The following, according to Doederlein, are the recognized subdivisions and areas of the whole archipelago:—(1) The Northern Islands (attached to Satsuma or Kiushiu Osumi, 398 square miles): Tanega(189 square miles), Make, Yakuno (172 square miles), Take, Yuo or Iwoga, Kuro, Kose or Kowose, and Kuchino-Erabu or Nagarobe; (2) Shichi-to (43 square miles): Kuchino, Gaza or Yebi, Naka-no (the largest, 13 square miles), Hira or Fira, Suwase, Akuseki, Takara, and Yoko; (3) Hokubn-Shoto (515 square miles): Oshima (302 square miles), Kagerurna or Katona (40 square miles), Yoro, Uke or Uni, Kitai, Tokono or Kakirouma (92 square miles), Naka Erabu, and Yoron or Yori; (4) Chubu-Shoto (592 square miles): Tori or I wo, Eheya or Tebeya, Isona, lye, Awakuni or Agunyeh, Tonashi, Kuιne, Kerama or Amakirima, and Okinawa (520 square miles); (5) Nambu-Shoto or the Meiakoshima Group (315 square miles): Miyako orTy-pin-san (57 square miles), Misuna and Tarama, Ishigaki or Pat-chung-san (104 square miles), Take⅛oma or Robertson Island, 0hama or Kubah, Kuro or Baugh, Iriomoto Nishiomoto or Koo-Kien-San, Aragusuku or Chung-chi, Hateruma or Hasyokan, Yonakuni or Kumi.

The area of the Lew-chews proper is thus 1423 square miles, that of the whole chain 1864 square miles. The largest islands are Okinawa (often called Great Lew-chew) and Oshima, the former being also the political centre of the whole archipelago. The Lew-chews consist in the main of crystalline rocks—gneiss, hornblende, and granite —upheaved at a very remote date, and only partially covered by severely weathered sedimentary strata seldom left in their original horizontal position. Coralline limestone is found in great abundance even on the tops of the hills, and the coasts are often fringed by coral reefs. In Okinawa a soft argillaceous rock occupies a large part of the surface. Though the existence of Sulphur Island with its smoking crater towards the north-west shows that volcanic activity is still going on at no great distance, the main islands at least seem to bear no trace of recent subterranean disturbance. Their surface is very irregular: Okinawa consists for the most part of a succession of rounded swelling hills, 300 to 500 feet in height, broken towards the centre by more precipitous crags, and Oshima may be best described as a cluster of steep mountains reaching in Yowangatake a height of about 2100 feet. Of the many streams a few attain considerable dimensions, and serve to carry the timber from the highlands; and all round the coasts are excellent harbours. The mildness and humidity of climate, which is the natural consequence of the geographical position of the archipelago, is further enhanced by the neighbourhood of the Kuro-Siwo or Pacific gulf-stream. Snow never falls on the tops even of the highest hills; but at the same time even in summer the heat is seldom extreme. Three days seldom pass without rain; sudden downpours are not unfrequent, and wet weather often lasts for several days on end. The boundary between the Palaeoarctic and Oriental regions passes to the north of Oshima, which is the northern limit of many southern forms at once of vegetable and animal life both on land and sea. Sago trees and other Cycadaceae, banyans, and pine trees (resembling the cedar of Lebanon) are abundant, and the natives, who succeed well both as farmers and as gardeners, grow wheat, rice, bananas, tarro (Colocasia), sweet potatoes, maize, millet, sugar-cane, eggplants, <fcc. There is a small but excellent breed of cattle (usually black); and ponies, pigs, goats,and poultry are kept.

