UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE DIFFUSION OF USEFUL
KNOWLEDGE.
THE
GALLERY OF PORTRAITS:
WITH
MEMOIRS.
VOLUME II.
LONDON:
CHARLES KNIGHT, 22, LUDGATE-STREET, AND 13, PALL-MALL EAST.
1833.
[PRICE ONE GUINEA, BOUND IN CLOTH.]
LONDON:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES,
Duke-Street, Lambeth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PORTRAITS, AND BIOGRAPHIES
CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME.
Page
1. Lord Somers 1
2. Smeaton 13
3. Buffon 19
4. Sir Thomas More 25
5. La Place 34
6. Handel 40
7. Pascal 49
8. Erasmus 56
9. Titian 63
10. Luther 73
11. Rodney 82
12. Lagrange 88
13. Voltaire 93
14. Rubens 99
15. Richelieu 107
16. Wollaston 121
17. Boccaccio 126
18. Claude 136
19. Nelson 141
20. Cuvier 150
21. Ray 160
22. Cook 165
23. Turgot 175
24. Peter the Great 183
[Illustration:
_Engraved by T. A. Dean._
LORD CHANCELLOR SOMERS.
_From a Picture by Sir G. Kneller,
in the possession of the Royal Society._
Under the Superintendence of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful
Knowledge.
_London, Published by Charles Knight, Pall Mall East._
]
GALLERY OF PORTRAITS.
[Illustration]
SOMERS.
John Somers was born at Worcester, in an ancient house called the White
Ladies, which, as its name seems to import, had formerly been part of a
monastery or convent. The exact date of his birth cannot be ascertained,
as the parish registers at Worcester, during the civil wars between
Charles I. and his Parliament, were either wholly lost, or so
inaccurately kept as not to furnish any authentic information. It
appears probable, however, from several concurring accounts, that he was
born about the year 1650. The family of Somers was respectable, though
not wealthy, and had for several generations been possessed of an estate
at Clifton, in the parish of Severnstoke, in Gloucestershire. Admiral
Sir George Somers, who in the reign of James I. was shipwrecked on the
Bermudas, and afterwards died there, leaving his name to that cluster of
islands, is said by Horace Walpole, in his ‘Catalogue of Royal and Noble
Authors,’ to have been a member of the same family. The father of Somers
was an attorney, in respectable practice at Worcester; who, in the civil
wars, became a zealous Parliamentarian, and commanded a troop in
Cromwell’s army.
Of the early education of Somers, we have only a meagre and
unsatisfactory account. The house called the White Ladies, in which he
was born, was occupied by a Mr. Blurton, an eminent clothier of
Worcester, who had married his father’s sister. This lady, having no son
of her own, adopted Somers from his birth, and brought him up in her
house, which he always considered as his home till he went to the
university. He appears for some years to have been a day-scholar in the
college-school at Worcester, which before his time had attained a high
character for classical education, under the superintendence of Dr.
Bright, a clergyman of great learning and eminence. At a subsequent
period, we find him at a private school at Walsall in Staffordshire: he
is described by a school-fellow as being then “a weakly boy, wearing a
black cap, and never so much as looking out when the other boys were at
play.” He seems indeed to have been a remarkably reserved and
“sober-blooded” boy. At a somewhat later period Sir F. Winnington says
of him, that “by the exactness of his knowledge and behaviour, he
discouraged his father and all the young men that knew him. They were
afraid to be in his company.” In what manner his time was occupied from
the period of his leaving school until he went to the university, is
unknown. It has been suggested that he was employed for several years in
his father’s office, who designed him for his own department of the
profession of the law. There is no positive evidence of this
circumstance, though the conjecture is by no means improbable. It
cannot, however, be doubted that, during this period, he devoted much of
his time to the study of history and the civil law, and laid in a
portion of that abundant store of constitutional learning which
afterwards rendered him the ornament of his profession, and of the age
in which he lived. About this time also he formed several connexions,
which had great influence upon his subsequent success in life. The
estates of the Earl of Shrewsbury were managed by Somers’s father; and
as that young nobleman had no convenient residence of his own in
Worcestershire, he spent much of his time at the White Ladies, and
formed an intimate friendship and familiarity with young Somers. In 1672
he was also fortunate enough to be favourably noticed by Sir Francis
Winnington, then a distinguished practitioner at the English bar, who
was under obligations to his father for his active services in promoting
his election as a Member of Parliament for the city of Worcester.
Winnington is described by Burnet as a lawyer who had “risen from small
beginnings, and from as small a proportion of learning in his
profession, in which he was rather bold and ready, than able.” It is
natural to suppose that such a man, feeling his own deficiencies, would
readily perceive with what advantage he might employ the talents and
industry of Somers in assisting him both in Westminster Hall and in
Parliament. It was probably with this intention that Winnington advised
him to go to the university, and to prosecute his studies with a view to
being called to the bar.
