The life of the Hon. Henry Cavendish, including abstracts of his more important scientific papers, and a critical inquiry into the claims of all the alleged discoverers of the composition of water

Front matter

Ill

II \wM Jill ill ! !!

PURCHASED FROM

Preface

When the Council of the Cavendish Society did me the honour to ask me to write the life of the great philosopher with whom the Society had associated itself by its name, I willingly undertook the task. During the enforced leisure of a long illness, I commenced, in 1842, to collect materials for a projected work on the lives of the Chemists of Great Britain, in which Cavendish should occupy a prominent place ; and I had made some progress in my task when the Cavendish Society was founded. Although an original member of that association, I had no share in determining the selection of the name by which it is distinguished, nor was Cavendish an object of greater interest to me than the other great philosophers of our country, whose lives I proposed to write. When, however, at the call of the Society, I laid aside the more general undertaking in which I was engaged, and turned my attention solely to the works and character of the Honourable Henry Cavendish, circumstances had occurred which gave him an importance in the eyes of the lettered public, such as no other chemist at the time possessed. He prosecuted zealously and successfully so many branches of knowledge, that the students of nearly all the physical sciences may consider him as an illustrious brother ; nor have I any wish to assert that Chemistry is entitled to claim him as peculiarly hers. It so happens, however, that his memory has been specially honoured by chemists, among whom Sir Humphry Davy, Faraday, and Thomas Thomson have been

VI PREFACE.

foremost. And it is also the case, that his chemical essays have furnished to some the occasion for a denial of his intellectual capacity and of his moral worth, which has to a great extent thrown his defence into the hands of the chemists. I have written this volume as a student of chemistry; and having only a limited space at my disposal, I have dwelt less upon Cavendish's purely physical researches, than I should have done had I been free to expatiate upon his merits as a natural philosopher. His physical researches, however, especially those on electricity and on the density of the earth, have not been overlooked in the succeeding pages; and the value of these memoirs is so fully appreciated by men of science, that they do not demand special criticism. I have given prominence, accordingly, to his discoveries in chemistry, and in the science of heat, but especially to the former. It has been impossible to do otherwise. Within a very recent period, Cavendish has been the occasion of the keenest controversy that has interested chemists for a long time, and much of this volume is occupied with its discussion. The controversy turns upon the question, Who discovered the composition of water, — Cavendish, Watt, or Lavoisier ? and it has been prosecuted at greatest length in reference to the rival claims of the English philosophers. The points in debate are not merely questions of priority, and of relative intellectual merit, but also of morality ; for charges of plagiarism, and of unfair dealing towards each other, have been brought against the rivals, nor have their friends and acquaintances escaped reproach, including the entire Royal Society at one period of its existence. Cavendish, in truth, has during the last ten years been the object of attack or of defence to a much larger number of writers of great eminence, belonging to different professions, than any one could have anticipated would interest themselves in the reputed author of a solitary discovery made eighty years ago. I have undertaken, accordingly, a delicate and difficult task, in writing a work which compels me to pass under review the judgments of men of such note in science and letters as Arago, Dumas, Brougham, Brewster, Jeffrey, Har-

PREFACE. vii

court, Whewell, and Peacock, at whose feet I have been accustomed to sit as a humble disciple. I may be allowed, therefore, to explain briefly in what spirit I have undertaken my task.

The volume consists essentially of three distinct portions. The first, a biographical narrative; the second, abstracts of scientific papers ; the third, a criticism of the asserted merits of all the claimants of the discovery of the composition of water. This critical inquiry has, for convenience of reference, been printed immediately after the abstracts of the chemical papers, but those upon heat throw light upon it also. In the abstracts there is nothing polemical. It is otherwise with portions of the biography, and with the critical inquiry.