Part of the population of the northern Lew-chews is evidently Japanese, but the aboriginal and preponderating element is of quite another type, in some points similar to the Ainos. The striking features, according to Doederlein, are a comparatively narrow face ending in a pointed chin, large European-looking eyes, thin lips, thin and rather convex nose, strongly developed beard, and a luxuriant growth of hair over breast, arms, and legs. The women are (or were, for the practice is forbidden by the Japanese) accustomed to tattoo the back of the hands with a special pattern in a dark blue colour. Though closely allied to Japanese, the native language is a genuinely independent form, containing obsolete words only found in the ancient monuments of Japanese literature, and showing the greatest resemblance to the Satsuma dialect. The use of Japanese and Chinese by the learned has prevented it being used for literary purposes; and the version of the Bible prepared by the missionary Dr Bettelheim (sent out in 1845) is really in Japanese. There was neither printing press nor bookshop in the islands as late as 1876 (see G. W. Aston in Church Miss. TntcU., 1879). The lowest class of the population have neither civil rights nor personal freedom; next in order come the peasants, who rent the land from the Government; and above all are the literati or governing class. Rank is indicated by various symbols, particularly by the kind of metal of which the hair-pins are made, and by the colour of the robes and head-dress. Confucianism and Buddhism seem to have had considerable influence on the upper classes at least in Okinawa; in Oshima there is neither temple nor priest, and the people say they pray to no god. The sole objects of worship (if worship it be) are the manes of one’s immediate ancestors. To the dead great respect is shown in both islands,—the wealthier people building on the hillsides large and handsome tombs, which from a distance look like dwelling-houses. The body is buried in a coffin in a sitting posture, and after seven years the bones are collected and placed in an urn.

The population of Okinawa was estimated by the American expedition at from 150,000 to 200,000. Doederlein was informed by the officials that Amami Oshima contained 50,000 souls, but thinks 30,000 a more probable conjecture. Besides Napa or Napa-Kiang the capital, and Shui the royal residence, there are some thirty-six towns in Okinawa, with about 6000 inhabitants each; in the other island Nase the chief town (comprising Itsubemura and Kanekumura) has not more than 2000, and only five or six of the other villages exceed 500.

Though Captain Broughton visited Napa in 1797, it was not till the Alceste and Lyra expedition in 1816-17 that detailed information about the Lew-ehews was obtained. The people at that time showed a curious mixture of courtesy and shyness. Her British Majesty’s ship “Sphinx” visited Okinawa in 1852; and the American expedition under Commodore Perry (1852-54) added very largely to our knowledge of the island, and concluded a treaty of friendship with its Government, securing for the United States the right of using Tamui near Napa as a coaling depot.

Theen-sun, “Grandson of Heaven,” is the mythical founder of the Lew-chew monarchy. Towards the close of the 12th century, his descendants were driven from the throne by a usurper Le-yung; but the old national party soon found a victorious leader in Sun-thien-ong son of Tametomo, a member of the famous Yoritomo family, who, having been expelled from Japan, had come to Lew-chew and married the youngest sister of Ansoo, governor of Oho-prto. The introduction of the arts of reading and writing are assigned to Sun-thien-ong’s reign. Chinese invasions of Lew-chew may be traced back to the 6th century, but they did not result in annexation; and it was Hung-woo, the founder of the Ming dynasty, who first in 1395 obtained from the Lew-chew ruler recognition of Chinese supremacy. The earliest notice of intercourse with Japan belongs to the year 1441, when a voluntary gift of copper money (at that time extremely scarce in Japan) was made by the Lew-chewans to the tenno Go-Hanazono; but for a long time afterwards the relations of the two powers continued to be of the friendliest description. In the beginning of the 17th century the Lew-chew minister Yana, anxious to gain favour with the Chinese Government, persuaded his king to break off all connexion with Japan, and when the prince of Satsuma sent to remonstrate against this course of conduct his envoys were maltreated. For this insult the prince exacted signal vengeance. With the permission of his liege lord he invaded the islands with 8000 men, took the capital by storm, and captured the king and carried him off to Kagoshima. A few years later the unfortunate Seang-leng was restored to his throne, but only on condition that he and his successors should receive reinvestiture on the accession of each new shogun, and that each new king of Lew-chew should send an embassy to Yedo. The Lew-chewans nevertheless continued to pay tribute to China, and Chinese commissioners were despatched to attend the installation of their kings. Particular interest in the islands was displayed by the emperor Kang-hi, whose memory is still cherished by the natives as that of a great benefactor; he built them a temple in honour of Confucius, founded a Chinese school, and, when they were in great distress through hurricanes, plague, and famine, contributed liberally for their relief. Su-pao-Koang, from whose report was derived the first information about the islands which found its way to Europe, was Kang-hi’s commissioner in the year 1719. When in 1859 the house of Seang became extinct in the direct line, Sho-tai, a descendant of Satto, governor of Urasoyé, was called to the throne. On the establishment of the imperial authority of the mikado he received the title of sovereign prince of Lew-chew; but at the same time his territory was declared first a hαn or feudal dependency and afterwards a ken or province of the Japanese monarchy. In 1873, according to a custom with which the lords of Satsuma had not interfered, the people of Lew-chew sent to pay their biennial tribute to China. This was forbidden by the mikado; and it was in vain that they urged—“For five hundred years China has protected us: we regard China as our father, and Japan as our mother.” The Japanese Government insisted on its exclusive rights, and undertook to settle the difficulty with China. Its claims were formally recognized by the treaty of Peking in 1874, and the islands are treated as an integral part of the empire.

