Hunt’s arrival in Italy was almost immediately followed by the tragic death of Shelley, which destroyed every prospect of success for the Liberal. Hunt was now virtually a dependant upon Byron, whose least amiable qualities were called forth by the relation of patron to an unsympathetic dependant, burdened with a large and troublesome family, and who was moreover incessantly wounded in the most sensitive part by the representations of his friends that he was losing caste by the connexion. The Liberal lived through four quarterly numbers, containing contributions no less memorable than Byron’s “Vision of Judgment” and Shelley’s translations from Faust·, but it produced little effect on the whole, and in 1823 Byron sailed for Greece, leaving his coadjutor at Genoa to shift for himself. The Italian climate and manners, however, were entirely to Hunt’s taste, and he protracted his residence until 1825, producing in the interim his matchless translation of Redi’s Bacco in Toscana, and the religious work subsequently published under the title of The Religion of the Heart. In 1825 an unfortunate litigation with his brother brought him back to England, and in 1827 he committed the greatest mistake of his life by the publication of his Lord Byron and his Contemporaries. The work is of considerable value as a corrective of merely idealized estimates of Lord Byron. But such a corrective should not have come from one who had lain under obligations to Byron, however trifling, or however they might seem to be cancelled by subsequent unkindness. Leigh Hunt should also have considered that the materials for his estimate of Byron were chiefly afforded by a residence under Byron’s own roof. Apart from its obvious impropriety, the publication in itself is in general petty and carping. Hunt’s attitude towards Byron is always that of the inferior; in proportion, therefore, as Byron is made to look small, Hunt appears still smaller. The book’s reception was even more unfavourable than its deserts. British manliness and British cant were for once equally shocked, and the author especially writhed under the withering satire of Moore. For many years ensuing, the history of Hunt’s life is that of a painful struggle with poverty and sickness. He worked unremittingly, but one effort failed after another. Two periodical ventures, the Tatler and ∖A∖q* London Journal, were discontinued for want of subscribers, although in the latter Leigh Hunt had able coadjutors, and it contained some of his best writing. His editorship of the Monthly Repository, in which he succeeded W. J. Fox, was also unsuccessful. The adventitious circumstances which had for a time made the fortune of the Examiner no longer existed, and Hunt’s strong and weak points, his refinement and his affectations, were alike unsuited to the general body of readers. Sir Ralph Esher, a romance of Charles the Second’s period, was more successful, and Captain Sword and Captain Pen, a spirited contrast between the victories of peace and the victories of war, deserves to be ranked among his best poems. In 1840 his circumstances were improved by the successful representation of his Legend of Florence, a play of great merit, although it has not maintained itself upon the stage. Lover's Amazements, a comedy, was acted several years afterwards; and other plays are extant in MS. The pretty narrative poem of The Palfrey was published in 1842; and about this time he began to write for the Edinburgh Review. In 1844 he was further benefited by the generosity of Mrs Shelley and her son, the present baronet, who, on succeeding to the family estates, settled an annuity of £120 upon him; and in 1847 Lord John Russell procured him a civil list pension of £200. The fruits of the improved comfort and augmented leisure of these latter years were visible in the production of some charming volumes. Foremost among these are the companion books, Imagination and Fancy and Wit and Humour. In these Leigh Hunt shows himself as within a certain range the most refined, appreciative, and felicitous of critics. Homer and Milton may be upon the whole beyond his reach, though even here he is great in the detection of minor and unapprehended beauties; with Spenser and the old English dramatists he is perfectly at home, and his subtle and discriminating criticism upon them, as well as upon his own great contemporaries, is continually bringing to light beauties unsuspected by the reader, as they were probably undesigned by the writer. His companion volume on the pastoral poetry of Sicily, quaintly entitled À Jar of Honey from Mount Hybla, is almost equally delightful. The Town and Men, Women, and Rooks are partly made up from former material. The Old Court Suburb is an anecdotic sketch of Kensington, where he long resided before his final removal to Hammersmith. In 1850 he published his autobiography, a naive and accurate piece of self-portraiture, full of affectations, but on that very account free from the affectation of unreality. It is more chary of portraits of contemporaries than might have been expected, but contains very detailed accounts of some of the most interesting periods of the author’s life, his education at Christ’s Hospital, his imprisonment, and his residence in Italy. In 1855 his narrative poems, original and translated, were collected under the title of Stories in Verse, with an interesting preface. He died at Putney, on August 28, 1859.

The character of Leigh Hunt is not easy to delineate, not from any difficulty of recognizing or harmonizing its leading features, but from that of depicting the less admirable traits in a manner consistent with the affection and respect to which it is entitled on the whole. His virtues were charming rather than imposing or brilliant; he had no vices, but very many foibles. His great misfortune was that these foibles were for the most part of an undignified sort, and, though it may seem a paradox, that they were so harmless, and on so miniature a scale. Leigh Hunt’s affectation, for example, is not comparable to Byron’s, or his egotism to Wordsworth’s, and therefore its very pettiness excites a sensation of the ludicrous which the colossal self-consciousness of his contemporaries does not produce. The very sincerity of his nature is detrimental to him; the whole man seems to be revealed in everything he ever wrote, and hence the most beautiful productions of his pen appear in a manner tainted by his really very pardonable weaknesses. Some of these, such as his helplessness in money matters, and his facility in accepting the obligations which he would have delighted to confer, were unfortunately of a nature to involve him in painful and humiliating embarrassments, which seem to have been aggravated by the mismanagement of those around him. The notoriety of these things has deprived him of much of the honour due to him for his fortitude under the severest calamities, for his unremitting literary industry under the most discouraging circumstances, and for his uncompromising independence as a journalist and an author. It was his misfortune to be involved in politics, for which he had little vocation, and which embroiled him with many with whom he would otherwise have been on good terms. “Though I was a politician,” he says himself, “I had scarcely a political work in my library. Spensers and Arabian Tales filled up the shelves.” He was in fact as thorough a man of letters as ever existed, and most of his failings were more or less incidental to that character. But it is not every consummate man of letters of whom it can be unhesitatingly affirmed that he was brave, just, and pious.

Leigh Hunt’s character as an author was the counterpart of his character as a man. In some respects his literary position is unique. Few men have effected so much by mere exquisiteness of taste in the absence of high creative power; fewer still, so richly endowed with taste, have so frequently and conspicuously betrayed the want of it. As Wordsworth could never see where simplicity of poetic diction lapsed into mere prose, so Hunt was incapable of discovering where familiarity became flippancy. While Wordsworth, however, is at worst wearisome, Hunt is sometimes positively offensive to fastidious readers. This observation principally refers to his poetry, which, in spite of such vexatious flaws, nevertheless possesses a brightness, animation, artistic symmetry, and metrical harmony, which lift the author out of the rank of minor poets, particularly when the influence of his example upon his contemporaries is taken into account. He excelled especially in narrative poetry, of which, upon a small scale, there are probably no better examples in our language than “Abou ben Adhem” and “Solomon’s Ring.” He possessed every qualification for a translator, and it is to be regretted that his performances in that department are not more numerous and sustained. As an appreciative critic, whether literary or dramatic, he is hardly equalled; his guidance is as safe as it is genial. The no less important vocation of a censor was uncongenial to his gentle nature, and was rarely essayed by him.