It was open to me to write as a partizan, as an advocate, or as an historian. I have chosen the last character as the only befitting one. I do not pretend to bear witness to my own impartiality, of which others must be the judges, but I can at least testify to the spirit in which I have sought to write ; and candid readers, I think, will acquit me of partizanship. The conclusions to which I have come in reference to Cavendish's priority and merits as a discoverer, and his integrity as a man, are such that I can rank myself amongst his most hearty admirers and defenders. Had I written, however, only as his advocate, I should have left much unnoticed which I have recorded. Thus I have been at pains to point out the defects of his theories, as well as their excellences, and to indicate the merits of his rivals, as well as their faults. The reputation of Lavoisier, and of Watt, is as sacred a thing in my eyes as that of Cavendish ; and I should be the first to regret if the tone of this work should seem at variance with the catholic spirit of esteem for all great philosophers, which is an essential element of vitality in associations like the Cavendish Society. Whilst thus, however, I have endeavoured to be impartial, and to make the biography a faithful sketch, not a eulogy, I have deemed it an essential part of my duty as a biographer to vindicate the moral character of Cavendish from even the

Vlll PREFACE.

shadow of suspicion. It has been impossible to do this, without censuring those who have called his good name in question. If in uttering censure I have forgotten what is due to great authorities in literature and in science, even when they are in error, I shall deserve and bow to reproof; but if I have only reluctantly fulfilled an imperative though invidious duty, and have justified my censures by showing that they are deserved, I shall hope to be vindicated at the hands of my readers.

I count it a great advantage that I had studied all the earlier portion of the literature of what may be succinctly styled the Water Controversy, before I had any temptation to take a side in the dispute. I also congratulate myself on having been compelled to look at Cavendish's discoveries and character from two exactly opposite points of view. In 1845, Mr. Muirhead, the able editor of " the Correspondence of the late James Watt on his discovery of the theory of the Composition of Water," was introduced to me, and by that gentleman, who is the most zealous of Watt's defenders, and the most unhesitating of Cavendish's assailants, I had everything that could be said in favour of Watt urged upon me in the strongest terms. The publication, also, of the Watt Correspondence in 1846, led to my obtaining the friendship of the late lamented Lord Jeffrey. He had known and esteemed Watt, and he welcomed the publication of the Watt Correspondence, as furnishing a becoming occasion for exalting the honour of his old friend. Before his Lordship published his judgment on the rival claims of Cavendish and Watt in the Edinburgh Review for 1848, I had many conversations with him on the subject. Chemistry was a science in which he had always taken great interest, and it continued to the last to engage his attention. With his estimate of the relative merits of Cavendish and Watt I could not concur, and he listened to my earnest defence of the former with all the frank courtesy and love of fair dealing which so eminently characterized him. Against Cavendish he entertained no animosity or prejudice, and he was most willing to praise him ; but he thought that

PREFACE. ix

Watt had been wronged, and he was solicitous to see him righted, so that he pressed me with all the arguments which he perceived might be urged in favour of his great client, whose case he has so skilfully and eloquently pleaded. He did not even refuse to discuss (I may say to debate) contested points with me, and I defended Cavendish in the strongest terms which courtesy sanctioned.

My zeal in Cavendish's cause made no difference in Lord Jeffrey's kindly dealings towards me, and he was the first in whose hands I purposed to place this volume, in which many of his conclusions are called in question.

Having thus had the claims of Cavendish's English rival brought before me in the amplest way, I have been secured against under-estimating what may be said in favour of Watt. Lord Jeffrey's article, indeed, is by much the ablest defence of Watt that has appeared.

After Lord Jeffrey's decease, the Rev. William Yernon Harcourt, the ablest of Cavendish's defenders, most kindly put himself in communication with me, and furnished me with his estimate of the position in which Cavendish's claims were placed by the publications in favour of Watt, which had appeared since 1846. I cannot concur in all Mr. Harcourt's conclusions, but I am indebted to him for many valuable suggestions, and for much assistance. In particular I owe to him an introduction to the Earl of Burlington, who placed at my disposal the whole of Cavendish's papers in his possession, and obtained for me much information concerning his illustrious ancestor's personal history. The papers on Electricity which Cavendish left behind him, are at present in the hands of that accomplished Electrician, Sir W. Snow Harris, who, in the kindest manner, drew up for me an abstract of them, accompanied by a commentary. It is matter of great regret to me, that I have not been able to print either the abstract or the commentary in this volume ; but I trust that they will yet be made public.

I have thus had access to many unpublished documents, which are fitted to throw light on Cavendish's merits and his

X PREFACE.

personality, and I have largely availed myself of them. For the opinions expressed in this work, I alone am responsible. I have accepted and solicited information and assistance from every party known to me, willing or likely to furnish aid ; but as it was manifestly impossible for a single writer to represent the diversified opinions of all the members of a large society upon a contested question, I requested the Council of the Cavendish Society to allow me to write in my own name. No one accordingly but myself is committed to the conclusions contained in this volume.