See GaubiΓs extracts from Su-pao-Koang in Lettres édifiantes, vol. xxiii.; Klaproth in Mémoires rel. à l’Asie, vol. ii.; Hervey de Saint Denys’s translation of Ma-twan-lin’s Encyclopaedia·, Basil Hall, Toy. of Dis. to the ∏'<∙st Coast of Corea and the Great Loochoo Island, London, 1818; John M l Leod, Voy. of II.M.S. “ Alceste, " London, 1819; George Smith (bishop of Victoria), Lev-chew and the Lew- chewans, London, 1853; Halloran, JΓ<re Yang Jin—Eight Months' Journal, <fcc., London. 1856; Commodore Perry’s Narrative, New York, 1856 (a most important work); E. W. Satow, “Notes on Loo-choo,” in The Phoenix (a monthly magazine for India, <tc.), vol. iii., London, 1872-73; J. J. Hoffmann in Bijdragen tot de T. L. en V. Kunde ran Ned. Ind. ; L. Serrurier, “De Lioe-Kioe Archipel," in Tijdschr. v. het Aardrijksk. Gen. te Amsterdam, 1880 (containing extracts from the Japanese sketch of the geography of Japan, published in 1873 by the minister of war); wells williams's epitome of “Shi Liu-Kiu-Ki,—Journal of -an Envoy to Lew-chew by Li Ting Yuen, 1803,” in Proc, of Roy. As. Soc., North China Branch, 1871; Henry Brunton, “Visit to Okinawa,” in Japan Mail, January 22, 1876; Tournafond, “Les isles Loutschou,” in L^Exploration, 1880; A. v. Klüden in Peteπnann ’ s Mittheil., 1880; Doederlein, “Die Liu-Kiu-Insel Amami Oshima,” in Mittheil. d. deut. Ges. f. Natur-und Völkerk. Ostasiens, Yokohama, 1881.

From various discoveries that have been made of Roman coins, and the traces that still remain of old mounds and tumuli, the town is believed to be of very ancient origin. It was a royal demesne of the South Saxon kings. Mints were established at it by Athelstan, which were in operation till the reign of Harold. At the battle of Lewes, May 13, 1264, Simon de Montfort defeated Henry III. From the time of Edward I. until 1868 the town returned two members to parliament, but now it returns only one.

See, besides the histories of Sussex, Horsfield, History of Lewes, 2 vols., 1824-27, and several interesting papers in the Sussex *4 rchaeo- logical Collection.