In 1674 Somers was entered as a Commoner of Trinity College, Oxford,
being then about three and twenty years of age. The particulars of his
progress through the university are not recorded; but here, as at
school, his contemporaries could perceive few indications of those
splendid talents which afterwards raised him to such extraordinary
eminence. His college exercises, some of which are still extant, are
said to have been in no respect remarkable; and he quitted the
university without acquiring any academical honours beyond his
Bachelor’s degree. Mr. Somers was called to the bar in 1676, by the
Society of the Middle Temple; but he continued his residence at the
university for several years afterwards, and did not remove to London
until the year after his father’s death, in 1681, upon which event he
succeeded to his paternal estate at Severnstoke. During his residence at
Oxford he had the advantage of being introduced by the Earl of
Shrewsbury and Sir F. Winnington to many of the patriotic opponents of
the arbitrary measures of the Court. At this time he published several
tracts, which sufficiently displayed to the world his familiar and
accurate knowledge of constitutional history. His first acknowledged
work was the Report of an Election Case, and is entitled ‘The Memorable
Case of Denzil Onslow, Esq., tried at the Assizes in Surrey, July 20,
1681, touching his election at Haslemere in Surrey.’ His next
performance was ‘A Brief History of the Succession, collected out of the
Records and the most authentic Historians.’ This work was written at the
time when the proposal to bring in a Bill to exclude the Duke of York
from the succession occupied universal attention, and excited the most
intense interest. The object of Mr. Somers’s tract was to exhibit the
principles upon which the Parliament of England has authority to alter,
restrain, and qualify the right of succession to the Crown; and he
places the historical arguments in support of this proposition in a
forcible and convincing light. Indeed, though it might be difficult to
justify such a proposition by abstract arguments upon what is called the
theory of the British Constitution, it has been so repeatedly acted upon
in several periods of our history, that even in the time of Charles II.
the practice had, as Somers justly contended, to all intents and
purposes established and sanctioned the principle. An excellent tract
upon the same subject, entitled ‘A just and modest Vindication of the
two last Parliaments,’ which appeared shortly after the breaking up of
the Oxford Parliament in March, 1681, has been partly ascribed to
Somers. Burnet says that this tract, which he characterizes as “the best
writ paper in all that time,” was at first penned by Algernon Sidney,
but that a new draught was made by Somers, which was corrected by Sir
William Jones. Upon occasion of the attempt of the Court party in 1681,
by the illegal examination of witnesses under the direction of the
King’s Counsel in open court, to induce a grand jury at the Old Bailey
to find a true bill for high treason against the Earl of Shaftsbury, Mr.
Somers wrote his celebrated tract entitled ‘The Security of Englishmen’s
Lives, or the Trust, Power, and Duty of the Grand Juries of England
explained.’ Of this work, Bishop Burnet says, “It passed as writ by Lord
Essex, though I understood afterwards it was writ by Somers, who was
much esteemed, and often visited by Lord Essex, and who trusted himself
to him, and writ the best papers that came out in that time.” In later
times, this work has been universally ascribed to Somers. During his
residence at Oxford, Somers was not inattentive to polite literature; he
published a translation of some of Ovid’s Epistles into English verse,
which at the same time that it shows that he could never have borne so
distinguished a rank as a poet, as he afterwards attained as a lawyer
and statesman, is by no means a contemptible performance. His
translations from Ovid, and a version of Plutarch’s Life of Alcibiades,
are the only published proofs of his classical studies at Oxford.
In the year 1682 he removed to London, and immediately commenced an
assiduous attendance upon the courts of law, which at that time was
considered as the highway of the legal profession. Under the powerful
patronage of Sir Francis Winnington, who had been Solicitor-General, and
was then in the full stream of business, he rose with considerable
rapidity into good practice at the bar. In 1683 he appeared as junior
counsel to Winnington in the defence to an important political
prosecution instituted against Pilkington and Shute, with several other
persons, for a riot at the election of sheriffs for the city of London.