The principal authorities for Leigh Hunt’s life are his Autobiography, published in 1850, and reprinted since his death with additions and corrections, and the two volumes of his Correspondence, published with a connecting thread of biography by his son in 1862. The references to him in the writings and biographies of his contemporaries are innumerable. A full bibliography of his w orks, with excellent remarks, has been published by Mr Alexander Ireland. (R∙ G.)

HUNT, William Henry (1790-1864), water-colour painter, was born near Long Acre, London, March 28, 1790. Overcoming the usual parental objections, he was apprenticed about 1805 to John Varley, the landscape-painter, with whom he remained five or six years, exhibiting three oil pictures at the Royal Academy in 1807. He was early connected with the society of painters in water-colour, of which body, then in a transition state, he was elected associate in 1824, and full member in 1827. To its exhibitions he was until the year of his death one of the most prolific contributors. Many years of Hunt’s uneventful and industrious life were passed at Hastings. He died of apoplexy, February 10, 1864.

Hunt was one of the creators of the English school of water-colour painting. His subjects, especially those of his later life, are extremely simple; but, by the delicacy, humour, and fine power.of their treatment, they take rank second to works of the highest art only. Considered technically, his works exhibit all the resources of the water-colour painter’s craft, from the purest transparent tinting to the boldest use of body-colour, rough paper, and scraping for texture. His sense of colour is perhaps as true as that of any English artist. “He was,” says Ruskin, “take him for all in all, the finest painter of still life that ever existed.” Several fine and characteristic examples of Hunt’s work, as the Boy and Goat, Brown Study, and Plums, Primroses, and Birds’ Nests, are in the water-colour galleries at South Kensington.

Hard-working, and singularly patient and skilful in dissection, Hunter had by his second winter in London acquired sufficient anatomical knowledge to be entrusted with the charge of his brother’s practical class, with the members of which, as also with the resurrection men, he was a universal favourite. In the summer months of 1749-50, at Chelsea Military Hospital, he attended the lectures and operations of Cheselden, on whose retirement in the following year he became a surgeon’s pupil at St Bartholomew’s, where Pott was one of the senior surgeons. In the summer of 1752 he visited Scotland. Home and, following him, Ottley state that Hunter began in 1754 to assist his brother as his partner in lecturing; according, however, to the European Magazine for 1782, the office of lecturer was offered to Hunter by his brother in 1758, but declined by him on account of the “insuperable embarrass* ments and objections” which he felt to speaking in public. In 1754 he became a surgeon’s pupil at St George’s Hospital, where he was appointed house-surgeon in 1756. During the period of his connexion with Dr Hunter’s school he, in addition to other labours, solved the problem of the descent of the testis in the foetus, traced the ramifications of the nasal and olfactory nerves within the nose, experimentally tested the questionwhetherveins could act as absorbents, studied the formation of pus, and the nature of the placental circulation, and with his brother earned the chief merit of practically proving the function and importance of the lymphatics in the animal economy. On June 5, 1755, he was induced to enter as a gentleman commoner at St Mary’s Hall, Oxford, but his true instincts would not permit him, to use his own expression, “to stuff Latin and Greek at the university.” Some three and thirty years later he thus significantly wrote of an opponent:—“Jesse Foot accuses me of not understanding the dead languages; but I could teach him that on the dead body which he never knew in any language dead or living.” Doubtless, however, linguistic studies would have served to correct in him what was perhaps a natural defect—a difficulty in the presentation of abstract ideas which was not wholly attributable to the novelty of his doctrines.

An attack of inflammation of the lungs in the spring of 1759, apparently caused by overwork, having produced symptoms threatening consumption, by which the promising medical career of his brother James had been cut short, Hunter, with a view to residence abroad for a season, obtained from Mr Adair in October 1760 the appointment of staff-surgeon in Hodgson and Keppel’s expedition to Belleisle. With this he sailed in 1761. In the following year he served with the English forces on the frontier of Portugal. Whilst with the army he acquired the extensive knowledge of gunshot wounds embodied in his important treatise on that subject, published in 1794, in which, amongst other matters of moment, he insists on the rejection of the indiscriminate practice of dilating with the knife followed almost universally by surgeons of his time. When not engaged in the active duties of his profession, he occupied himself with physiological and other scientific researches. Thus, in 1761, off Belleisle, the conditions of the coagulation of the blood were among the subjects of his inquiries. Later, on land, he continued the study of human anatomy, and arranged his notes and memoranda on inflammation; he also ascertained by experiment that digestion does not take place in snakes and lizards during hibernation, and observed that enforced vigorous movement at that season proves fatal to such animals, the waste so occasioned not being compensated, whence he drew the inference that, in the diminution of the power of a part attendant on mortification, resort to stimulants which increase action without giving real strength is inadvisable. A MS. catalogue by Hunter, probably written soon after his return from Portugal, shows that he had already made a collection of about two hundred specimens of natural and morbid structures.

On arriving in England early in 1763, Hunter, having retired from the army on half-pay, took a house in Golden Square, and commenced the career of a London surgeon. Most of the metropolitan practice at the time was held by Pott, C. Hawkins, Sharpe, Warner, Adair, and Tomkins; and Hunter sought to eke out his at first slender income by teaching practical anatomy and operative surgery to a private class. His leisure was devoted to the study of comparative anatomy, to procure subjects for which he obtained the refusal of animals dying in the Tower menagerie and in various travelling zoological collections. In connexion with his rupture of a tendo Achillis, in 1767, he performed on dogs several experiments which, with the illustrations in his museum of the reunion of such structures after division, laid the foundation of the modern practice of cutting through tendons for the relief of distorted and contracted joints. In the same year he was made a fellow of the Royal Society. His first contribution to the· Philosophical Transactions, with the exception of a supplement to a paper by J. Ellis in the volume for 1766, was an essay on post-mortem digestion of the stomach, written at the request of Sir J. Pringle, and read June 18, 1772, in which he first correctly explained that phenomenon as a result of the action of the gastric juice. Hunter, on December 9, 1768, was elected a surgeon to St George’s Hospital, and, soon after, a member of the Corporation of Surgeons. He now began to take house-pupils. Among these were Edward Jenner, who came to him in 1770, and until the time of Hunter’s death corresponded with him on the most intimate and affectionate terms, W. Guy, Kingston, Dr Physick of Philadelphia, and Everard Home, his brother-in-law. Mr Lynn and Sir A. Carlisle, though not inmates of his house, were frequent visitors there. His pupils at

St George’s included Abernethy, Cline, James Earle, and Astley Cooper. From the high reputation in their profession which these one and all attained, some estimate may be formed of the weight and value of Hunter’s personal influence and teaching. In 1770 he settled in Jermyn Street, in the house which his brother William had previously occupied; and in July 1771 he married Anne, the eldest daughter of Mr Robert Home, surgeon to Burgoyne’s regiment of light-horse.