LEWES, George Henry (1817-1878), a prolific and versatile writer, born in London in 1817, was a grandson of Charles Lee Lewes, a comedian who had a considerable reputation in his day. He was educated in London, Jersey, and Brittany, and began active life by attempting business and afterwards medicine. Later he appears to have had serious thoughts of making the stage his profession. He finally fixed his choice on a literary career. His early writings belong mainly to the lighter departments of letters. He contributed a large number of critical studies to the leading quarterly and other reviews. These discuss a wide variety of subject, and, though often characterized by hasty impulse and imperfect study, betray a singularly acute critical judgment, which has been enlightened by philosophic study. Of these critical writings the most valuable are those on the drama, which were afterwards republished under the title Actors and Acting (1875). With this may be taken the volume on The Spanish Drama (1846). The combination of wide scholarship, philosophic culture, and practical acquaintance with the theatre gives these essays a high place among the best efforts in English dramatic criticism. In 1845-1846 he published The Biographical History of Philosophy, an attempt to depict the life of philosophers as an ever-renewed fruitless labour to attain the unattainable. In 1847-1848 he made two attempts in the field of fiction— Ranthrope, and Rose, Blanche, and Violet— which, though displaying considerable skill both in plot, construction, and in characterization, have taken no permanent place in literature. The same is to be said of an ingenious attempt to rehabilitate Robespierre (1849). The culmination of the author’s work in prose literature is the Life of Goethe (1855), probably the best known of his writings. Lewes’s many-sidedness of mind, and his combination of scientific with literary tastes, eminently fitted him to appreciate the large nature and the wide-ranging activity of the German poet. The high position this work has taken in Germany itself, notwithstanding the boldness of its criticism and the unpopularity of some of its views (e.y., on the relation of the second to the first part of Faustf is a sufficient testimony to its general excellence. From about 1853 Lewes’s writings show that he was occupying himself with scientific and more particularly biological work. He may be said to have always manifested a distinctly scientific bent in his writings, and his closer devotion to science was but thp following out of early impulses. Considering the author’s want of the usual course of technical training, these studies are a remarkable testimony to the penetration of his intellect. The most important of these essays are collected in the volumes Seaside Studies (1858), Physiology of Common Life (1859), Studies in Animal Life (1862), and Aristotle, a Chapter from the History of Science (1864). They are much more than popular expositions of accepted scientific truths. They contain able criticisms of authorized ideas, and embody the results of individual research and individual reflexion. He struck out a number of impressive suggestions, some of which have since been accepted by physiologists at home and abroad. Of these the most valuable is that now known as the doctrine of the functional indifference of the nerves—that what are known as the specific energies of the optic, auditory, and other nerves are simply differences in their mode of action due to the differences of the peripheral structures or sense-organs with which they are connected. This idea has since been independently arrived at by Wundt {Physiologische Psychologie, 2d ed., p 321). In 1865, on the starting of the Fortnightly Review, Lewes became its editor, but he retained the post for less than two years. This date marks the transition from more strictly scientific to philosophic work. He had from early youth cherished a strong liking for philosophic studies; one of his earliest essays was an appreciative account of Hegel’s Aesthetics. Coming under the influence of positivism as unfolded both in Comte’s own works and in J. S. Mill’s System of Logic, he abandoned all faith in the possibility of metaphysic, and recorded this abandonment in the above-mentioned History of Philosophy. Yet he did not at any time give an unqualified adhesion to Comte’s teaching, and with wider reading and reflexion his mind moved away further from the positivist’s standpoint. In the preface to the third edition of his History of Philosophy he avowed a change in this direction, and this movement is still more plainly discernible in subsequent editions of the work. The final outcome of this intellectual progress is given to us in The Problems of Life and Mind, which may be regarded as the crowning work of his life. His sudden death in 1878 cut short the work, yet it is complete enough to allow us to judge of the author’s matured conceptions on biological, psychological, and metaphysical problems.