His employment in a case of so much public expectation may be taken as a
proof that at that time his professional merits were in some degree
appreciated; and in the reign of James II. his practice is said to have
produced £700 a-year, which at that time was a very large income for a
common lawyer of five years’ standing. But such was the character for
research and industry which he had attained within a very few years from
the commencement of his professional career, that on the trial of the
Seven Bishops in 1688, he was introduced as counsel into that momentous
cause at the express and peremptory recommendation of Pollexfen, one of
the greatest lawyers of that day. The rank of the defendants, the
personal interest of the King in the question at issue, the general
expectation excited by this conflict amongst all classes of the people,
and above all, the event of the prosecution which drove James from his
throne and kingdom, and immediately introduced the Revolution of 1688,
render the trial of the Seven Bishops one of the most important judicial
proceedings that ever occurred in Westminster Hall. It was no trifling
testimony, therefore, to the high estimation in which Somers was held by
experienced judges of professional merit, that he should be expressly
selected by the counsel for the defendants to bear a part in the
defence. We are told that upon the first suggestion of Somers’s name,
“objection was made amongst the Bishops to him, as too young and obscure
a man; but old Pollexfen insisted upon him, and would not be himself
retained without the other; representing him as the man who would take
most pains and go deepest into all that depended on precedents and
records[1].” How far the leading counsel for the Bishops were indebted
to the industry and research of Somers, for the extent of learning
displayed in their admirable arguments on that occasion, cannot now be
ascertained; his own speech, as reported in the State Trials, contains a
summary of the constitutional reasons against the existence of a
dispensing power in the King, expressed in clear and unaffected
language, and applied with peculiar skill and judgment to the defence of
his clients.
Footnote 1:
Kennett’s Complete History, vol. iii. p. 513, n.
The intimate connexion of Somers with the leaders of that political
party by whom the Revolution was effected, and in particular with his
early friend Lord Shrewsbury, leaves little room for doubt that he was
actively employed in devising the means by which that important event
was brought about. It is said by Tindal that he was admitted into the
most secret councils of the Prince of Orange, and was one of those who
planned the measure of bringing him over to England. Immediately upon
the flight of James II., the Prince of Orange, by the advice of the
temporary assembly which he had convened as the most proper
representative of the people in the emergency of the time, issued
circular letters to the several counties, cities, and boroughs of
England, directing them to summon a Parliamentary Convention. On this
occasion Mr. Somers was returned as a representative by his native city
of Worcester. We find him taking a conspicuous part in the long and
laborious debates which took place in that assembly respecting the
settlement of the government. Upon a conference with the Lords upon the
resolution, “that James II. having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom
had abdicated the government, and that the throne had thereby become
vacant,” Mr. Somers spoke at great length, and with much learning, in
support of the original resolution against some amendments proposed by
the Lords. This resolution having been ultimately adopted by both Houses
of Parliament, and the Prince and Princess of Orange having been
declared King and Queen of England, a committee was appointed, of which
Somers was a member, to bring in heads of such things as were necessary
for securing the Protestant religion, the laws of the land, and the
liberties of the people. The Report of this Committee, which was a most
elaborate performance, having been submitted to the examination of a
second committee, of which Somers was chairman, formed the substance of
the Declaration of Rights which was afterwards assented to by the King
and Queen and both Houses of Parliament, and thus adopted as the basis
of the Constitution.
It is impossible to ascertain with precision the particular services
rendered by Somers in the accomplishment of this great measure. There
was perhaps no individual at that moment in existence who was so well
qualified to lend important aid in conducting his country with safety
through the difficulties and dangers of a change of government, and in
placing the interests of the nation upon a secure and solid foundation.
Fortunate was it for the people of England and their posterity that the
services of a man of his industry and settled principles, of his sound
constitutional information, and his rational and enlightened views of
the relative rights and duties of kings and subjects, were at that
critical juncture available to his country; and that, at the instant of
the occurrence of this momentous revolution, his character was
sufficiently known and appreciated to render those services fully
effective.
Shortly after the accession of William and Mary, Somers was appointed
Solicitor-General, and received the honour of knighthood. Bishop Burnet
says, that in the warm debates which took place in Parliament on the
bill respecting the recognition of the King and Queen, and the validity
of the new settlement of the government, it was strongly objected by the
Tories that the convention, not being summoned by the King’s writ, had
no legal sanction; and that Somers distinguished himself by the spirited
and able manner in which he answered the objection. “He spoke,” says
Burnet, “with such zeal and such an ascendant of authority that none
were prepared to answer it; so that the bill passed without more
opposition. This was a great service done in a very critical time, and
contributed not a little to raise Somers’s character.”
In April, 1692, Sir John Somers became Attorney-General, and in the
month of March following was appointed Lord-Keeper of the Great Seal.
While he presided in the Court of Chancery as Lord-Keeper, he delivered
his celebrated judgment in the Bankers’ case, which Mr. Hargrave
describes as “one of the most elaborate arguments ever delivered in
Westminster Hall.” It is said that Lord Somers expended several hundred
pounds in collecting books and pamphlets for this argument. In 1697 he
was appointed Lord Chancellor, and raised to the peerage, with the title
of Baron Somers of Evesham.