From 1772 till his death Hunter resided during autumn at a house built by him at Earl’s Court, Brompton, where most of his biological researches were carried on. There he kept for the purpose of study and experiment the fishes, lizards, blackbirds, hedgehogs, and other animals sent him from time to time by Jenner, tame pheasants and partridges, at least one eagle, toads, silkworms, * and many more creatures obtained from every quarter of the globe. Bees he had under observation in his conservatory for upwards of twenty years; hornets and wasps were also diligently studied by him. On two occasions his life was in risk from his pets—once in wrestling with a young bull, and again when he fearlessly took back to their dens two leopards which had broken loose among his dogs. Choosing intuitively the only true method of philosophical discovery, Hunter, ever cautious of confounding fact and hypothesis, besought of nature the truth through the medium of manifold experiments and observations. “He had never read Bacon,” says Babington, “but his mode of studying nature was as strictly Baconian as if he had.” To Jenner, who had offered a conjectural explanation of a phenomenon, he writes, August 2, 1775: “I think your solution is just; but why think? why not try the experiment? Repeat all the experiments upon a hedgehog as soon as you receive this, and they will give you the solution.” Perhaps no man busily engaged in professional practice has ever conducted so many physiological and pathological investigations in the animal world as Hunter; and yet it was with him an axiom “that experiments should not be often repeated which tend merely to establish a principle already known and admitted, but that the next step should be the application of that principle to useful purposes” (“Anim. Oecon.,” Works, iv. 86). During fifteen years he kept a flock of geese simply in order to acquaint himself with the development of birds in eggs, with reference to which he remarked—“It would almost appear that this mode of propagation was intended for investigation.” In his toxicological and other researches, in which his experience had led him to believe that the effects of noxious drugs are nearly similar in the brute creation and in man, he had already, in 1780, as he states, “poisoned some thousands of animals.”

By inserting shot at definite distances in the leg-bones of young pigs, and also by feeding them with madder, by which all fresh osseous deposits are tinged, Hunter obtained evidence that bones increase in size, not by the intercalation of new amongst old particles, as had been imagined by Duhamel, but by means of additions to their extremities and circumference, excess of calcareous tissue being removed by the absorbents. Some of his most extraordinary experiments were to illustrate the relation of strength of constitution to sex. He exchanged the spurs of a young cock and a young pullet, and found that on the former the transplanted structure grew to a fair size, on the latter but little; whereas a spur from one leg of a cock transferred to its comb, a part well supplied with blood, grew more than twice as fast as that left on the other leg. Another experiment of his, which required many trials for success, was the engrafting of a human incisor on the comb of a cock. The uniting of parts of different animals when brought into contact he attributed to the production of adhesive instead of suppurative inflammation, owing to their possession of “the simple living principle.” The effects of habit upon structure were illustrated by Hunter’s observation that in a sea-gull which he had brought to feed on barley the muscular parietes of the gizzard became greatly thickened. A. similar phenomenon was noticed by him in the case of other carnivorous birds fed on a vegetable diet.

It was in 1772 that Hunter, in order effectually to gauge the extent of his own knowledge, and also to correctly express his views, which had been repeatedly misstated or ascribed to others, commenced his lectures on the theory and practice of surgery, at first delivered free to his pupils and a few friends, but subsequent to 1774 on the usual terms, four guineas. Though Pott, indeed, had perceived that the only true system of surgery is that which most closely accords with the curative efforts of nature, a rational pathology can hardly be said to have had at this time any existence; and it was generally assumed that a knowledge of anatomy alone was a sufficient foundation for the study of surgery. Hunter, unlike his contemporaries, to most of whom his philosophic habit of thought was a mystery, and whose books contained little else than relations of cases, and modes of treatment, sought the reason for each phenomenon that came under his notice. The principles of surgery, he maintained, are not less necessary to be understood than the principles of other sciences; unless, indeed, the surgeon should wish to resemble “the Chinese philosopher whose knowledge consisted only in facts.” In that case the science must remain unimproved until fresh facts arise. Too much attention, he remarked, cannot be paid to facts; yet a multitude of facts overcrowd the memory without advantage if they do not lead us to establish principles, by an acquaintance with which we learn the causes of diseases. Hunter’s course, which latterly comprised eighty-six lectures, delivered on alternate evenings between the hours of seven and eight, lasted from October to April. Some teachers of his time were content to dismiss the subjects of anatomy and surgery in a course of only six weeks’ duration. The task of lecturing is said to have been to Hunter so formidable that at the commencement of each course he was obliged to take half a drachm of laudanum. His class was usually small, and never exceeded thirty. Among its members at various times were Abernethy, Carlisle, Chevalier, Cline, Coleman, Astley Cooper, Home, Lynn, and Macartney. Hunter was deficient in the gifts of a good extempore speaker, being in this respect a remarkable contrast to his brother William; and he read his lectures, seldom raising his eyes from the manuscript. His manner with his auditory is stated to have been embarrassed and awkward, or, as Adams puts it (Obs. on Morbid Pois., p. 272), “frequently ungraceful,” and his language always unadorned; but that his “expressions for the explaining of his new theories rendered his lectures often unintelligible” is scarcely evident in his pupils’ notes still extant. His own and others’ errors and fallacies were exposed with equal freedom in his teaching. Occasionally he would tell his pupils, “You had better not write down that observation, for very likely I shall think differently next year;” and once to a question of Coleman’s he replied, “Never ask me what I have said or what I have written; but, if you will ask me what my present opinions are, I will tell you.” He was always much gratified when, in the conversations that he encouraged his hearers to hold with him at the end of his lectures, he found that what he said was understood and appreciated.

In January 1776 Hunter was appointed surgeon-extraordinary to the king. He commenced in the same year hia Croonian lectures on muscular motion, continued annually, except in 1777, till 1782: they were never published by him, being in his opinion too incomplete. In 1778 appeared the second part of his Treatise on the Natural History of the Human Teeth, the first part of which was published in 1771. It was in the waste of the dental alveoli and of the fangs of shedding teeth that in 1754-55, as he tells us, he received his first hint of the use of the absorbents. Abernethy {Phys. Lect., p. 196) relates that Hunter, being once asked how he could suppose it possible for absorbents to do such things as he attributed to them, replied, “Nay, I know not, unless they possess powers similar to those which a caterpillar exerts when feeding on a leaf.” Hunter in 1780 read before the Royal Society a paper in which he laid claim to have been the first to make out the nature of the utero-placental circulation. His brother William, who had five years previously described the same in his Anatomy of the Gravid Uterus, thereupon wrote to the Society attributing to himself this honour. John Hunter in a rejoinder to his brother’s letter, dated February 17, 1780, reiterated his former statement, viz., that his discovery, on the evening of the day in 1754 that he had made it in a specimen injected by a Dr Mackenzie, had been communicated by him to Dr Hunter. Thus arose an estrangement between the two Hunters, which continued until the time of William’s last illness, when his brother obtained permission to visit him.

