his lofty pedestal, as one of the greatest, wisest, and best kings that have ever worn the English crown. So long

as the revolution of 1688 is called the "Glorious Revolution," and the Constitution which flowed from it is held in esteem, even so long must England owe a debt of gratitude to his memory. But for his rare combination of personal qualities this experiment would have failed. We had not, among our public men, sufficient steadiness and honesty of purpose, or valour and genius enough to face the crisis. As well in relation to the distracted, demoralized state of England, as with regard to the cause of religious liberty on the Continent, William might indeed be called "The man of God's right hand, whom he made strong for himself."

Burnet, who was much about his person, having "observed him very carefully in a course of sixteen years;" and who, on the whole, speaks impartially of him, not attempting to conceal his defects, says, among other particulars," William had a thin and weak body, was brown haired, and of a clear and delicate complexion; he had a Roman eagle nose, bright and sparkling eyes, a large front [forehead], and a countenance composed to gravity and authority: all his senses were critical and exquisite. He was always asthmatical, and the dregs of the small-pox falling on his lungs, he had a constant deep cough. His behaviour was solemnly serious, seldom cheerful, and then but with a few: he spoke little and very slowly, and most commonly with a disgusting dryness, which was his character at all times, except in a day of battle; for then he was all fire, though without passion he was then everywhere and looked to everything. . . . . . He spoke Dutch, French, English, and German, equally well; and he understood Latin, Spanish, and Italian, so that he was well fitted to command armies composed of several nations. He had a memory that amazed all about him, for it never failed him; he was an exact observer of men and things; his strength lay rather in a true discerning and a sound judgment, than in imagination or invention: his designs were always great and good; but it was thought he trusted

......

too much to that, and that he did not descend enough to the humours of his people to make himself and his notions more acceptable to them. . . . . . His reservedness grew on him, so that it disgusted most of those who served him; but he had observed the error of too much talking, more than those of too cold a silence . . . . . He knew all foreign affairs well, and understood the state of every court in Europe very particularly

He

was a devout Calvinist, and yet a warm friend to toleration-at least anong all Protestant churches and sects. To the mere forms of church government he was very indifferent. His belief in predestination, or in absolute decrees, was as fixed as that of Napoleon Buonaparte in destiny or in his star. He had a horror of atheism and blasphemy," and though," says Burnet, "there was much of both in his court, yet it was always denied to him, and kept out of sight." He was scrupulously true to his word, when once pledged, and constant and warm in his attachment to his friends. By his wife, and by all those who best knew him, he was tenderly beloved. His character appears very advantageously in his private and confidential correspondence. The English nation, or rather the low-minded legislature of the day, were ungrateful to him through life, and disrespectful to him after death. They gave the great prince a private and meanly parsimonious funeral; and for many years no monument, statue, or tablet was erected to his memory.

With the death of William III. the male line of William the Silent became extinct; but William had named for his personal heir his cousin John William Friso, Prince of Nassau Dietz (grandson of his aunt Albertina Agnes by William Frederic of Nassau Dietz) from whom the present regal line of Orange is descended.

JOHN LOCKE was born at Wrington near Bristol, on the 29th August, 1632. By the advice of Colonel Popham, under whom Locke's father had served in the parlia mentary wars, Locke was placed at Westminster School, from which he was elected in 1651 to Christ Church, Oxford. He applied himself at that university with great diligence to the study of classical literature; and by the private reading of the works of Bacon and Descartes, he sought to acquire that aliment for his philosophical spirit which he did not find in the Aristotelian scholastic philosophy, as taught in the schools of Oxford. Though the writings of Descartes may have contributed, by their precision and scientific method, to the formation of his philosophical style, yet, if we may judge from the simply controversial notices of them in the Essay concerning Human Understanding,' they appear to have exercised a negative influence on the mind of Locke; while the principle of the Baconian method of observation gave