In the year immediately succeeding his elevation to the peerage, it was
the fate of Lord Somers to experience the virulence of party animosity,
and the selfishness and instability of royal favour. His influence with
the King, and the moderation and good sense with which he had restrained
the impetuosity of his own party, had been long the means of preserving
the Whig administration; and the Tories saw plainly that there were no
hopes for the attainment of their objects so long as Lord Somers
retained the confidence of the King. William had been, from the
commencement of his reign, continually vacillating between the two
parties according to the circumstances of his affairs; at this period he
was so incensed and embarrassed by the conduct of the contending parties
in the House of Commons, that he readily listened to the leaders of the
Tories, who assured him that they would undertake to manage the
Parliament as he pleased, if he would dismiss from his councils the Lord
Chancellor Somers, whom they represented to be peculiarly odious to the
Commons. In fact, the Tory party in the House of Commons had, in the
course of the stormy session of Parliament which commenced in November,
1699, made several violent but ineffectual attacks upon the Lord
Chancellor. The first charge brought against him was, that he had
improperly dismissed many gentlemen from the commission of the peace:
upon a full explanation of all the circumstances, this charge was proved
to be so utterly groundless that it was abandoned by those who had
introduced it. The second accusation had no better foundation than the
first. Great complaints having been made of certain English pirates in
the West Indies, who had plundered several merchant ships, it was
determined to send out a ship of war for the purpose of destroying them.
But as there was no fund to bear the charge of such an expedition, the
King proposed to his ministers that it should be carried on as a private
undertaking, and promised to subscribe £3,000 on his own account. In
compliance with this recommendation, Lord Somers, the Duke of
Shrewsbury, the Earls of Romney, Oxford, Bellamont, and several others,
contributed a sufficient sum to defray the whole expense of the
armament. Unfortunately one Captain Kidd was appointed to command the
expedition, who was unprincipled enough to turn pirate himself, and
having committed various acts of robbery on the high seas, was
eventually captured, brought to England, and some time afterwards tried
and executed for his offences. It was then insinuated that the Lord
Chancellor and the other individuals who had subscribed towards the
expedition were engaged as partners in Kidd’s piratical scheme; so that
an undertaking, which was not only innocent, but meritorious and
patriotic, was construed by the blindness of party prejudice into a
design for robbery and piracy. A resolution in the House of Commons,
founded upon this absurd imputation, was rejected by a great majority.
Shortly afterwards, after ordering a list of the Privy Council to be
laid before the House, a question was moved in the House of Commons,
“that an address should be made to his Majesty to remove John Lord
Somers, Chancellor of England, from his presence and councils for ever.”
This motion, however, was also negatived by a large majority. The
prosecution of these frivolous charges against Lord Somers was a source
of perpetual irritation to the King, in consequence of the vexatious
delay it occasioned to the public service, and the virulent party spirit
which it introduced into the House of Commons; and it was under the
influence of this feeling, and in order to deliver himself from a
temporary embarrassment, that he selfishly determined to adopt the
interested advice of the Tory leaders, and to remove the Lord Chancellor
from his office. He accordingly intimated to Lord Somers that it was
necessary for his service that he should resign the seals, but wished
him to make the resignation himself, in order that it might appear as if
it was his own act. The Chancellor declined to make a voluntary
surrender of the seals, as such a course might indicate a fear of his
enemies, or a consciousness of misconduct in his office; upon which Lord
Jersey was sent with an express warrant for the seals, and Lord Somers
delivered them to him without hesitation.
The malignity of party spirit was not satisfied by the dismissal of Lord
Somers from his office, and from all participation in the government.
Soon after his retirement, namely in the year 1701, the celebrated
Partition Treaties gave occasion to much angry debate in both Houses of
Parliament. His conduct, with respect to these treaties, seems to have
been entirely irreproachable; but it became the subject of much
misrepresentation, and the most unreserved invective and abuse in the
House of Commons. It appears that in 1698, when the King was in Holland,
a proposal was made to him by the French Government for arranging the
partition of some of the territories belonging to the crown of Spain
upon the expected death of Charles II. This partition was to be made in
certain defined proportions between the Electoral Prince of Bavaria, the
Dauphin of France, and the Archduke Charles, the second son of the
Emperor. The King entertained these proposals favourably, and wrote to
Lord Somers, who was at that time Lord Chancellor, desiring his opinion
upon them, and commanding him to forward to him a commission in blank
under the great seal, appointing persons to treat with the Commissioners
of the French Government. Lord Somers, after communicating with Lord
Orford, the Duke of Shrewsbury, and Mr. Mountague, as he had been
authorized to do, transmitted to the King their joint opinions, which
suggested several objections to the proposed treaty, together with the
required commission. This was the “head and front of his offending” in
this respect; for the treaty was afterwards negotiated abroad, and
finally signed without any further communication with Lord Somers.
