the evil which exists in it being necessary to produce the greatest possible quantity of happiness. These opinions he proposed and defended in various publications, written for the most part hastily, and marked rather by force and acuteness, than by accuracy or profundity. His conversion to Unitarianism is one of the proudest boasts of his followers; but though no man could be more sincere in his conversion, he has not left the grounds of the adoption of this system less disputable, or more generally convincing than before.

As a metaphysician, he is chiefly distinguished as the strenuous advocate of Dr. Hartley's theory of association, upon which he founded the doctrine of materialism and of necessity as legitimate inferences. Dr. Aikin, and other of his biographers, give him credit for treating these abstruse subjects with great perspicuity and acuteness, qualities which characterize the chief portion of his writings. We join not the cry which they raised against him, but cannot forbear deprecating the manner in which he has treated Dr. Reid, in his Examination of the Doctrine of Common Sense as held by Drs. Reid, Oswald, and Beattie. He has there commented upon the writings of the former in a tone quite at variance with his usual moderation, and by no means proper towards one who was, beyond all doubt, a better mathematician and metaphysician, and whose doctrines, on the above subject, he is generally allowed to have failed in his attempts to overthrow.

His political principles were similar to those afterwards advocated by Godwin; he was an advocate for the perfectibility of the human species, or, at least, its continually increasing tendency to improvement. In his Essay on the First Principles of Civil Government, he lays it down as the foundation of his reasoning, that it must be understood, whether it be expressed or not, that all people live in society for their mutual advantage; so that the good and happiness of the members, that is, the majority of the members of any state, is the great standard by which every thing relating to that state must be finally determined; and though it may be supposed that a body of people may be bound by a voluntary resignation of all their rights to a single person, or to a few, it can never be supposed that the resignation is obligatory on their posterity, because it is manifestly contrary

to the good of the whole that it shall be so. From this first principle he deduces all his political maxims, and he never afterwards wavered or varied in his opinions on the subject. Though, however, he approved of a republic in the abstract, yet considering the habits and prejudices of the people of Great Britain, he laid it down as a principle that their present form of government was best suited to them.

In summing up the character of Dr. Priestley, as a whole, we cannot do better than quote the words of Mr. Kirwan, which have been adopted by almost all the doctor's biographers :-"He was a man of perfect simplicity of character, laying open his whole mind and purposes on all occasions, and always pursuing avowed ends by direct means, and by those only. In integrity and true disinterestedness, and in the performance of every social duty, no one could surpass him. His temper was easy and cheerful, his affections were kind, his dispositions friendly. Such was the gentleness and sweetness of his manner in social intercourse, that some who had en tertained the strongest prejudices against him, on account of his opinions, were converted into friends on personal acquaintance. Of the warm and lasting attachment of his more intimate friends, a most honourable proof was given, which he did not live to be made acquainted with. It being understood, in England, that he was likely to suffer a loss of £200 in his annual income, about forty persons joined in making up a sum of £450, which it was intended to be continued annually during life. No man who

engaged so much in controversy, and suffered so much from malignity, was ever more void of ill-will towards his opponents. If he were an eager controversialist, it was because he was much in earnest on all subjects in which he engaged, and not because he had any personalities to gratify. If, now and then, he betrayed a little contempt for adversaries whom he thought equally arrogant and incapable, he never used the language of animosity. Indeed, his necessarian principles coincided with his temper in producing a kind of apathy to the rancour and abuse of antagonists. In his intellectual frame were combined quickness, activity, acuteness, and the inventive faculty which is the characteristic of genius. These qualities were less suited to the laborious investigations of what is termed erudition, than the argumentative deductions of metaphysics, and the experimental researches of natural philosophy. Assiduous study had, however, given him a familiarity with the learned languages, sufficient, in general, to render the sense of authors clear to him, and he aimed at nothing more. In his own language, he was contented with facility and perspicuity of expression, in which he remarkably excelled."