The first two volumes on The Foundations of a Creed lay down what he regarded as the true principles of philosophizing. He here seeks to effect a rapprochement between metaphysic and science. He is still so far a positivist as to pronounce all inquiry into the ultimate nature of things fruitless. What matter, form, spirit are in themselves is a futile question that belongs to the sterile region of “metem pirics.” But philosophical questions maybe so stated as to be susceptible of a precise solution by scientific method. Thus, since the relation of subject to object falls within our experience, it is a proper matter for philosophic investigation. It may be questioned whether Lewes is right in thus identifying the methods of science and philosophy. Philosophy is not a mere extension of scientific knowledge; it is an investigation of the nature and validity of the knowing process itself. In any case Lewes cannot be said to have done much to aid in the settlement of properly philosophical questions. His whole treatment of the question of the relation of subject to object is vitiated by a confusion between the scientific truth that mind and body coexist in the living organism and the philosophic truth that all knowledge of objects implies a knowing subject. In other words, to use Mr Shadworth Hodgson’s phrase, he mixes up the question of the genesis of mental forms with the question of their nature (see Philosophy of Reflexion, vol. ii. pp. 40-58). Thus he reaches the “monistic” doctrine that mind and matter are two aspects of the same existence by attending simply to the parallelism between psychical and physical processes given as a fact (or a probable fact) of our experience, and by leaving out of account their relation as subject and object in the cognitive act. His identification of the two as phases of one existence is open to criticism, not only from the point of view of philosophy, but from that of science. In his treatment of such ideas as “sensibility,” “sentience,” and the like, he does not always show whether he is speaking of physical or of psychical phenomena. Among the other properly philosophic questions discussed in these two volumes the nature of the causal relation is perhaps the one which is handled with most freshness and suggestiveness. The third volume, The Physical Basis of Mind, further develops the writer’s views on organic activities as a whole. He insists strongly on the radical distinction between organic and inorganic processes, and on the impossibility of ever explaining the former by purely mechanical principles. With respect to the nervous system, he holds that all its parts have one and the same elementary property, namely, sensibility. Thus sensibility belongs as much to the lower centres of the spinal cord as to the brain, contributing in this more elementary form elements to the “subconscious” region of mental life. The higher functions of the nervous system, which make up our conscious mental life, are merely more complex modifications of this fundamental property of nerve substance. Closely related to this doctrine is the view that the nervous organism acts as a whole, that particular mental operations cannot be referred to definitely circumscribed regions of the brain, and that the hypothesis of nervous activity passing in the centre by an isolated pathway from one nerve-cell to another is altogether illusory. By insisting on the complete coincidence between the regions of nerve-action and sentience, and by holding that these are but different aspects of one thing, lie is able to attack the doctrine of animal and human automatism, which affirms that feeling or consciousness is merely an incidental concomitant of nerve-action, and in no way essential to the chain of physical events. Lewes’s views in psychology, partly opened up in the earlier volumes of the Problems, are more fully worked out in the last two volumes (3d series). He discusses the method of psychology with much insight. He claims against Comte and his followers a place for introspection in psychological research. In addition to this subjective method there must be an objective, which consists partly in a reference to nervous conditions, and partly in the employment of sociological and historical data. Biological knowledge, or a consideration of the organic conditions, would only help us to explain mental functions, as feeling and thinking; it would not assist us fo understand differences of mental faculty as manifested in different races and stages of human development. The organic conditions of these differences will probably for ever escape detection. Hence they can be explained only as the products of the social environment. This idea of dealing with mental phenomena in their relation to social and historical conditions is probably Lewes’s most important contribution to psychology. Among other points which he emphasizes is the complexity of mental phenomena. Every mental state is regarded as compounded of three factors in different proportions— namely, a process of sensible affection, of logical grouping, and of motor impulse. But Lewes’s work in psychology consists less in any definite discoveries than in the inculcation of a sound and just method. His biological training prepared him to view mind as a complex unity, in which the various functions interact one on the other, and of which the highest processes are identical with and evolved out of the lower. Thus the operations of thought, or “the logic of signs,” are merely a more complicated form of the elementary operations of sensation and instinct, or “the logic of feeling.” The whole of the last volume of the Problems may be said to be an illustration of this position. It is a valuable repository of psychological facts, many of them drawn from the more obscure regions of mental life and from abnormal experience, and is throughout suggestive and stimulating. To suggest, and to stimulate the mind, rather than to supply it with any complete system of knowledge, may be said to be Lewes’s service in philosophy. The exceptional rapidity and versatility of his intelligence seems to account at once for the freshness in his way of envisaging the subject-matter of philosophy and psychology, and for the want of satisfactory elaboration and of systematic co-ordination.

