Chalk comes to the surface in so very'few places that it is scarcely worth mention. It is seen near Harefield and on the north-west side of South Mimms. The depth from the surface to the chalk varies greatly in different parts of the county. This has been proved by the borings for wells; thus at Isleworth the depth is 400 feet and at Hampstead 378, while at Ruislip it is 76 feet and at Pinner only 60. The Reading beds (plastic clays) are brought to the surface at Windsor. They follow roughly the course of the river Colne from the north of Uxbridge along the flank of the hills north-eastward, but are sometimes cut back southward along small side valleys. An outlying mass is exposed at Pinner. The Bagshot sands, consisting of gravel and sand permeable to water, once stretched over the whole extent of the London Clay, but they are now to be found only on the high grounds at Hampstead, Highgate, and Harrow. A corner of the main mass enters the south-west corner of the county near Littleton. Beds of brick-earth occur in the drift between West Drayton and Uxbridge.

Several deep borings in the London basin prove the existence beneath the chalk of beds which do not crop out in Middlesex. Three of these are in the county; and the most interesting is that at Meux’s Brewery, Tottenham Court Road (about 1146 feet), which passes through the following formations :—gravel and clay, 21 feet; London Clay, 64 feet; Reading beds, 51 feet; Thanet sand, 21 feet; chalk, 655 feet; Upper Greensand, 28 feet; gault, 160 feet; Lower Greensand, 64 feet; Devonian, 80 feet.

Rivers and Canids.— The Thames is very tortuous in the 44 miles of its course from Staines to Blackwall, and makes a remarkable bend at the eastern limit of the county where it forms the so-called Isle of Dogs. The width at Staines is 200 feet, at Chiswick opposite Barnes 340 feet, at Hammersmith 525 feet, at Fulham 820 feet, at Westminster Bridge 1100 feet, but at London Bridge it is less than 800 feet; above the junction of the Lea at the Isle of Dogs the width is 1350 feet. The ordinary rise of the tide at London Bridge is 16 feet, and the tide-way ends at Teddington. The port of London begins below London Bridge, and the channel for from 2 to 3 miles is called the Pool.

The Colne from Hertfordshire enters Middlesex at the north-western corner of the county. It then runs south, joining the Thames at Staines, and in its course divides Middlesex from Buckinghamshire for 15 miles. After the river leaves Uxbridge it divides out into several small channels. The Lea from Hertfordshire enters Middlesex at the north-eastern corner of the county near Waltham Abbey. It runs south, dividing Middlesex from Essex for 15 miles, and falls into the Thames at Bow Creek. Several branches flow off from the river during its course. The Brent from Hertfordshire enters Middlesex near Finchley. It takes a circuitous direction southward through the middle of the county by Hendon, Kingsbury, Twyford, Greenford, and Han well to the town of Brentford, where it unites with the Thames. Where the river crosses the Edgeware Road (about 3 miles south of the town of Edgewarc) it is expanded by artificial means into an extensive reservoir. The Cran (or Yedding Brook) rises in the district between Harrow and Pinner and flows under Cranford Bridge; it crosses Hounslow Heath, and bends round to Twickenham and Isleworth, where in a divided stream it falls into the Thames.

There were several other small streams in the neighbourhood of London which have left their mark in the names of places, but which are now merely sewers, such as the Wallbrook, the Westbourn, the Tyburn, the Fleet river, <fcc. The last-mentioned, which runs into the Thames near Blackfriars Bridge, was formerly navigable as far as Holborn Bridge; but, the Fleet Ditch, as it was then called, having become in the last century a dangerous nuisance, the lord mayor and citizens were empowered by Act of Parliament to arch it over. The work was commenced in 1734, and in 1737 Fleet market, occupying the site of the space from Holborn Bridge to Fleet Bridge, was opened to the public. The New River, an artificial water-course constructed by Sir Hugh Myddelton in the reign of James I. to supply London with water, runs through the county from north to south a little to the west of the river Lea. It derives its waters from the springs of Amwell and Chadwell, increased by a cut from the Lea, in the neighbourhood of Ware, and enters Middlesex from Hertfordshire about 2 miles north of Enfield. It passes Enfield, Tottenham, Hornsey, and Stoke Newington, and is received into the reservoir in Clerkenwell known as the New River Head.