Understanding that he was accused in the House of Commons of having
advised and promoted the Partition Treaties, Lord Somers requested to be
heard in that House in his defence. His request being granted, he stated
to the House, in a calm and dignified manner, the history of his conduct
respecting the treaties, and contended, with much force and eloquence,
that in the whole course of that transaction he had correctly and
honestly discharged his duty both as Chancellor and as a Privy
Councillor. After he had withdrawn, a warm debate ensued, which
terminated in a resolution, carried by a small majority, “that John,
Lord Somers, by advising his Majesty to conclude the Treaty of
Partition, was guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour.” Similar
resolutions were passed against the Earl of Orford and Lord Halifax, and
all of them were impeached at the bar of the House of Lords. The
articles of impeachment against Lord Somers principally charged him with
having affixed the great seal to the blank commission sent to the King
in Holland, and afterwards to the treaties; with having encouraged and
promoted the piracies of Captain Kidd; and with having received grants
from the Crown for his own personal emolument. To each of these articles
Lord Somers answered promptly and fully; to the two first he replied the
facts of each case as above related; and in answer to the third, he
admitted that the King had been pleased to make certain grants to him,
but denied that they had been made in consequence of any solicitation on
his part. After many frivolous delays and repeated disputes between the
two Houses, a day was fixed for the trial of the impeachment; on which
day the Commons not appearing to prosecute their articles, the Lords, by
a considerable majority, acquitted Lord Somers of the charges and
dismissed the impeachment.
The violence and folly exhibited in the conduct of these proceedings
opened the eyes of the King to his error in having changed his ministry
at so critical a time. He found to his infinite disquietude that instead
of enabling him to manage the Commons as they had promised, the Tory
leaders had rendered them more intractable and imperious than before;
and that instead of sincerely endeavouring to promote peace abroad and
quiet government at home, they were actuated entirely by motives of
private passion and revenge. In this state of affairs he again directed
his attention to Lord Somers, in consequence, probably, of the urgent
advice of Lord Sunderland, and wrote him a note from Loo, dated the 10th
of October, 1701, assuring him of the continuance of his friendship. By
the united exertions of Somers and Sunderland a negotiation was entered
into with a view to the formation of a Whig ministry; but after some
little progress had been made, the death of the King, in March 1702, put
an end to the project, and the succession of Queen Anne confirmed the
establishment of the Tory administration.
The state of parties for some years after the accession of Queen Anne
excluded Somers from taking any active part in political affairs. It is
probable that at this period of his life he devoted his attention to
literature and science, as in 1702 he was elected President of the Royal
Society. He afterwards applied himself with diligence to the removal of
several gross defects in the practice of the Courts of Chancery and
Common Law. In 1706 he introduced into the House of Lords an extensive
and effectual bill for the correction of such abuses. In passing through
the House of Commons “it was found,” says Burnet, “that the interest of
under-officers, clerks, and attorneys, whose gains were to be lessened
by this bill, was more considered than the interest of the nation
itself. Several clauses, how beneficial soever to the subject, which
touched on their profit, were left out by the Commons.” Still the Act
“for the Amendment of the Law and the better advancement of Justice,” as
it now stands amongst the statutes of the realm, effected a very
important improvement in the administration of justice.
Lord Somers is said to have had a chief hand in projecting the scheme of
the Union with Scotland; and in discussing and arranging the details of
this great measure in the House of Lords, he appears to have been one of
the most frequent and distinguished speakers, though he was then
labouring under great bodily infirmity.
In the year 1708, on occasion of the temporary return of the Whigs to
power, Lord Somers again formed part of the administration and filled
the office of President of the Council. But the powers of his mind were
at this time much enfeebled by continual ill-health; and it was probably
with feelings of satisfaction that the change of parties in 1710, by
causing his dismissal from office, enabled him finally to retire into
private life.
Of the mode in which the remaining period of his life was spent after
his removal from public business, little is known. There is, however, no
doubt that the concluding years of his existence were darkened by much
sickness and some degree of mental alienation on the accession of George
I. he formally took his seat at the Council-Board; but a paralytic
affection, which had destroyed his bodily health, had so impaired the
faculties of his mind as to incapacitate him entirely for business. At
intervals, however, when the pressure of disease was suspended, he
appears to have recurred with strong interest to passing events in which
the welfare of his country was involved. When the Septennial Bill was in
progress, Lord Townshend called upon him: Lord Somers embraced him,
congratulated him on the progress of the bill, and declared that “he
thought it would be the greatest support possible to the liberty of the
country.” On a subsequent occasion, when informed by the same nobleman
of the determination of George I. to adopt the advice of his ministry,
by executing the full rigour of the law against Lord Derwentwater, and
the other unfortunate persons concerned in the Rebellion of 1715, he is
said to have asked with great emotion, and shedding many tears, “whether
they meant to revive the proscriptions of Marius and Sylla?”
He soon afterwards sunk into a state of total imbecility, from which, on
the 26th of April, 1716, he was happily released by death.
[Illustration]
[Illustration:
_Engraved by R. Woodman._
JOHN SMEATON.