LEWIS, Sir George Cornewall, Bart. (1806-1863), statesman and man of letters, was born in London on 21st April 1806. l·Iis father, Thomas F. Lewis of Harpton Court, Radnorshire, after holding subordinate office in various administrations became a poor-law commissioner. He was made a baronet in 1846. Lewis was educated at Eton, and at Christ Church, Oxford, where in 1828 he took a first-class in classics and a second-class in mathematics. He then entered the Middle Temple, and was called to the bar in 1831. In the year before he had, with John Romilly and John Stuart Mill, attended the celebrated lectures on jurisprudence delivered by John Austin at London University. In 1832 he undertook his first public work as one of the commissioners to inquire into the condition of the poor Irish residents in the United Kingdom. Again, in 1834, Lord Althorp included him in the commission to inquire into the state of church property and church affairs generally in Ireland. To this fact we owe his work on Local Disturbances in Ireland, and the Irish Church Question (London, 1836), in which he condemned the existing connexion between church and state, proposed a state provision for the Catholic clergy, and maintained the necessity of an efficient workhouse organization. During this period of apprenticeship to politics Lewis’s mind was much occupied with the phenomena of language. Before leaving college he had published some observations on Whately’s doctrine of the predicables, and soon afterwards he assisted Thirlwall and Hare in starting the Philological Museum. Its successor, the Classical Museum, he also supported by occasional contributions. In 1835 he published an Essay on the Origin and Formation of the liomance Languages (re-edited in 1862), which, though anticipated by Schlegel, may be taken as the first effective criticism in England of Raynouard’s theory of a uniform romance tongue, represented by the poetry of the troubadours. He also set an excellent example to county gentlemen by compiling a glossary of provincial words used in Herefordshire and the adjoining counties. But the most important work of this earlier period was one to which his logical and philological tastes both contributed. The Remarks on the Use and Abuse of some Political Terms (London, 1832) may have been suggested by Bentham’s Look of Parliamentary Fallacies, but it shows all that power of clear sober original thinking which marks his larger and later political works. And yet this original mind did more than most scholars in the humbler walk of useful translation. He translated Boeckh’s Public Economy of Athens and Miiller’s History of Greek Literature, and he assisted Tufnell in the translation of Miiller’s Dorians. Some time afterwards he edited a text of the Fables of Babrius. While his friend Hayward conducted the Law Magazine, he wrote in it frequently on such subjects as secondary punishments and the penitentiary system. In 1836, at the request of Lord Glenelg, he accompanied John Austin to Malta, where they spent nearly two years reporting on the condition of the island and framing a new code of laws. One leading object of both commissioners was to associate the Maltese in the responsible government of the dependency. On his return to England Lewis succeeded his father as one of the principal poor-law commissioners. But his literary activity did not cease. In 1841 appeared the Essay on the Government of Dependencies, a systematic statement and discussion of the various relations in which colonies may stand towards the mother country. In 1844 Lewis married Lady Maria Theresa Lister, sister of Lord Clarendon, and a lady of literary tastes. Much of their married life was spent in Kent House, Knightsbridge. They had no children. In 1847 Lewis resigned his office. He was then returned for the county of Hereford, and Lord John Russell appointed him secretary to the Board of Control, but a few months afterwards he became under secretary to the Home Office. In this capacity he introduced two important bills, one for the abolition of turnpike trusts and the management of highways by a mixed county board, the other for the purpose of defining and regulating the law of parochial assessment. On the latter subject his evidence before the select committee (Lords) of 1850 is the clearest statement of general results which we have. In that year he succeeded Hayter as financial secretary to the Treasury. About this time, also, appeared his Essay on the Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion. Lewis seems to have thought that authority was too much divided to be of much use in theological matters, while in the world of science he found sufficient authority for declaring that homoeopathy, mesmerism, and phrenology were all impostures. On the dissolution of parliament which followed the resignation of Lord John Russell’s ministry in 1852, Lewis was defeated for Herefordshire and then for Peterborough. Excluded from parliament he accepted the editorship of the Edinburgh Review, which the death of Empson had left vacant. Lord Halifax offered him, in 1853, the governorship of Bombay, but he remained editor until 1855. During this period he did some public work on the Oxford commission, and on the commission to inquire into the government of London. But its chief fruits were the Treatise on the Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, and the Enquiry into the Credibility of the Early Roman History, in which he vigorously attacks the theory of epic lays and other theories on which Niebuhr’s reconstruction of that history had proceeded. In 1855 Lewis succeeded his father in the baronetcy. He was at once elected member for the Radnor boroughs, and Lord Palmerston made him chancellor of the exchequer. The position was difficult, for he had a war loan to contract and heavy additional taxation to impose. But his industry, method, and clear vision carried him safely through. His financial statement of 13th February 1857, and his speech on 12th February