The Grand Junction Canal leaves the Thames at Brentford, proceeds in a westerly direction by way of Hanwell and Cranford to West Drayton; thence in a northerly direction it follows the valley of the Colne. It passes Uxbridge, and after leaving the county takes its further course by Rickmansworth through Hertfordshire. The Paddington Canal leaves the Grand Junction Canal at Cranford, and passes Northolt, Apperton, Twyford (where it is carried over the Brent by an aqueduct), and Kensal Green. At Paddington it joins the Regent’s Canal, which κ asses the north of Regent’s Park, and after proceeding through the eastern portions of London joins the Thames at Limehouse. The Regent’s Canal is joined to the river Lea by means of Sir George Duckett’s Canal, and thus there is a through communication from the north-eastern corner of the county to the south-eastern corner, thence from east to west, and north ward to the north-west corner.

Climate, Soil, Agriculture, <I.∙c.— The climate of the county is equable and good, and the shelter of the northern hills makes the air mild. Highgate, Hampstead, and some other parts are supposed to be specially healthy, and are recommended for invalids by the medical profession.

The heavy poor clay in the north and north-western portion of Middlesex is chiefly covered with permanent grass. In some parts it has been made fit for arable cultivation by the addition of chalk, lime, and ashes. The rich deposits from the Thames have formed a soil which when well manured is specially suitable for market gardens. From its nearness to London the district has long been famous for high farming, and the divisions devoted to different kinds of farming are well marked. The greater part of Gore and Ossulston hundreds, portions of Spelthorne and Edmonton hundreds, and a strip down the western side of Elthorne hundred are devoted to meadow and pasture. The arable land is chiefly found on the western side, and between the Great Western Railway and the Thames. It is also to be seen in the north-western district. With the constant increase of London, houses have encroached upon the fields, and most of the market gardens which were situated in the neighbourhood of Islington and Hackney have disappeared. The strip of land by the Thames from Brentford to Chelsea was given up almost entirely to market gardens, but Fulham is fast being built over.

According to the returns for 1882, the area occupied by grain and green crops, grass, &c., was 116,470 acres. Of this amount, 16,337 acres were under corn crops (wheat, 6410; barley, 3083; oats, 3895; and beans and pease, 2636); 13,451 under green crops (includingpotatoes, 3019; turnips, 1539; mangolds, 1692; cabbage, λc., 1188); 3025 under clover and grasses sown in rotation; and 82,782 under permanent pasture. Orchards occupied 3419 acres; market gardens, 6900; nursery grounds, 447; and woods, 2382. In the same year the horses numbered 5939 (4188 used for agricultural purposes); cattle, 23,283 (cows, 15,390); sheep, 23,916; and pigs, 12,035.

The following were the landowners in the county (exclusive of London) at the time of the Domesday survey:—the king, the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop and canons of London, the abbeys of Westminster and Holy Trinity at Caen, the nunnery of Barking, the Earls Roger and Morton, Geoffrey de Mannevele, Ernulf de Heading, Walter Fitz Other, Walter de St Walery, Richard Fitz Gilbert, Robert Gernon, Robert Fafiton, Robert Fitz Roselin, Robert Blund, Roger de Rames, William Fitz Ansculf, Edmund do Salisbury, Aubrey de Vere, Ranulf Fitz ∏ger, Derman, Countess Judith, and the king's almoners.

In 1873, according to the Return of Owners of Land, the total number of owners in the county (also exclusive of London) was 11,881, of whom 9006 owned less than an acre. The extent of lands (including common or waste lands) is given as 145,605. The gross estimated rental was £1,611,655. Sixteen owners each possessed over 1000 acres. The crown owned 2382 acres (annual value £5503); the duchy of Lancaster, 2273 acres (£4492); Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 1308 acres (£46,519); All Souls’ College, Oxford, 1813 acres (£4724); Christ Church, Oxford, 1132 acres (£1635); and King’s College, Cambridge, 1097 (£1084).