To this account of Mr. Kirwan, we may add some particulars from Dr. Thomson's Biographical Memoir. He was an early riser, and always lighted his own fire before any one else was awake; and it was then that he composed almost all his works. His powers of conversation were very

great, and his manners in every respect extremely agreeable; these were, however, perfectly simple and unaffected; and he continued all his life as ignorant of the world as a child. Of vanity, he is said to have possessed a more than usual share; but was rather, perhaps, deficient in pride. He allowed himself but little recreation; for his favourite amusement was playing on the flute, an instrument on which he performed tolerably well; and he generally recommended music as a relief to the studious. It was his constant practice, another of his biographers says, to employ himself in various pursuits at the same time; whereby he avoided the languor consequent upon protracted attention to a single object, and came to each, in turn, as fresh as if he had spent an interval of entire relaxation. This effort he pleaded as an apology to those who apprehended that the great diversity of his studies would prevent him from exerting all the force of his mind upon any one of them; and, in fact, he proceeded to such a length, in every pursuit that interested him, as fully to justify, in his own case, the rule which he followed.

We shall conclude our memoir with a sketch of the merits of its subject, by the late eminent Professor Playfair; an authority so valuable should not be omitted, especially as it has not before been adduced by any of the biographers of Priestley. "On the whole," says Mr. Playfair, "from Dr. Priestley's conversation, and from his writings, one is not much disposed to consider him as a person of firstrate abilities. The activity, rather than the force, of his genius, is the object of admiration. He is indefatigable in making experiments, and he compensates, by the number of them, for the unskilfulness with which they are often contrived. Though little skilled in mathematics, he has written on optics with tolerable success; and though but moderately versed in chemistry, he has done very considerable service to that science. If we view him as a critic, a metaphysician, and a divine, we must confine ourselves to a more scanty praise. In his controversy with Dr. Reid, though he has said many things that are true, he has shown himself wholly incapable of understanding the principal point in debate ; and when he has affirmed that the vague and unsatisfactory speculations of Hartley have thrown as much light on the nature of man, as the reasonings of Sir Isaac Newton did on the nature of body, he can hardly be allowed to understand in what true philosophy consists. As to his theology, it is enough to say that he denies the immateriality of the soul, though he contends for its immortality, and ranges himself on the side of Christianity. These inconsistencies and absurdities will, perhaps, deprive him of the name of a philosopher, but he will still merit the name of a useful and diligent experimenter."

NTHONY VANDYCK, a celebrated painter, born at Antwerp, in 1599. After giving several early proofs of his excellent genius, he became the disciple of the illustrious Rubens. From this celebrated master he received not only instruction in his art, but was by his generosity enabled to go to Rome. Having stayed a short time there, he removed to Venice, where he attained the beautiful colouring of Titian, Paul Veronese, and the Venetian school, which appeared from the many excellent pictures he drew at Genoa. After having spent a few years abroad, he returned to Flanders, with so noble, so easy, and natural a manner of painting, that Titian himself was hardly his superior; and no other master could equal him in portraits. He then went to England, where his superior genius soon brought him into great reputation; and above all, he excelled in portraits, which he drew with an inconceivable facility, and for which he charged a very high price. For some of them he received four hundred guineas a piece. He soon found himself loaded with honours and riches. He married a daughter of Lord Ruthven, Earl of Gowry. His house was so frequented by persons of the greatest quality, that it rather resembled the court of a prince than the lodgings of a painter. He died in 1641, and was buried in St. Paul's. It was said he left £40,000.

UTHBERT COLLINGWOOD was born on the 26th of September, 1750, at Newcastleupon-Tyne. At the age of eleven he was sent to sea, as a midshipman, under the care of Captain, afterwards Admiral Braithwaite, who was the son of his mother's sister, and who seems to have taken extraordinary pains in giving him nautical knowledge. After serving some years with this relation, he sailed with Admiral Roddam. In 1774, during the American war, he went to Boston with Admiral Graves, and, in 1775, was

made a lieutenant by him, on the day of the battle of Bunker's Hill, when Collingwood, with a party of seamen, supplied the British army with what it required. In 1776, he took the command of the Hornet sloop, and soon after met, at Jamaica, with his favourite companion, Horatio Nelson, who was then lieutenant of the Lowestoffe. Collingwood says, in one of his interesting letters: "We had been long before in habits of great friendship, and it happened here, that as Admiral Sir P. Parker, the commander-inchief, was the friend of both, whenever Nelson got a step in rank, I succeeded him first in the Lowestoffe, then in the Badger, into which ship I