It remains for me to express my obligation to the many scientific men who have assisted me in this work. To Robert Brown, Esq., of the British Museum, I have been indebted for interesting particulars concerning Cavendish and Blagden, and I am under similar obligations to Dr. Thomas Thomson, of Glasgow. M. Francois Delessert, of Paris, also, has made me his debtor for much valuable information. From R. H. Blagden Hale, Esq., of Cottles, I have received various interesting papers, which have been of very great service to me. To Dr. Percy, and Dr. James Russell, of Birmingham, I am under great obligations for their good offices in procuring for me the loan of a number of important unpublished letters of Dr. Priestley's, which have been confided to my care by his grand-daughter, Miss Finch. Francis Wedgwood, Esq., of Barlaston, has allowed me access to the papers of his celebrated ancestor, Josiah Wedgwood; and through Professor Graham, I have obtained from Mr. Hudson, the Secretary of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, several of the very few extant letters of Cavendish. To Mr. Redwood, also I am much indebted.

Dr. Davy has largely contributed to the materials from which the biography has been written, and so have Professor Brande, Mr. Konig, of the British Museum, W. H. Pepys, Esq., J. G. Children, Esq., and Henry Lawson, Esq., of Bath. I have to thank the Rev. Joseph Romilly, and Frederick Fuller, Esq., of Cambridge, the Rev. C. J. Heathcote, of Upper Clapton, and C. R. Weld, Esq., of the Royal Society,

PREFACE. XI

for their ready communication of all the information which their official positions enabled them to furnish in answer to my queries. I have also to acknowledge the liberality with which my friend, the Rev. Dr. Vaughan, of Manchester, has permitted me to make any use I pleased of papers contributed to the British Quarterly Review, in which I published, in 1845, a short biographical sketch of Cavendish. To others also I am indebted, but it might savour of parade to enumerate the names of each.

Once for all I would say, that from every one to whom I have applied for information, I have received it, and that much that is most valuable in this volume has been unsolicitedly sent to me. I have reserved for special thanks Charles Tomlinson, Esq., of London, to whose untiring zeal, skilful investigation, and cordial unflagging co-operation, I am indebted for the larger part of the materials from which the last chapter of the Biography has been compiled. To him I am also indebted for the striking and hitherto unknown portrait which graces this volume, and he has done me the favour to read the proofs of this work, besides assisting me in every other way in which either he or I perceived that he could be of service.

I have lastly to notice that since the publication of the Watt Correspondence, in 1846, the only lengthened notices which have appeared in reference to Cavendish, have been Sir David Brewster's Article in the North British Review for 1847, and Lord Jeifrey's Paper in the Edinburgh Review for 1848. Both of these writers pronounce against Cavendish, and refer to the Watt Correspondence as decisive of the merits of Watt ; but I think it will appear from the following pages, that the admirers of Cavendish have every reason to congratulate themselves on the publication of the " Correspondence ; " and for my own part I believe that it furnishes the most decisive evidence in favour of Cavendish, and as such I have constantly quoted from it.

24, Brown Square, Edinburgh, March, 1851.

CONTENTS,

Life of Cavendish.

Page Chap. I. Genealogy of the Cavendishes. Early history of the Hon.

Henry Cavendish 1

II. General Sketch of Cavendish's scientific researches and

discoveries 19

III. Controversy between Cavendish, Watt, and Lavoisier, con-

cerning the discovery of the Composition of Water 54

IV. Concluding events of Cavendish's life. — Estimate of his moral

and intellectual character 158

Three Papers containing Experiments on Factitious Air .... 195

Experiments on Rathbone Place Water 209

An Account of a New Eudiometer 215

Experiments on Air 231

Experiments on Air. Second Series 255

A Critical Inquiry into the Claims of all the alleged Authors of the Discovery of the Composition of Water. The Water Controversy.

1. Preliminary Discussion 265

2. Bibliography of the Water Controversy 269

3. Questions in dispute between the Principals in the Water

Controversy 277

4. Researches which led to the discovery of the Composition of

Water 279

Question of Reality. Nature of the Discovery claimed by Cavendish, Watt, and Lavoisier, and imputed to Monge.

5. Cavendish's experiments and conclusions concerning the

Composition of Water 282

6. Priestley's experiments, and Watt's conclusions from them,

concerning the Composition of Water 285

7. On the signification of the term inflammable air, as used

by Watt to denote the combustible element of Water 297

XIV CONTENTS.