_From an original Picture ascribed to Mortimer,
in the possession of the Royal Society._
Under the Superintendance of the Society of the Diffusion of Useful
Knowledge.
_London, Published by Charles Knight, Pall Mall East._
]
[Illustration]
SMEATON.
John Smeaton will long be remembered as one of the most laborious and
most successful civil engineers whom Britain has produced: a class to
which our country is deeply indebted for its commercial greatness. He
was born at Austhorpe, near Leeds, May 28, 1724. His father was an
attorney, and intended to bring his son up to his own profession: but
the latter finding, to use his own words, “that the law did not suit the
bent of his genius,” obtained his parent’s consent that he should seek a
more congenial employment.
From a very early age he had shown great fondness for mechanical
occupations. “His playthings,” it is said by one long acquainted with
him, “were not the playthings of children, but the tools men work with;
and he appeared to have greater entertainment in seeing the men in the
neighbourhood work, and asking them questions, than in any thing else.”
At the age of eighteen he was in the habit of forging iron and steel,
and melting metal for his own use: and he possessed tools of every sort
for working in wood, ivory, and metal. Some of these were of his own
construction; and among them an engine for rose-turning, and a lathe by
which he had cut a perpetual screw, a thing little known at that time.
In the year 1750 he established himself in the Great Turnstile in
Holborn, as a philosophical instrument-maker. While he followed this
trade, he became known to the scientific circles by several ingenious
inventions; among which were a new kind of magnetic compass, and a
machine for measuring a ship’s way at sea. He was elected fellow of the
Royal Society in 1753; and contributed several papers to the
Philosophical Transactions, one of which, entitled ‘An Experimental
Enquiry concerning the natural powers of water and wind to turn mills
and other machines, depending on a circular motion,’ obtained the gold
medal in 1759.
In 1755 the Eddystone light-house was destroyed by fire. At this time
Smeaton had never practised as an architect or engineer. But the
proprietors, to use his own words, “considered that to reinstate it
would require, not so much a person who had been merely bred, or who had
rendered himself eminent in this or that given profession, but rather
one who from natural genius had a turn for contrivance in the mechanical
branches of science.” Thinking thus, they applied to the President of
the Royal Society to recommend a fitting person, and he without
hesitation named Smeaton. We shall speak hereafter of the difficulties
which attended this work, and the method of its execution; the nature of
it is familiar to every reader. Two light-houses had been destroyed
within half a century: his own, after the lapse of seventy-three years,
stands unimpaired;—a proud monument of the power of man to overcome the
elements. This building was finished in 1759, and established his
reputation as a civil engineer: but it was some time before he devoted
his attention solely to practising in that capacity. In 1764 he was
appointed one of the Receivers of the Greenwich Hospital Estates, and in
the discharge of his duty, he suggested various improvements which were
of material service to the property. He resigned that office about 1777,
in consequence of the increase of his other business. In 1766 he was
employed to furnish designs for new light-houses at the Spurn Head, at
the mouth of the Humber, and after considerable delay, was appointed
Surveyor of the Works in 1771. These were completed in April, 1777.
Among other undertakings he repaired and improved the navigation of the
river Calder; he built the bridge over the Tay, at Perth, and some
others on the Highland road, north of Inverness; he laid out the line,
and superintended the execution of a considerable portion of the great
canal connecting the Forth and Clyde. His high reputation was shown
shortly after the two centre arches of old London bridge had been thrown
into one. The foundations of the piers were discovered to be damaged,
and the danger of the bridge was esteemed so imminent that few persons
would venture to pass over it. The opinions of the architects on the
spot were deemed unsatisfactory; and Smeaton, being at the time in
Yorkshire, was summoned by express, to say what should be done. He found
that the increased volume of water passing through the centre arch had
undermined the piers; and removed the danger by the simple expedient,
the success of which he had proved on the river Calder, of throwing in a
large quantity of rough stone about them. The interstices of the heap
soon are filled up by sand and mud, and the whole is consolidated almost
into one mass, and forms a secure and lasting barrier. The best known of
Smeaton’s works, after the Eddystone light-house, is the magnificent
pier and harbour of Ramsgate. This undertaking was commenced in 1749,
and prosecuted for some time with very imperfect success. In 1774
Smeaton was called in; and he continued to superintend the progress of
the works till their completion in 1791. The harbour is now enclosed by
two piers, the eastern nearly 2000, the western 1500 feet in length, and
affords a safe and a much needed refuge to ships lying in the Downs,
even of five and six hundred tons, which before, when driven from their
anchors by stress of weather, were almost certain to be cast ashore and
wrecked.