In 1783 Hunter was elected a member of the Royal Society of Medicine and of the Royal Academy of Surgery at Paris, and took part in the formation of “A Society for the Improvement of Medical and Chirurgical Knowledge.” It appears from a letter by Hunter that in the latter part of 1783 he, with Jenner, had the subject of colour-blindness under consideration. As in that year the lease of his premises in Jermyn Street was to expire, he purchased the twenty-four years’ leasehold of two houses, the one on the east side of Leicester Square, the other in Castle Street, with intervening ground. Between the houses he built in 1783-85, at an expense of above £3000, a museum for his anatomical and other collections. These by 1782 had cost him £10,000, and contained preparations of numerous specimens presented by Sir Joseph Banks, the Honourable C. Greville, and Mr Walsh. The new edifice consisted of a hall 52 feet long by 28 feet wide, and lighted from the top, with a gallery all round, and having beneath it a lecture theatre, and a room used subsequently for the meetings of the Lycaeum Medicum, a society instituted by Hunter and Fordyce. In April 1785 Hunter’s collections were removed into it under the superintendence of Home and Bell, and another assistant, André. Among the foreigners of distinction that inspected the museum, which was now shown by Hunter twice a year,—in October to medical men, and in May to other visitors,—were Blumenbach, Camper, Poli, and Scarpa. In the acquisition of subjects for his varied biological investigations and of specimens for his museum, expense was a matter of small moment with Hunter. Thus at one time he endeavoured, at his own cost, to obtain information respecting the Cetacea by sending out a surgeon to the North in a Greenland whaler. He is said, moreover, to have given, in June 1783, no less than .£500 for the body of O’Brien, or Byrne, the Irish giant, whose skeleton, 7 feet 7 inches high, is so conspicuous an object in the museum of the College of Surgeons of London.

Hunter, who in the spring of 1769-72 had suffered from gout, in spring 1773 from spasm apparently in the pyloric region, accompanied by failure of the heart’s action (Ottley, Life, p. 44), and in 1777 from vertigo with symptoms of angina pectoris, had in 1783 another attack of the last mentioned complaint, to which he was henceforward subject when under anxiety or excitement...

The information we possess as to the field sports of the ancients is in many directions extremely fragmentary. With regard to the ancient Egyptians, however, we learn that the huntsmen constituted an entire subdivision of the great second caste; they either followed the chase on their own account, or acted as the attendants of the chiefs in their hunting excursions, taking charge of the dogs, and securing and bringing home the game. The game was sought in the open deserts which border on both sides the valley of the Nile; but (by the wealthy) sometimes in enclosed spaces into which the animals had been driven, or in preserves. Besides the noose and the net, the arrow, the dart, and the hunting pole or venabulum were frequently employed. The animals chiefly hunted were the gazelle, ibex, oryx, stag, wild ox, wild sheep, hare, and porcupine; also the ostrich for its plumes, and the fox, jackal, wolf, hyaena, and leopard for their skins, or as enemies of the farm-yard. The lion was occasionally trained as a hunting anima] instead of the dog. The sportsman appears, occasionally at least, in the later periods, to have gone to cover in his chariot or on horseback; according to Wilkinson, when the dogs threw off in a level plain of great extent, it was even usual for him “to remain in his chariot, and, urging his horses to their full speed, endeavour to turn or intercept them as they doubled, discharging a well-directed arrow whenever they came within its range.” The partiality for the chase which the ancient Egyptians manifested was shared by the Assyrians and Babylonians, as is shown by the frequency with which hunting scenes are found depicted on the walls of their temples and palaces, and also by the alleged fact that even their dresses and furniture were ornamented with similar subjects. The game pursued included the lion, the wild ass, the gazelle, and the hare, and the implements chiefly employed seem to have been the javelin and the bow. There are indications that hawking was also known. The Assyrian kings also maintained magnificent parks, or “paradises,” in which game of every kind was enclosed; and perhaps it was from them that the Persian sovereigns borrowed the practice mentioned both by Xenophon in the Cyropoedia, and by Curtius. According to Herodotus, Cyrus devoted the revenue of four great towns to meet the expenses of his hunting establishments. The circumstances under which the death of the son of Croesus is by the same writer (i. 34-45) related to have occurred incidentally show in what high estimation the recreation of hunting was held in Lydia. In Palestine game has always been plentiful, and the Biblical indications that it was much sought and duly appreciated are numerous. As means of capture, nets, traps, snares, and pitfalls are most frequently alluded to; but the arrow (Isa. vii. 24), the spear, and the dart (Job xli. 26-29) are also mentioned. There is no evidence that the use of the dog (Jos., Ant., iv. 8, 10, notwithstanding) or of the horse in hunting was known among the Jews during the period covered by the Old Testament history; Herod, however, was a keen and successful sportsman, and is recorded by Josephus (Ae J., i. 21, 13, compare Ant., xv. 7, 7; xvi. 10, 3) to have killed no fewer than forty head of game (boar, wild ass, deer) in one day. The sporting tastes of the ancient Greeks, as may be gathered from many references in Homer (ZZ.,ix. 538-545; Od., ix. 120; xvii. 295, 316; xix. 429 sq.), had developed themselves at a very early period; they first found adequate literary expression in the work of Xenophon entitled Cynegeticus, z which expounds his principles and embodies his experience in his favourite art of hunting. The treatise chiefly deals with the capture of the hare; in the author’s day the approved method was to find the hare in her form by the use of dogs; when found she was either driven into nets previously set in her runs, or else run down in the open. Boar-hunting is also described; it was effected by nets into which the animal was pursued, and in which when fairly entangled he was speared. The stag, according to the same work, was taken by means of a kind of wooden trap (ποΰοστράβη) which attached itself to the foot. Lions, leopards, lynxes, panthers, and bears are also specially mentioned among the large game; sometimes they were taken in pitfalls, sometimes speared by mounted horsemen. As a writer on field sports Xenophon was followed by Arrian, who in his Cynegeticus, in avowed dependence on his predecessor, seeks to supplement such deficiencies in the earlier treatise as arose from its author’s unacquaintance with the dogs of Gaul and the horses of Scythia and Libya. Four bδoks of Cynegetica, extending to about 2100 hexameters, by Oppian have also been preserved; the last of these is incomplete, and it is probable that a fifth at one time existed. The poem contains some good descriptive passages, as well as some very curious indications of the state of zoological knowledge in the author’s time. Hunting scenes are frequently represented in ancient works of art, especially the boar-hunt, and also that of the hare. In Roman literature allusions to the pleasures of the chase (wild ass, boar, hare, fallow deer, being specially mentioned as favourite game) are not wanting (Virg., Georg., iii. 409-413; Ecl., iii. 75; Hor..O√., i. 1, 25-28); it seems to have been viewed, however, with less favour as an occupation for gentlemen, and to have been chiefly left to inferiors and professionals. The immense vivaria or theriotropheia, in which various wild animals, such as boars, stags, and roe-deer, were kept in a state of semi-domestication, were developments which arose at a comparatively late period; as also were the venationes in the circus, although these are mentioned as having been known as early as 186 b.c. The bald and meagre poem of Gratius Faliscus on hunting (Cynegetica) is modelled upon Xenophon’s prose work; a still extant fragment (315 lines) of a similar poem with the same title, of much later date, by Nemesianus, seems to have at one time formed the introduction to an extended work corresponding to that of Oppian. That the Romans had borrowed some things in the art of hunting from the Gauls may be inferred from the name canis gallicus (Spanish g al go) for a greyhound, which is to be met with both in Ovid and Martial; also in the words (canis) vertragus and segusius, both of Celtic origin. According to Strabo (p. 200) the Britons also bred dogs well adapted for hunting purposes. The addiction of the Franks in later centuries to the chase is evidenced by the frequency with which not only the laity but also the clergy were warned by provincial councils against expending so much of their time and money on hounds, hawks, and falcons; and we have similar proof with regard to the habits of other Teutonic nations subsequent to the introduction of Christianity. Originally among the northern nations sport was open to every one except to slaves, who were not permitted to bear arms; the growth of the idea of game-preserving was a gradual one, and kept pace with the development of feudalism. For its ultimate development in Britain see Forest Law, where also the distinction between beasts of forest or venery, beasts of chase, and beasts and fowls of warren is explained. See also Game Laws.