Page

8. On the full signification of the term phlogiston, as employed

by Cavendisha nd Watt 319

9. Experiments and conclusions of Lavoisier concerning the

production of Water from its elements 337

10. Experiments and conclusions of Monge concerning the result

of the inflammation of hydrogen and oxygen in close vessels 347

Question of Priority.

11. Who first discovered and taught that Water is a compound

of hydrogen and oxygen ? Date of Cavendish's experiments and conclusions 353

12. Date of Priestley's experiments, and of Watt's conclusions

from them concerning the Composition of Water 404

13. Date of Lavoisier's conclusions concerning the composition of

Water 406

Question of Plagiarism.

14. Alleged Plagiarism of Cavendish 407

15. Interpolations in Cavendish's and Watt's papers of date

1784 413

16. Erroneous dates in Cavendish's and Watt's papers of 1784.... 419

17. Alleged plagiarism of Lavoisier 426

General Summary.

18. Relative merits of Cavendish, Watt, and Lavoisier 432

Cavendish as a Natural Philosopher.

Papers on Heat 446

An attempt to explain some of the principal phenomena of Electricity by means of an elastic fluid 466

An account of some attempts to imitate the effects of the Torpedo by Electricity 466

Experiments to determine the density of the earth 470

Cavendish's Apparatus.

Metallic Eudiometer 476

Register Thermometer 477

Chapter I

GENEALOGY OF THE CAVENDISHES. EARLY HISTORY OF THE HON. HENRY CAVENDISH.

The great majority of the distinguished Chemists of Great Britain have sprung from the middle or lower ranks of the people, but two of the most famous of them, the Honourable Robert Boyle, and the Honourable Henry Cavendish, were men of illustrious lineage, and Cavendish was much the more high born of the two.*

No one could well be more indifferent, than Henry Cavendish was, to the external advantages which birth and fortune gave him, yet few of those who set the greatest value on these, could boast of a descent such as his.

His family traced their pedigree, by unbroken and unquestionable links, to Sir John Cavendish, Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench in the reign of Edward III ; and, according to learned genealogists, they could go much further back, and derive their descent from a Norman family, famous in the days of the Conquest. Cavendish could thus look back, across eight centuries, to the founder of his family, and through the longinterval which elapsed between the first appearance of his ancestors in England, and his own days, could point to his prede-

* The blood of these families has mingled within a recent period. Lady- Charlotte, the daughter and heir of Richard Boyle, Earl of Burlington and Cork, was married to William, fourth Duke of Devonshire, and was mother of William, the fifth duke, as well as of Lord George Henry Cavendish and others. — (Collins' Peerage, 4th edition, vol. i., p. 333.) The Earl of Burlington is thus by descent both a Cavendish and a Boyle, and has a pedigree on which a lover of science must look back with peculiar pleasure.

B cessors as famous in the history of their country, and as connected by intermarriages with the most illustrious houses of the kingdom, not excepting the royal families of England and Scotland.*

Some doubts have been expressed by Sir Egerton Brydges, in his edition of Collins' Peerage, as to the descent of Lord Chief Justice Cavendish, from the Norman Gernons,f but even he expresses only a doubt, and that by no means strongly ; and those learned genealogists, DugdaleJ and Collins, § both unhesitatingly derive the Cavendishes " from Robert de Gernon, a famous Norman who assisted William the Conqueror in his invasion of this realm, a.d. 1066 :" so that I shall take for granted that he was their forefather.

It would be out of place in a sketch like the present, to enter into any minute particulars concerning a family history so well known as that of the Cavendishes ; I shall confine myself, therefore, to the names of a few of its more distinguished members, so as to connect together the Norman warrior of the 11th century, with the philosopher of the 18th.

Robert de Gernon received large grants of land after the Conquest, and his immediate descendants were long famous in Norfolk and Essex. A younger son of the family, Roger Gernon, seated at Grimstone Hall, in Suffolk, died in 1318, having had to wife the daughter and heir of John Potton, Lord of Cavendish, in Suffolk, by whom he left issue four sons, who all took the surname of Cavendish, as was customary in those days. ||

This surname is variously spelled by its older possessors,

* Lady Arabella Stuart, who was grand-daughter of Sir William Cavendish, a lineal ancestor of the philosopher, was great-grand-daughter of Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry VII. and Elizabeth of York. She was thus tbe niece of Mary, Queen of Scotland, and cousin of her son James I. — Miss Strickland's Lives of the Queens of Scotland, vol. i., preface, p. ix.