It would be vain to enumerate all the projects in which he was
consulted, or the schemes which he executed. The variety and extent of
his employments may be best estimated from his Reports, of which a
complete collection has been published by the Society of Civil
Engineers, in consequence of the liberality of Sir Joseph Banks, who had
purchased, and presented them to the Society for this purpose. They fill
three quarto volumes, and constitute a most interesting and valuable
series of treatises on every branch of engineering; as draining,
bridge-building, making and improving canals and navigable rivers,
planning docks and harbours, the improvement of mill-work, and the
application of mechanical improvements to different manufactures. His
papers in the Philosophical Transactions are published separately, and
fill another quarto volume. They contain descriptions of those early
inventions which we have mentioned, and of an improved air-pump, and a
new hygrometer and pyrometer; together with his treatise on Mill-work,
and some papers which show that he was fond of the science of astronomy,
and practically skilled in it.
His health began to decline about 1785, and he endeavoured to withdraw
from business, and to devote his attention to publishing an account of
his own inventions and works; for as he often said, “he thought he could
not render so much service to his country as by doing that.” He
succeeded in bringing out his elaborate account of the Eddystone
Light-house, published in 1791. But he found it impossible to withdraw
entirely from business: and it appears that over-exertion and anxiety
did actually bring on an attack of paralysis, to which his family were
constitutionally liable. He was taken ill at his residence at Austhorpe,
in September, 1792, and died October 28, in the sixty-ninth year of his
age. He had long looked to this disease as the probable termination of
his life, and felt some anxiety concerning the likelihood of out-living
his faculties, and in his own words, of “lingering over the dregs after
the spirit had evaporated.” This calamity was spared him: in the
interval between his first attack and his death, his mind was unclouded,
and he continued to take his usual interest in the occupations of his
domestic circle. Sometimes only he would complain, with a smile, of his
slowness of apprehension, and say, “It cannot be otherwise: the shadow
must lengthen as the sun goes down.”
His character was marked by undeviating uprightness, industry, and
moderation in pursuit of riches. His gains might have been far larger;
but he relinquished more than one appointment which brought in a
considerable income, to devote his attention to other objects which he
had more at heart; and he declined the magnificent offers of Catharine
II. of Russia, who would have bought his services at any price. His
industry was unwearied, and the distribution of his hours and
employments strictly laid down by rule. In his family and by his friends
he was singularly beloved, though his demeanour sometimes appeared harsh
to strangers. A brief, but very interesting and affectionate account of
him, written by his daughter, is prefixed to his Reports, from which
many of the anecdotes here related have been derived.
Of the many great undertakings in which Smeaton was engaged, the most
original, and the most celebrated, is the Eddystone light-house. The
reef of rocks known by the name of the Eddystone lies about nine miles
and a half from the Ram Head, at the entrance of Plymouth Sound, exposed
to the full swell of the Atlantic, which, with a very moderate gale,
breaks upon it with the utmost fury. The situation, directly between the
Lizard and Start points, makes it of the utmost importance to have a
light-house on it; and in 1698 Mr. Winstanley succeeded in completing
one. This stood till 1703, but was entirely carried away in the
memorable storm of November 26, in that year. It chanced, by a singular
coincidence, that shortly before, on a doubt of the stability of the
building being uttered, the architect expressed himself so entirely
satisfied on that point, that “he should only wish to be there in the
greatest storm that ever blew under the face of the heavens.” He was
gratified in his wish; and perished with every person in the building.
This building was chiefly, if not wholly of timber. In 1706 Mr. Rudyerd
commenced a new light-house, partly of stone and partly of wood, which
stood till 1755, when it was burnt down to the very rock. Warned by this
accident, Smeaton resolved that his should be entirely of stone. He
spent much time in considering the best methods of grafting his work
securely on the solid rock, and giving it the form best suited to secure
stability; and one of the most interesting parts of his interesting
account, is that in which he narrates how he was led to choose the shape
which he adopted, by considering the means employed by nature to produce
stability in her works. The building is modelled on the trunk of an oak,
which spreads out in a sweeping curve near the roots, so as to give
breadth and strength to its base, diminishes as it rises, and again
swells out as it approaches to the bushy head, to give room for the
strong insertion of the principal boughs. The latter is represented by a
curved cornice, the effect of which is to throw off the heavy seas,
which being suddenly checked fly up, it is said, from fifty to a hundred
feet above the very top of the building, and thus to prevent their
striking the lantern, even when they seem entirely to enclose it. The
efficacy of this construction is such, that after a storm and spring
tide of unequalled violence in 1762, in which the greatest fears were
entertained at Plymouth for the safety of the light-house, the only
article requisite to repair it was a pot of putty, to replace some that
had been washed from the lantern.