The English word “hunt” (from henten, “to capture,” and thus nearly equivalent to “chase,” which is the doublet of the verb “to catch”; compare Ital. caccia, Fr. chasse) has come specially to be applied to the pursuit of the stag, hare, and fox, especially of the last-named, with horse, hound, and horn, as distinguished from other modes of capturing game. It thus corresponds to the French chasse au courre, as distinguished from chasse au tir, à l'oiseau &c., and to the German Hetzjagd as distinguished from Birsch. The origin of the sport in Britain does not admit of being historically traced. Doubtless the early inhabitants shared to a large extent in the habits of the other Celtic peoples; the fact that at least they kept good hunting dogs is vouched for, as we have seen, by Strabo; and an interesting illustration of the manner in which these were used is given in the inscription quoted by Orelli (n. 1603)—“Silvano Invicto Sacrum—ob aprumeximiaeformae captum, quem multi antecessores praedari non potuerunt.” When the period of Alfred the Great is reached, we have it on the authority of Asseri us, his biographer, that before he was twelve years of age he “was a most expert and active hunter, and excelled in all the branches of that noble art, to which he applied with incessant labour and amazing success.” Of his grandson Athelstan it is related byWilliam of Malmesbury that after the victory of Brunanburgh he imposed upon the vanquished king of Wales a yearly tribute, which included a certain number of “hawks and sharp-scented dogs fit for hunting wild beasts.” According to the same authority, one of the greatest delights of Edward the Confessor was “to follow a pack of swift hounds in pursuit of game, and to cheer them with his voice.” It was under the Anglo-Saxon kings that the distinction between the higher and lower chase first came to be made,—the former being expressly for the king or those on whom he had bestowed the pleasure of sharing in it, while only the latter was allowed to the proprietors of the land. To the reign of Cnut belong the “Constitutiones de Foresta,” according to which four thanes were appointed in every province for the administration of justice in all matters connected with the forests; under them were four inferior thanes to whom was committed immediate care of the vert and venison. The severity of the forest laws which prevailed during the Norman period is sufficient evidence of the sporting ardour of William and his successors. The Conqueror himself, we are told by his contemporaries, “loved the high game as if he were their father;” and the penalty for the unauthorized slaughter of a hart or hind was loss of both eyes.

Stag Hunting.— Although at an early period stag hunting was a favourite recreation with royalty, it is difficult to say when the royal buckhounds were first established. It seems probable that in the reign of Henry VIII. the royal pack was kennelled at Swinley, where, in the reign of Charles II. (1684), a deer was found that went away to Lord Petre’s seat in Essex; only five got to the end of this 70 miles’ run, one being the king’s brother, the duke of York. George III. was a great stag hunter, and met the royal pack as often as possible.

The Devon and Somerset staghounds are the only pack in England that now pursue the wild red deer. In his interesting work, The Chase of the Wild Red Deer, Mr Collyns says that the earliest record of a pack of staghounds in the Exmoor district is in 1598, when Hugh Polland, Queen Elizabeth’s ranger, kept one at Simonsbath. The succeeding rangers of Exmoor forest kept up the pack until nearly 200 years ago, the hounds subsequently passing into the possession of Mr Walter of Stevenstone, an ancestor of the Rolle family. Successive masters continued the sport until 1825, when the fine pack, descended probably from the blood hound crossed with the old southern hound, was sold in London. It is difficult to imagine how the dispersion of such a pack could have come about in such a sporting country, but in 1827 the late Sir Arthur Chichester got a pack together, and the country has been hunted ever since, the present master being Mr Fenwick Bissett. Stag hunting begins on the 12 th of August, and ends on the 8th of October; there is then a cessation until the end of the month, when the hounds are unkennelled for hind hunting, which continues up to Christmas; it begins again about Lady day, and lasts till the 10 th of May. The mode of hunting with the Devon and Somerset hounds is briefly this :—the whereabouts of a warrantable stag is communicated to the master by that important functionary the harbourer; two couple of steady hounds called tufters are then thrown into cover, and, having singled out a warrantable deer, follow him until he is forced to make for the open, when the body of the pack are laid on. Very often two or three hours elapse before the stag breaks, but a run over the wild country fully atones for the delay. With all other packs of staghounds, except one in the New Forest, which hunts fallow deer, the quarry is the carted deer; the animal is turned out from a vehicle resembling a prison van in appearance, and the hounds are laid on after a quarter of an hour’s law.

Fox Hunting.— It is only within comparatively recent times that the fox has come to be considered as an animal of the higher chase. William Twici, indeed, who was huntsman-in-chief to Edward II., and who wrote in Norman French a treatise on hunting, which still exists in an English translation, mentions the fox as a beast of venery, but obviously as an altogether inferior object of sport. Strutt also gives an engraving, assigned by him to the 14 th century, in which three hunters, one of whom blows a horn, are represented as unearthing a fox, which is pursued by a single hound. The precise date of the establishment of the first pack of hounds kept entirely for fox hunting cannot be accurately fixed. In the work of “Nimrod” (C. J. Apperley), entitled The Chase, there is (p. 4) an extract from a letter from Lord Arundel, dated February 1833, in which the writer says that his ancestor, Lord Arundel, kept a pack of foxhounds between 1690 and 1700, and that they remained in the family till 1782, when they were sold to the celebrated Hugh Meynell, of Quorndon Hall, Leicestershire. Lord Wilton again, in his Sf>orts and Pursuits of the English, says that “about the year 1750 hounds began to be entered solely to fox.” The Field of November 6, 1875, p. 512, contains an engraving of a hunting-horn then in the possession of the late master of the Cheshire hounds, and upon the horn is the inscription :—“Thomas Boothby, Esq., Tooley Park, Leicester. With this horn he hunted the first pack of foxhounds then in England fifty-five years. Born 1677. Died 1752. Now the property of Thomas d’Avenant, Esq., county Salop, his grandson.” These extracts do not finally decide the point, because both Mr Boothby’s and Lord Arundel’s hounds may have hunted other game besides fox, just as in Edward IV.’s time there were “fox dogs” though not kept exclusively for fox. On the whole, it is probable that Lord Wilton’s surmise is not far from correct. Since fox hunting first commenced, however, the system of the sport has been much changed. In our grandfathers’ time the hounds met early, and found the fox by the drag, that is, by the line he took to his kennel on his return from a foraging expedition. Hunting the drag was doubtless a great test of nose, but many good runs must have been lost thereby, for the fox must often have heard the hounds upwind, and have moved off before they could get on good terms with him. At the present day, the woodlands are neither so large nor so numerous as they formerly were, while there are many more gorse covers; therefore, instead of hunting the drag up to it, a much quicker way of getting to work is to find a fox in his kennel; and, the hour of meeting being later, the fox is not likely to be gorged with food, and so unable to take care of himself at the pace at which the modern foxhound travels.