X Baronage of England, vol, ii., 1676, p. 420.

§ Peerage of England, 4th edition, vol. i., pp. 279—283.

|| Ibid, p. 281 : " Our surnames are chiefly derived from this origin [a territorial possession] or from personal peculiarities, — from trades and employments, or from the Christian name of the father or mother. Of these, the first is the most aristocratic, denoting a descent from an ancient baron, or at least, the lord of a manor." — (Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vol. v. page 174.) The surname Cavendish comes within the last category, being derived from the manor of which Potton had the lordship.

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE CAVENDISH. 3

Cavendishe, Cavendysh, Cavendysch, but is now universally written Cavendish. It was also frequently written Caundish and Candish, and even, when spelled Cavendish, was pronounced as a dissyllable. That accomplished critic and scholar, Thomas De Quincey, has pointed out to me, that up to a recent period, and perhaps even at present, Cavendish has been pronounced as if it were written Candish. In illustration of this he adduced a Sonnet of Wordsworth's, which cannot be read rhythmically, unless Cavendish be made a dissyllable. The passage is as follows :—

AT FURNESS ABBEY. ******

" Even as I speak the rising Sun's first smile Gleams on the grass -crowned top of yon tall Tower, Whose cawing occupants with joy proclaim Prescriptive title to the shattered pile Where, Cavendish, thine seems nothing but a name."!*

The first bearer of the name of Cavendish was the Chief Justice already referred to. His father's property was small, and his prospects indifferent. He devoted himself, however, to the study of the law, and soon acquired great reputation as an advocate. " Such was his reputation," Lord Campbell tells us, "that in the year 1366, Edward III, after the peace of Bretigni, being desirous of making himself popular by good judicial appointments, raised John de Cavendish to the office of Chief Justice of the King's Bench, although he had not filled the office of Attorney or Solicitor- General, or even reached the dignity of the coif."t

The fate of this first Cavendish was a sad one. He was continued in his high office by Richard II with an increased salary ; but after acting as Judge for sixteen years, he was cruelly murdered in one of the insurrections which marked that reign. As one of those to whom the suppression of Wat Tyler's insurrection was entrusted, he had become an object of vengeance to the rebels, and their feelings of revenge towards him appear to have been greatly deepened, by the fact that his son

* Wordsworth's Poetical Works, royal 8vo. 1845, p. 217. I am indebted for this reference to my friend, Alan Stevenson, Esq.., the engineer of the Skerryvore Lighthouse, who is profoundly acquainted with the writings of the poet.

+ Lives of the Chief Justices of England, vol. i., p. 94.

B 2 and namesake, an Esquire of the body of Richard II, was the party who slew Wat Tyler, after he was wounded by Sir William Walworth, mayor of London. For this act, the younger Cavendish was knighted on the spot by King Richard, and granted a pension, which, however, cost his father his life. When the insurrection revived under the ferocious Jack Straw, he plundered and burned the house at Cavendish, and beheaded the Lord Chief Justice, after cruelly insulting him.*

The immediate descendants of the Chief Justice may be passed over very briefly. His son, the second Sir John, was succeeded by his eldest son William, who had an only son, Thomas, who in turn was succeeded by an only son of the same name, who was the father of Sir William Cavendish, the founder of the political greatness of the Cavendishes. Thomas, the father of Sir William, died in the fifteenth year of Henry VIII, 1524. He had two sons, George and William, both of whom deserve a place in the history of the Cavendishes : William was the second son ; he began life with fewer advantages than his brother, but rose to much greater worldly distinction, and the merits which belong to George have been added by many writers to his own. This William Cavendish is the founder of the modern distinction of his family, or, at least, shares it only with his celebrated wife, of whom more will be mentioned presently. His father was a clerk in the Exchequer in the reign of Henry VIII, and appears to have trained his son to exact business habits, of which he afterwards reaped the reward. He must have been a man of talent and capacity, for he early attracted the attention of Henry, and this at a period most fortunate for him.