To prepare a fit base for the reception of the column, the shelving rock
was cut into six steps, which were filled up with masonry, firmly
dovetailed, and pinned with oaken trenails to the living stone, so that
the upper course presented a level circular surface. This part of the
work was attended with the greatest difficulty; the rock being
accessible only at low water, and in calm weather. The building is faced
with the Cornish granite, called in the country, moorstone; a material
selected on account of its durability and hardness, which bids defiance
to the depredations of marine animals, which have been known to do
serious injury by perforating Portland stone when placed under water.
The interior is built of Portland stone, which is more easily obtained
in large blocks, and is less expensive in the working. It is an
instructive lesson, not only to the young engineer, but to all persons,
to see the diligence which Smeaton used to ascertain what kind of stone
was best fitted for his purposes, and from what materials the firmest
and most lasting cement could be obtained. He well knew that in novel
and great undertakings no precaution can be deemed superfluous which may
contribute to success; and that it is wrong to trust implicitly to
common methods, even where experience has shown them to be sufficient in
common cases. For the height of twelve feet from the rock the building
is solid. Every course of masonry is composed of stones firmly jointed
and dovetailed into each other, and secured to the course below by
_joggles_, or solid plugs of stone, which being let into both,
effectually resist the lateral pressure of the waves, which tends to
push off the upper from the under course. The interior, which is
accessible by a moveable ladder, consists of four rooms, one over the
other, surmounted by a glass lantern, in which the lights are placed.
The height from the lowest point of the foundation to the floor of the
lantern is seventy feet; the height of the lantern is twenty-one feet
more. The building was commenced August 3, 1756, and finished October 8,
1759; and having braved uninjured the storms of seventy-three winters,
is likely long to remain a monument almost as elegant, and far more
useful, than the most splendid column ever raised to commemorate
imperial victories. Its erection forms an era in the history of
light-houses, a subject of great importance to a maritime nation. It
came perfect from the mind of the artist; and has left nothing to be
added or improved. After such an example no accessible rock can be
considered impracticable: and in the more recent erection of a
light-house on the dangerous Bell-rock, lying off the coast of
Forfarshire, between the Frith of Tay and the Frith of Forth, which is
built exactly in the same manner, and almost on the same model, we see
the best proof of the value of an impulse, such as was given to this
subject by Smeaton.
[Illustration: Light-houses of (1) Winstanley, (2) Smeaton, and (3)
Rudyerd.]
[Illustration:
_Engraved by Robert Hart._
BUFFON.
_From an original Picture by Drouais in the
collection of the Institute of France._
Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful
Knowledge.
_London, Published by Charles Knight, Pall Mall East._
]
[Illustration]
BUFFON.
Buffon is reported to have said—and the vanity which was his predominant
foible may have given some colour to the assertion—“I know but five
great geniuses, Newton, Bacon, Leibnitz, Montesquieu, and myself.”
Probably no author ever received from his contemporaries so many
excitements to such an exhibition of presumption and self-consequence.
Lewis XV. conferred upon him a title of nobility; the Empress of Russia
was his correspondent; Prince Henry of Prussia addressed him in the
language of the most exaggerated compliment; and his statue was set up
during his life-time in the cabinet of Lewis XVI., with such an
inscription as is rarely bestowed even upon the most illustrious of past
ages[2]. After the lapse of half a century we may examine the personal
character, and the literary merits, of this celebrated man with a more
sober judgment.
Footnote 2:
Majestati naturæ par ingenium.
The history of Buffon is singularly barren of incident. At an early age
he devoted himself to those studies of natural history which have
rendered his name so famous; and at eighty years old he was still
labouring at the completion of the great plan to which he had dedicated
his life.
George Lewis le Clerc Buffon was born at Montbar, in Burgundy, on the
7th September, 1707. His father, Benjamin le Clerc, was a man of
fortune, who could afford to bestow the most careful education upon his
children, and leave them unfettered in the choice of an occupation. The
young Buffon had formed an acquaintance at Dijon with an Englishman of
his own age, the Duke of Kingston. The tutor of this nobleman was,
fortunately, an accomplished student of the physical sciences; and he
gave a powerful impulse to the talents of Buffon, by leading them
forward in their natural direction. Without the assistance of this
judicious friend, the inclination of his mind towards honourable and
useful exertion might have been suppressed by the temptations which too
easily beset those who have an ample command of the goods of fortune. It
was not so with Buffon. Although he succeeded, at the age of twenty-one,
to the estate of his mother, which produced him an annual income of
12,000_l._, he devoted himself with unremitting assiduity to the
acquisition of knowledge. Having travelled in Italy, and resided some
little time in England, he returned to his own country, to dedicate
himself to the constant labours of a man of letters. His first
productions were translations of two English works of very different
character—‘Hales’ Vegetable Statics,’ and ‘Newton’s Fluxions;’ and,
following up the pursuits for which he exhibited his love in these
translations, he carried on a series of experiments on the strength of
timber, and constructed a burning mirror, in imitation of that of
Archimedes.