On hunting days it is the master’s duty to say what covers are to be drawn, and to request the field to take up such positions as will enable the fox to have fair play. The management of the field requires considerable firmness, but the very strong language one sometimes hears is better avoided. Where a professional huntsman is employed, he is responsible for the actual hunting, and the less he is interfered with by the master or anybody else the better. The country should be hunted fairly throughout its length and breadth, not only for the sake of the subscribers living in the different districts, but with a view to sport. Woodlands of greater or less extent are to be found even in countries denominated open, and these places are generally strongholds for foxes, and should be regularly rattled throughout the season; if this be neglected, the foxes, instead of breaking quickly, will ring about the cover all day, and, what is worse, many small covers will be drawn blank by reason of their inhabitants seeking the quietude of the wood. The frequent hunting of woodlands, though conducive in the long run to sport, is not popular with the field. It is on the whole a matter for congratulation that most packs of hounds are now carried on by subscription. Little by little the expense attending a pack of hounds has increased until it has now assumed large proportions: the hounds must be of the best blood; at least five horses per hunting day (exclusive of the master’s) must be allowed for the hunt servants; no makeshifts for kennel or stable will be tolerated; and the hunt servants must be men of known character. Under these circumstances, a master undertaking to keep hounds at his own expense incurs great cost for the benefit of others, or else, being judged by the standard of great establishments, lays himself open to a charge of only half doing what he has put his hand to. If hunting is as popular as it is supposed to be, it is for every reason advisable that those who derive amusement from it should contribute something towards the general expenses. In establishments conducted upon a liberal scale, the annual cost will amount to about £620 a year for each day in the week that the pack hunts; thus, a three days a week pack will cost about £1860 per annum, a four days a week pack £2480, and so on; but absolute efficiency cannot be maintained much under £520 per day.

The author of the Diary of a Huntsman says that, to be perfect, “a huntsman should possess the following qualifications—health, memory, decision, temper, patience, a good ear, voice, and sight, courage and spirits, perseverance and activity; and with these he will make a slow pack quick.” Should the master be his own huntsman, he will, save about £300 a year, but he should unite as many as possible of the above list of virtues to those he is possessed of in his capacity of master. The position of a huntsman is a peculiar one; he is the servant of the master, yet the latter must to a certain extent make a confidant of him, as in cases of breeding, drawing the hounds for a day’s hunting, and other matters. A huntsman must be fond of his calling, or he will not be energetic in the pursuit of it; he must also be a bold horseman,—if a good one so much the better,—for nothing is more annoying to the master and the field than to see a huntsman refuse to cast his hounds in an obviously probable direction, because the doing so would necessitate jumping an ugly fence. Observation and decision are also indispensable. When hounds check, the proper course to pursue is very often suggested by some trifling incident which occurred perhaps ten minutes before, and which was noticed at the time without any particular weight being attached to it; for instance, some rooks might have been hovering on the left or right of the line the hounds were running; or again, some hound that can be depended on diverges for a moment from the rest of the pack. The huntsman remembers this when...

The surface of the county is low, and, with the exception of the Fen district, pleasantly undulating. For the most part it is bare of trees. A low ridge of hills enters the county from the south near Potton, and runs in a northward direction until it terminates in the Ouse valley near Huntingdon; and a branch of the Cambridgeshire hills enters the south-east part of the county, and from Huntingdon runs north-west to Wansford. The north-eastern part of the county, comprising 50,000 acres, or one-fifth of its whole extent, belongs to the great “Fen” district extending throughout the counties of Cambridge, Lincoln, Northampton, Norfolk, and Suffolk. The principal rivers are the Ouse and Nen. The Ouse from Bedfordshire skirts the borders of the county near St Neots, and after flowing north to Huntingdon takes an easterly direction past St Ives into Cambridgeshire on it⅛ way to the Wash. It is navigable for barges as far as Bedford, and in the fen district constitutes a means of transport for the agricultural produce of the county. The Nen, which is also navigable, skirts the northern border, and quitting it at Peterborough enters the Wash below Wisbeach, in Cambridgeshire. Various cuts and drains which join the Nen and Ouse are also made use of for navigation.

Geology, Soil, and Agriculture.— Geologically Huntingdonshire belongs to what is known as the Oolite system. The low round hills in the south-eastern part of the county are composed of ironsand. They contain a band of coprolites, and there is a strip of greensand on the south-eastern border. The central and larger part of the county displays the Oxford clay, which lies between the middle and lower Oolite. It reaches a depth of nearly 100 feet, and passes under the Fens. The Fens are composed of fine mud, deposited formerly by the sea, intermixed with beds of peat, in which are frequently found the remains of animals, frequenters of the old forest, such as the elk, the red-deer, the bear, the beaver, and the wolf. The hills on the border of Northampton are of the stonebrash or forest marble. The Oolite formation is very fossiliferous. Large masses of fossil wood converted into jet or iron pyrites are found in the Oxford clay. Glacier or boulder clay containing chalk and flint deposits is met with in nearly every part of the county. The soil is generally fertile, and cultivation is of an advanced kind. In the fen district the soil is of a blue peaty nature, resting on a subsoil of white marly clay. After being drained and mixed with clay it is very productive, but much damage is often done to the crops by the prevalence of frost and fogs. In the fen districts a four-years’ system of cropping—green-crops, barley, seed-clovers, and wheat—is the most common. The “Meres” of Whittlesea, Ramsey, and Ugg, at one time much resorted to by sportsmen for their wildfowl and fish, have now been drained, and, notwithstanding the expensiveness of the process, such is the fertility of their beds that the outlay was speedily more than repaid. The Oxford clay, which extends to an area of 120,000 acres, is of very various soils according as the Oolite rocks crop to the surface. The greater part is under cultivation, and much improvement has lately been effected by drainage; on account of the tenacity of the clay the drains often require to be placed very close.. Much of the soil is, however, undrained and uncultivated, and, though partly used for pasturage, must on the whole be regarded as mere waste land. On the drained pasturage a large number of cattle are fed. In this district the system of cropping varies considerably, but a modification of the four-course shift is the most common—fallow sown sometimes with winter tares, turnips, mangold, or mustard; barley; beans where tares were sown on the fallow, and clover where green crops were sown; wheat. A six-years’ course of fallow, barley, seed-clovers, wheat, beans, and wheat is, however, not uncommon, especially on the best soils. The third district, comprising the gravel of the Ouse valley, embraces an area of 50,000 acres. On the banks of the Ouse it consists of fine black loam deposited by the overflow of the river, and its meadows form very rich pasture grounds. The upland district is under arable culture, and is generally cultivated on a four-course system of wheat, green crops, barley, and seed-clover. Market-gardening is prosecuted; and willows are largely grown in the fen district. The farms vary in size from 200 to 500 acres, ranging chiefly between 200 and 300. The farm-houses are generally of an inferior kind, and the farm-buildings are often quite inadequate for the shelter and accommodation of the stock. The labourers generally live in villages and hamlets, in cottages of the most miserable description, having mostly mud walls; but many cottages of a better class have been built within the last few years. The county is well supplied with turnpike roads; and the parish and occupation roads, formerly in a bad state of repair, have been lately much improved. The most modern improvements in farm implements are in general use.