In 1530, he was appointed one of the Commissioners for visiting, and securing the revenues of the religious houses which the King was then busily confiscating. He continued in this and similar offices for several years, and, as might be expected, received a large share of the confiscated church property. In 1546 he was knighted, and made Treasurer to the King, a place of great responsibility, and honour. He was soon afterwards made a Privy Councillor, and received from Edward VI grants

* Lives of the Chief Justices of England, p. 95. Collins' Peerage, 4tb edition, vol. i., p. 284.

ELIZAEETH HARDWICKE. 5

of lands in seven different counties. He died in 1547, leaving a large estate to his heirs.*

The descendants of Sir William Cavendish rose with almost unexampled rapidity to the highest distinctions, but before this can be understood, reference must be made to his wife, a very remarkable woman, who, as Mr. Hunter has justly remarked, was more than an equal sharer with him in establishing the fortunes of the family. Elizabeth Hardwicke occupies a considerable space in the private and public history of the peerage of our country, and wTas in all respects an extraordinary person. She was a younger daughter of a country gentleman in Derbyshire, who could afford her only a very trifling portion. She rapidly, however, provided for herself. At the age of fourteen she was married to Robert Barley or Barlow, of Derbyshire, a youth little older than herself. He was at the time a confirmed invalid, and died very soon after his marriage, which appears to have been merely a form, but he left all his estates settled upon his bride and her heirs. After fourteen years of maiden widowhood, she became the third wife of Sir William Cavendish, who had no male issue surviving by his former marriages. Three sons and three daughters, who were born of this marriage, survived to establish the greatness of the family. Sir William Cavendish married this lady in 1547, and died ten years after. Some four years later she became the wife of Sir William St. Loe, captain of the guard to Queen Elizabeth, and possessor of several estates in Gloucestershire. He was a widower, and had children by his former marriage, but such was his devotion to his second wife, that, in compliance with her demand, he settled all his property upon her and her heirs, and as he died without issue by her, " she lived to enjoy his whole estate, excluding his former daughters and brothers."f

The period of St. Loe's death is uncertain. Before long, however, Elizabeth Hardwicke was again a wife. Her fourth and last husband was George Talbot, sixth Earl of Shrewsbury. He had a family by a former wife, and would not settle his property away from them. But Mistress St. Loe,

* Collins' Peerage, vol. i., p. 289. Rev. Joseph Hunter, in Singer's Cavendish, vol. ii. p. xxxiv.

+ Craik's Romance of the Peerage, vol. iii., p. 149.

would not accept him till he had arranged to give two of his children in marriage to two of hers. Her eldest son, accordingly, Henry Cavendish, was married to the Earl's daughter, the Lady Grace Talbot, and her daughter Mary to his second son and ultimate successor Gilbert. Elizabeth Hardwicke had no children by the Earl of Shrewsbury, so that all the wealth and influence she had gained by her four marriages, were brought to bear upon the advancement of her children by Sir William Cavendish. The Earl of Shrewsbury, at the period of his second marriage, was the most powerful nobleman of the realm, and his Countess shared with him in the responsible office of warden of the unfortunate Queen Mary of Scotland. This office brought the Countess into frequent communication with Queen Elizabeth, with whom she was a favourite. The Earl died twenty-three years after his marriage to Mistress St. Loe, and she survived him seventeen years, dying in 1608, on the threshold of her ninetieth year ; seventy-five years after the death of her first husband. Her whole history concerns the Cavendishes, for they were both directly and indirectly gainers by all her marriages. She is said to have been beautiful, but she was fifty before she married George Talbot, and her whole career points to other gifts than that of mere beauty as the source of her prosperity. She must, however, have been a fascinating person, for all her husbands were devotedly attached to her, although in the end, her last spouse, who had the longest trial of her, exchanged his early devotion for something like positive hatred, fairly tired out of his patience by her insatiable ambition and rapacity. The Countess, nevertheless, was far more than a match for the well-intentioned, but stolid Earl Talbot. She has been hardly judged by most of her biographers. Sir Egerton Brydges accuses her of rapacity, from which she cannot easily be defended ; Mr. Hunter accuses her of i( reserve, perfidy, and even tyranny towards her last husband/' and quotes with approbation Mr. Lodge's description of her, that she was "a woman of masculine understanding and conduct; proud, furious, selfish, and unfeeling." Her latest biographer, Professor Craik, is less severe; and the better points of her character appear to have been overlooked by her harsher judges. The affectionate terms in which she is referred to by her last three husbands,