1858 on the bill for the better government of India were most successful efforts. After the change of ministry in

1859 Sir George became home secretary under Lord Palmerston, and in 1861, much against his wish, he succeeded Sidney Herbert (Lord Herbert of Lea) at the War Office. The closing years of his life were marked by increasing intellectual vigour. In 1859 he published an able Essay on Foreign Jurisdiction and the Extradition of Criminals, a subject to which the attempt on Napoleon’s life, the discussions on the Conspiracy Bill, and the trial of Bernard, had drawn general attention. He advocated the extension of extradition treaties, and condemned the principal idea of Weltrechtsordnung which Mohl of Heidelberg had proposed. His two latest works were the Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients, in which, without professing any knowledge of Oriental languages, he applies a sceptical analysis to the ambitious Egyptology of Bunsen; and the Dialogue on the Best Form of Government, in which, under the name of Crito, the author points out to the supporters of the various systems that there is no one abstract government which is the best possible for all times and places. An essay on the Characteristics of Federal, National, Provincial, and Municipal Government does not seem to have been published. Sir George died in April 1863. A marble bust by Weekes stands in Westminster Abbey. He has two other monuments—the reprint from the Edinburgh Review of his long series of papers on the Administrations of Great Britain (1864), and his Letters to various Friends (1870), edited by his brother, who succeeded him in the baronetcy.

Lewis was a man of mild and affectionate disposition, much beloved by a large circle of friends, among whom were Sir E. Head, the Grotes, the Austins, Lord Stanhope, J. S. Mill, Dean Milman, the Duff Gordons. In public life he was distinguished, says Lord Aberdeen, “for candour, moderation, love of truth.” He had a passion for the systematic acquirement of knowledge, and a keen and sound critical faculty. Nothing is more remarkable than the practical good sense of his speculative writings. Sometimes he betrayed a slight intellectual impatience: but this was merely the passing irritation of a healthy and modest judgment.

LEWIS, Matthew Gregory (1775 -1818),often referred to as “Monk” Lewis, was born in London on July 9, 1775. He was educated for a diplomatic career at Westminster School and at Christ Church, Oxford, spending most of his vacations abroad in the study of modern languages; and in 1794 he proceeded to the Hague as attaché to the British embassy. His stay there lasted only a few months, but was marked by the composition, in ten weeks, of Ambrosio, or the Monk, which was published in the summer of the following year. It immediately achieved extensive celebrity; but some passages it contained were of such a nature that about a year after its appearance an injunction to restrain its sale was moved for and a rule nisi obtained. Lewis published a second edition from which he had expunged, as he thought, all the objectionable passages, but the work still remains of such a character as almost to justify the severe language in which the author of English Bards and Scotch Reviewers addresses—

“Wonder-working Lewis, Monk or Bard,

Who fain would’st make Parnassus a churchyard; Even Satan’s self with thee might dread to dwell, And in thy skull discern a deeper hell.”