According to the agricultural returns for 1879 the total area of arable land was 209,610 acres, of which 96,533 were under corn crop, 21,931 under green crop, 17,121 under rotation grasses, 60,484 permanent pasture, and 13,531 fallow. The area under woods was 20,714 acres. Wheat, which in 1879 cropped 43,129 acres, is much more largely grown than any other grain, and occurs twice in the six-years’ shift system in use on the better lands. Barley (27,118 acres) is the more frequent corn crop in the four-years’ shift system,—only 10,247 acres being under oats. The quality of barley on many soils is lean and inferior, and unsuitable for malting purposes. Beans and pease occupied 8948 and 6929 respectively. Mangold (3430 acres) and cabbage and similar green crops (2863 acres) are chiefly used for the feeding of sheep. Under turnips there were only 3778 acres, and under potatoes 3083. The number of cattle in 1879 was 27,358, or an average of 13 to every 100 acres under cultivation, as compared with 16 9 for England and 21Ό for the United Kingdom. Of these the number of cows and heifers in milk or in calf was 7536. Though Stilton in Huntingdon gives its name to a celebrated cheese, that variety is now made exclusively in the counties of Lincoln and Leicester; and dairy farming is not now much followed. The milk is now chiefly used for rearing calves. Large numbers of cattle are fattened in the field or the fold-yard, and are sold when rising three years old. They are mostly of the shorthorn breed, large numbers of Irish shorthorns being wintered in the fens. Where there are no upland pastures the farmer usually purchases cattle in the autumn and sells them in the spring. The number of horses in 1879 was 11,057, or an average of 4 ’ 2 to every 100 acres under cultivation, as compared with 4’5 for England and 4Ί for the United Kingdom. Of these the number used solely for agricultural purposes was 7583. Most of the farmers breed cart horses, and the large farmers often rear weight-carrying hunters. The number of sheep in 1879 was 157,790, or an average of 75 ’ 3 to every 100 acres under cultivation, as compared with the same average for England and 68Ό for the United Kingdom. Great improvement in the breed has lately taken place, Leicesters and Lincolns being most common; they usually attain great weights at an early age. Lambs are occasionally sold at weaning time, but more frequently they are kept through the winter on the grass lands, being fed also on mangolds and other roots, with an addition of cake and corn. The number of pigs in 1879 was 19,990, or an average of 9’5 to every 100 acres under cultivation, as compared with 7’2 for England and 6’7 for the United Kingdom. They include Berkshire, Suffolk, and Neapolitan breeds, and a number of crosses. Many after having gleaned the stubbles are fattened on whey and various preparations of inferior barley; but breeding is also extensively practised.

According to the owners of lands return for 1873 the land was divided among 3903 proprietors, holding land the gross annual value of which was <£444,890. Of the owners 45f∙ per cent, possessed less than 1 acre, and the average value all over was £1, 19s. 4∣d. per acre. There were 13 proprietors holding upwards of 3000 acres, viz., Edward Fellowes, 15,629; Duke of Manchester, 13,835; William Wells, 5792; Marquis of Huntly, 5711; Hon. G. W. Fitzwilliam, 5202; Lord Chesham, 3787; Earl of Carysfort, 3654; Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 3559; Colonel Duncombe, 3407; W. Duberley, 3224; Earl of Sandwich, 3219; G. D. Newton, 3209; Richard H. Hussey, 3135.

Manufactures and Trade.— Agriculture is the principal industry, and none of the manufactures are extensive, the chief being paper and parchment. Madder is obtained in considerable quantities, and in nearly every part of the shire lime burning is carried on. Lace-making is practised by the female peasantry; and the other industries, which are not prosecuted beyond what is necessary to meet local wants, are printing, iron-founding, tanning, currying, brick and tile making, malting, and brewing.

Railways.— The middle of the county is traversed from south to north by the Great Northern, which enters it at St Neots and passes by Huntingdon to Peterborough. A branch from the Midland enters the middle of the county from Northampton, and passes by Graffham to Huntingdon, where it is joined by a branch which passes by St Ives to the Great Eastern in Cambridgeshire. From St Ives there is a branch to Wisbeach in Cambridgeshire, and another has been constructed to Stilton. On the Great Northern there is a branch from Holme to Ramsey.

Administration.— Huntingdonshire comprises four “hundreds.” For parliamentary purposes it is an undivided constituency returning two members; and it contains one parliamentary borough, that of Huntingdon, formed of Huntingdon (4243) and Godmanchester (2363), and returning one member. Part of the represented city of Peterborough is also in the county. The principal other towns are Ramsey (2378), St Ives (3291), St Neots (3200), and Kimbolton (1509). The county has one court of quarter sessions. It is included in the south-eastern circuit, and circuit courts are held at Huntingdon. It forms part of the shrievalty of Cambridge, and ecclesiastically is in the diocese of Ely.

Population.— The population in 1841 amounted to 58,549, in 1851 to 64,183, in 1861 to 64,250, and in 1871 to 63,708 (31,381 males and 32,327 females). The increase in thirty years from 1841 has been 8’8 per cent., and since 1801 it has been 69 ’ 5 per cent.