Many villages of Middlesex, especially those near to London, were formerly famous for their mineral springs.

Some places are still supplied with water from wells; but the Barnet, the East Middlesex, the Grand Junction, the West Middlesex, and the New River Water Companies serve a large part of the county.

Manufactures and Trade.— There is little to remark with regard to the manufactures of the county outside of London. Brick-making and tile-making have always flourished, and malting, distilling, and soap-making are favourite industries. Gunpowder mills exist at Twickenham and Bedfont. The market-towns for corn are Uxbridge, Brentford, and Staines, for cattle and sheep Southall. A horse and cattle fair is held at South Mimms and Barnet.

Railways and Roads.— As London is the centre of the railway system of England, it is evident that many of the lines must run through Middlesex. For similar reasons it is well provided with roads.

Population.— The total population of Middlesex was 2,539,765 in 1871 and 2,920,485 in 1881, or excluding the seven metropolitan boroughs lying within the county 276,028 in 1871 and 394,089 in 1881. Most of the towns and villages have largely increased during the period between 1871 and 1881; the populations of Acton and Tottenham have more than doubled, and Chiswick, Ealing, Edmonton, and Willesden have almost doubled. Of the larger places the least increase has been at Brentford, which numbered 10,271 in 1871, and reached 11,808 in 1881. At the time of the Domesday survey the population of Middlesex, exclusive of London, was 2302.

Government.— Unlike other counties, Middlesex has no high sheriff appointed by the sovereign. It is subject to the City of London, and one of the sheriffs appointed by the lord mayor is sheriff for Middlesex. When Henry I. came to the throne he gave the city an extensive charter, and one of the privileges either granted or confirmed by the king was the perpetual sheriffwick of Middlesex.

The whole of the county is included in the diocese of London, and is divided between the archdeaconries of London and Middlesex. When Henry VIII. created the bishopric of Westminster he allotted the whole county (the parish of Fulham alone excepted) for its diocese. Edward VI., however, dissolved the bishopric in the fourth year of his reign.

The county is divided into six hundreds, which remain the same as they were at the time of the Domesday survey, except that the name of one has been changed:—Ossulston (Osulvestane D. ), Edmonton (Delmetone D.), Gore (Gara D.) f Elthorne (Heletorne or Helethorne D.), Spelthorne (Speletorne or Spelethorne D. ), Isleworth (Honeslaw D., i.e., Hounslow). The division into hundreds is now merely a name, and a record of a former system of local government.

There are thirty-two poor-law unions, but the unions beyond London are only eight in number, viz., Brentford, Edmonton, Fulham, Hackney, Hampstead, Hendon, Staines, Uxbridge.

The majority of hospitals are in London, but there is a training hospital at Tottenham, St John’s Hospital at Twickenham, and cottage hospitals at Enfield, Ealing, Hayes, Hillingdon, Sudbury, and Teddington. The Royal India Lunatic Asylum is at Ealing, and the two county asylums at Colney Hatch and Hanwell.

The county is within the jurisdiction of the central criminal court and also of the metropolitan police (with the exception of the City).

Parliamentary Representation. — There are nine constituencies in Middlesex, returning nineteen members, viz., two for the county, four for the City of London, two for each of the boroughs of Westminster, Finsbury, Marylebone, the Tower Hamlets, Chelsea, and Hackney, with one for the university of London.

In the parliament of 1295 Middlesex was represented by two members; in 1298 London sent two members as well as the county. For the parliament of 1320 and subsequent parliaments London elected four members, but it does not appear that all were allowed to sit. From the 15th century, however, the city has always sent four members to parliament. In 1547 Westminster first sent her two members, and from that time until 1832 the only seats were those for the county and the two boroughs. In 1832 the boroughs of Finsbury, Marylebone, and Tower Hamlets were added, and in 1866 the boroughs of Chelsea and Hackney and the university of London.