Whatever its demerits, ethical or aesthetic, may have been, The Monk did not interfere with the reception of Lewis into the best English society; he was favourably noticed at court, and almost as soon as he came of age he obtained a seat in the House of Commons as member for Hindon, Wilts. After some years, however, during which he never ventured to address the House, he finally withdrew from a parliamentary career. His tastes lay wholly in the direction of literature, and The Castle Spectre (1796, a musical drama of no great literary merit, but which enjoyed a long popularity on the stage), The Minister (a translation from Schiller’s Kabale u. Liebe), Rolla (1797, a translation from Kotzebue), with numerous other operatic and tragic pieces, appeared in rapid succession. The Bravo of Venice, a romance translated from the German, was published in 1804, and has since been reprinted; next to The Monkù is the work connected with the name of Lewis which has been most extensively read. By the death of his father he succeeded to a large fortune, and in 1815 embarked for the West Indies to visit his estates; in the course of this tour, which lasted four months, the Journal of a West Indian Proprietor, published posthumously in 1833, was written. A second visit to Jamaica was undertaken in 1817, in order that he might become further acquainted with, and able to ameliorate, the condition of the slave population; but the fatigues to which he exposed himself in the tropical climate brought on a fever which terminated fatally on the homeward voyage, May 14,1818. The Life and Correspondence of JL G. Lewis, in two volumes, was published anonymously in 1839; compiled by friendly hands, it makes it sufficiently plain that, whatever may have been the errors of judgment and taste displayed in the writings of his precocious youth, he was nevertheless a man of more than ordinary discretion, good feeling, and generosity.

LEWIS, Meriwether (1774-1809), American explorer, was born near Charlottesville, Virginia, August 18, 1774. In 1794 he volunteered with the troops called out to suppress the “whisky insurrection,” was commissioned as ensign in the regular army in 1795, and as captain in 1800, and was President Jefferson’s private secretary from 1801 to 1803. On Jefferson’s recommendation he was appointed by Congress to conduct, in connexion with Captain William Clarke, an expedition to the headwaters of the Missouri river, and thence across the mountains to the Pacific Ocean—the first extended exploration of the north-western portion of the *United States. The States had as yet acquired no claim to this region, and the exploration was designed by Jefferson in the interests not only of geographical science but of territorial acquisition. Lewis and Clarke, setting out late in 1803 with twenty-eight men, spent the winter at the mouth of the Missouri. Early in the spring the party embarked in several boats, and during the summer made the difficult ascent of the Missouri as far as 47° 2Γ N. lat., where the second winter was passed among the Mandan Indians. In 1805 the ascent of the Missouri was continued as far as the tributary which they named Jefferson river, which was followed to its source in the south-western part of what is now Montana territory. Procuring a guide and horses from the Shoshone Indians, they pushed westward through the mountains, and on October 7 embarked in canoes on a tributary of the Columbia river, the mouth of which they reached on November 15. They had travelled upwards of 4000 miles from their starting point, had encountered various Indian tribes never before seen by whites, had made scientific collections and observations, and were the first explorers to reach the Pacific by crossing the continent north of Mexico. After spending the winter upon the Columbia, they made the return journey across the mountains and down the Missouri, reaching the Mississippi in September 1806. The reports of the Lewis and Clarke expedition attracted great attention at the time, and it has scarcely been exceeded in romantic interest by later explorations in any quarter of the globe. The leaders and men of the exploring party were rewarded with liberal grants of land, and Lewis was made governor of the territory of Missouri. In the unwonted quiet of his new duties his mind, always subject to melancholy, became unbalanced, and, while on his way to Washington, he committed suicide near Nashville, Tennessee, October 11, 1809.

Jefferson wrote a memoir of Lewis, published in 1814 in connexion with Biddle and Alien’s Narrative of the Lewis and Clarke Expedition. A new edition by M i Vickar was published at New York in 1843.