History and Antiquities.— Previous to the Roman invasion Huntingdonshire, like the other Fen counties, was inhabited by the British tribe the Iceni, originally of Celtic origin, but considerably intermixed from Teutonic sources, although the Belgae in all probability did not subdue the country as far north as Huntingdon. During the Roman occupation it was included in the Roman province of Flavia Caesariensis. Two Roman stations are supposed to have been situated in the county, Durolipons (Godmanchester) and Durobrivoe at Water Newton on the Nen. The Roman road Via Devana from Cambridge joined Ermine Street at Godmanchester, Ermine Street passing north-west by Water Newton into Northampton. Under the name of Huntandunscyre, Huntingdon formed part of the kingdom of East Anglia, afterwards joined to Mercia. Shortly before the Conquest the earldom of Huntingdon was held by Swend, who, on receiving the earldom of Northampton, granted it to his son Waltheof, who married a niece of William the Conqueror; and, on Waltheofs execution for high treason, it passed to a Norman soldier, Simon de St Liz, who married a daughter of Waltheof. On the death of St Liz, David, afterwards king of Scotland, married his widow, and inherited the earldom in her right, but on account of the subsequent feuds between the English and Scottish monarchs the earldom frequently exchanged hands between the heirs of St Liz and the heirs of David. It is at present borne by a branch of the Hastings family. A great part of the county was held by the monks, who erected two great abbeys at Ramsey and at Sawtry St Judith,and priories at Huntingdon,St Ives, St Neots, and Hinchingbrook. Of these buildings all that now remains is the richly decorated ruined gateway of the abbey of Ramsey, and a dovehouse, a barn, and a few unimportant fragments at St Ives. There were two ancient castles at Huntingdon and Kimbolton; the one at the latter place, now the seat of the Montagues, dukes of Manchester, was the residence of Catherine of Aragon after her divorce from Henry VIII. Another mansion of interest is Hinchingbrook House, the ancient seat of the Cromwell family. Among the old churches may be mentioned Alwalton, Conington, Hartford, Leighton Bromswold, and Ramsey, which contain remains of Roman architecture; Buckden, Elton, Godmanchester, and St Neots, which contain good specimens of the Perpendicular; Chesterton, Holywell, Sawtry, Upton, and Wooton, which are partly Early English. The only events of historical importance connected with the shire are the capture of the castle of Huntingdon by the Royalists under Charles I. in 1645, and the rout at St Neots of one hundred horse under the command of the duke of Buckingham and the earl of Holland by the Parliamentary soldiers, who took the earl of Holland prisoner.

Huntingdon, a municipal and parliamentary borough of England, capital of the above county, is situated on the left bank of the Ouse, and on three railway lines, 58 miles north of London, 15 miles north-west of Cambridge, and 19 miles south of Peterborough. It consists principally of one street about a mile in length, from which small streets branch off at various points. By a fine bridge erected in the 13th century it is connected with the municipal borough of Godmanchester, which, consisting principally of cottages, forms practically one of its suburbs, and is included in the parliamentary borough of Huntingdon. In Huntingdon there are two old churches—All Saints, probably dating originally from the time of the Normans, but re-erected in the time of Henry VIII., and St Mary’s, probably occupying the site of the old priory, but rebuilt in the Gothic style after the fall of the old building in 1608, and restored in 1876. The church of Godmanchester, of the date 1625, is also a fine structure in the late Perpendicular, with a tower and spire. At the grammar school of Huntingdon, founded in 1200 by David,king of Scotland, but pulled down in 1877 for the erection of a new building, Oliver Cromwell received his education. Among the other schools are Walden’s school for 64 boys, and a national school. There are also in Godmanchester a grammar school and a national school. The principal other buildings of Huntingdon are the county jail, completed in 1827; the militia barracks, erected in 1852; the town and county hospital, erected in 1853; the com exchange; the townhall, whose ground floor is used for the courts of justice; and the rooms of the literary and scientific institution. The house in which Oliver Cromwell was born is still standing. Of the three old monastic foundations formerly belonging to the town there are now no remains. The industries of Huntingdon and Godmanchester are very much alike. They possess iron-foundries, breweries, tileworks, and oil and flour mills. The area of the parliamentary borough of Huntingdon is 6086 acres, the municipal boroughs of Godmanchester and Huntingdon occupying 4970 acres and 1116 acres respectively. In 1871 the population of the parliamentary borough was 6606, that of the municipal boroughs of Godmanchester and Huntingdon being respectively 2363 and 4243.

Huntingdon existed in the time of the Saxons under the name of Huntantun, and in the Norman survey it is mentioned as Hunters-dune. The castle erected at it by Edward the Elder in 919, and afterwards enlarged by David, king of Scotland, was demolished by the orders of Henry II. In 1645 the town was plundered by the Royalists under Charles I. The origin of the town was doubtless closely connected with that of Godmanchester, which occupied the site of the Roman station Durolipons, and at which a castle is said to have been founded by Gormund (hence the name of the town, formerly Gormunchester), a Danish chief in the reign of Alfred the Great. Huntingdon was first incorporated in 1206 and Godmanchester in 1605. From an early period Huntingdon returned two members to parliament; but the Reform Act of 1867 reduced the representation to one member.

HUNTINGDON, Selina, Countess of (1707-1791), leader of a sect of Calvinistic methodists, known as the Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion, was the daughter of Washington Shirley, second Earl Ferrers. She was born at Stanton Harold, a mansion near Ashby-de-la-Zouch in Leicestershire, August 24, 1707, and in her twenty-first year was married to Theophilus, ninth earl of Huntingdon. The religious influence of her husband’s sisters, and a dangerous illness soon after her marriage, tended to deepen the serious impressions which the young countess had experienced from childhood; and on the death of her husband in 1746, coming under the influence of the religious revival in which Wesley and Whitfield were at that time conspicuous, she resolved to join these preachers in actively furthering their aims. In 1748 she gave Whitfield a scarf as her chaplain, and in that capacity he frequently preached in her town house to the most fashionable audiences, in which sometimes such men as Chesterfield, Walpole, and Bolingbroke were found. Reducing her personal expenditure, and disregarding the sneers of her aristocratic acquaintances, Lady Huntingdon spent her ample means in building chapels in different parts of England, and appointed ministers to officiate in them, under the impression that as a peeress she had a right to employ as many chaplains as she would. In 1768 she converted the old mansion of Trevecca, near Talgarth, in South Wales, into a theological seminary for training young ministers for the Connexion; and this, which she made her chief residence, she continued to support alone till her death. Up to 1779 Lady Huntingdon and her chaplains continued members of the Church of England, but in that year the prohibition of her chaplains by the consistorial court from preaching in the Pantheon, a large building in London rented for the purpose by the countess, compelled her in order to evade the injunction to take shelter under the Toleration Act. This reluctant step, which placed her legally among dissenters, had the effect of severing from the. Connexion several eminent and useful members. Till her death in London, June 17, 1791, Lady Huntingdon continued to exercise an active, and even autocratic, superintendence over her chapels and chaplains, and maintained her leading position as well by her genuine earnest piety and force of character as by her high social station and generous liberality. Her chapels and college were bequeathed to trustees; and in 1792 the latter was removed to Cheshunt, in Hertfordshire, where it has since flourished. Several congregations of the Connexion have become nominally as well as virtually Congregational chapels; while, even by those which retain the original name, the Congregational polity is practically adopted.

The Life of the Countess of Huntingdon was published at London, in 2 vols., in 1844; The Coronet and the Cross, or Memorials of Selina, Countess of Huntingdon, by A. H. New, appeared in 1857.