History.— The district now included in Middlesex was largely occupied by forest up to a comparatively recent period, and its population must always have been very sparse. A few prehistoric remains have been discovered at various times,—bones of the elephant, hippopotamus, deer, &c., at Old Brentford, elk horns near Chelsea Hospital, fossil teeth, fish, fruit, &c., at Highgate, and quite recently, in 1879, while the foundations were being dug out for Drummond’s New Bank at Charing Cross, a large number of prehistoric animal remains. Flint instruments have also been found to cover a considerable area. During the British period the district is supposed to have been inhabited by the Trinobantes, but the late Dr Guest affirms that the valley of the Lea was the western boundary of that tribe. In answer to the question—What became of the district between the Lea and the Brent? this great authority states that the district was merely a march of the “Catuvellauni,” a common through which ran a wide trackway, but in which was neither town, village, nor inhabited house. Dr Guest also declares that the boundaries of the Catuvellaunian state, a central kingdom formed or much extended by Cassivellaunus, can be traced in part along the northern limit of Middlesex by following an earthwork called Grimesditch “from Brockley Hill to the woodland of the Colne Valley and thence to the Brent, and down the Brent to the Thames.” Some earthworksand encampments still exist which are attributed to the Britons.

When the country was under Roman rule great improvements, due to the growing importance of Londinium, were made in this district. Several roads in connexion with the city must have been constructed, more especially the great northern and eastern roads. Dr Guest does not believe that the present Watling Street could have had any connexion with the Watling Street which came down the Edgeware Road, passed along by Park Lane, and crossed the Thames at Westminster. In the Antonine Itinerary mention is made of three stations, viz., Londinium, Sulloniacae, and Pontes. Sulloniacae is now Brockley Hill; Pontes is supposed by Stukeley to mean Staines, but Horsley held that it was intended for Old Windsor, and others supported the claims of Coinbrook and Longford. Roman camps have been found in many parts of the county, and Dr Stukeley supposed that the Brill, near St Paneras, was the site of the battle between Boadicea and the Roman legions which has left a slight record in the name of Battle Bridge. The Roman remains found at different times are too numerous to mention here in detail. Coins, urns, and tiles were found at Enfield, a sepulchral urn at Hampstead, and numerous gold coins and ornaments at Bentley Priory, Great Stanmore, in 1781.

Cowey Stakes, about a furlong west of Walton Bridge, is supposed to be the locality of the ford by which Julius Caesar crossed the Thames. Caesar makes special mention of the sharp stakes which he had to encounter, and Bede says that the remains of the stakes were to be seen in his day. Camden was the first to fix upon this as the spot where Caesar crossed, and he is supported by Dr Guest, but the identification is not undisputed. Although a ford existed here as late as 1807, and stakes were found up to the end of the 18th century, it has been affirmed that they were placed in their position with another object than to oppose an enemy’s progress. Roman remains have been found at Shepperton near Halliford, at the Middlesex end of the ford. A vase was dug up in 1817, and the remains of a Roman cemetery have also been discovered.

As to the earliest Saxon occupation we are left very much to conjecture, and the name itself is somewhat of a puzzle. It is evident that no tribe could have obtained the name of Middle Saxons until after the settlement of the districts on each side of it by the East and the West Saxons. As Middlesex was for a period dependent upon the kingdom of Essex, it is probable that the name did not come into use until London had become a Saxon city, although there is reason to believe that previously Saxon settlements had been made on several places by the river and elsewhere. Bede tells us that London was in the hands of King Saeberct in 604, and was then the chief town of Essex. Just a century afterwards—that is, in 704 —the king of the East Saxons granted away land at Twickenham, showing that Middlesex was then dependent upon Essex. It is worthy of note that the two districts now forming the counties iu which London and Southwark are situated were separated from the kingdoms to which they originally belonged probably on account of the importance of the city of London and the borough of Southwark, Middlesex from the kingdom of Essex and Surrey or the South Ridge (A.-S. SιΓδ-rige) from the kingdom of Kent.

Middlesex appears never to have been independent. The administrative shire was let to the men of London and their heirs to be held in farm of the king and his heirs, and “the subject shire has to submit to the authority of the sheriffs chosen by the ruling city.”

Middlesex is only once mentioned in the Saxon Chronicle, under date 1011, where it is noticed as one of the districts overrun by the Danes. One manuscript (A. Winchester) mentions the Middle Saxons as receiving the true faith under their aiderman Peada in 653; but this is evidently a mistake of the scribe, for the fact is taken from Bede, and he writes Middle. Angles, as do the other MSS. of the Chronicle.

The Saxons appear to have settled over a large portion of the district, and for the purpose of settlement they must have made considerable clearings in the vast forest of Middlesex....

MIDDLETON, Conyers (1683-1750), the earliest and most eminent example of the spirit of theological rationalism in the English Church of the 18th century, was the son of the rector of Hinderwell near Whitby, and was born at Richmond in Yorkshire, on December 27 (or, according to another account, on August 3), 1683. He graduated at Cambridge, took orders, and in 1706 obtained a fellowship, which he soon resigned upon contracting an advantageous marriage. In 1717 a dispute with Bentley, upon an extortionate demand of the latter on occasion of Middleton’s being created D.D., involved him in an acrimonious controversy, which called forth several pamphlets from his pen full of powerful invective, and among them his first considerable literary performances, the Remarks and Further Remarks on Bentley’s Proposals for a Few Edition of the Greek Testament (1721). “You have laid Bentley flat upon his back,” wrote Colbatch. “I scorn to read what the rascal has written,” wrote Bentley,—who, however, only resorted to this affected disdain after a fruitless attempt to fix the authorship upon Colbatch, but who might justly have commented upon the impropriety of Middleton’s endeavour to visit his grievances upon the text of the New Testament. Private resentment and uncurbed personality were throughout his life too frequently the motive and the note of Middleton’s controversial publications. In 1723 he was involved in a lawsuit by personalities against Bentley, which had found their way into his otherwise judicious tract on library administration, written on occasion of his appointment to the honourable office of university librarian. In 1726 he gave great offence to the medical profession by a dissertation contending that the healing art among the ancients was only exercised by slaves or freedmen. Between the dates of these publications he visited Italy, and made those observations on the pagan pedigree of Italian superstitions which he subsequently embodied in his Letter from Rome (1729). Tlιis cogent tract, while establishing the author’s main proposition with abundant learning and wit, gave at the same time the first clear indication of the anti-supernatural-istic bias of his intellect, and probably contributed to prepare the storm which broke out against him on his next publication (1731). In his remonstrance with Waterland on occasion of the latter’s reply to Tindal’s Christianity as Old as the Creation, Middleton takes a line which in his day could hardly fail to expose him to the reproach of infidelity. He gives up the literal truth of the primeval Mosaic narratives; and, in professing to indicate a short and easy method of confuting Tindal, lays principal stress on the indispensableness of Christianity as a mainstay of social order. This was to resign nearly everything that divines of the Waterland stamp thought worth defending. Middleton was warmly assailed from many quarters, and retreated with some difficulty under cover of a sheaf of apologetic pamphlets, and a more regular attendance at church. A freethinker in the strict sense of the term he certainly was; but how far freedom of thought was carried by him it is not easy to ascertain. His adversaries—some of them men who gravely maintained that Egyptian civilization originated in the age of Solomon—were unable to fix any serious imputation upon him; on the other hand it is clear that the natural attitude of his mind towards supernatural pretensions was one of suspicion, and that his temperament was by no means devout. That he was nevertheless not incapable of a disinterested hero-worship was evinced by his next important publication, the elegant but partial Life of Cicero (1741), a work which, if far below the standard of modern exactness, may yet compare in spirit and execution with the best productions of the Italian Renaissance. It is, indeed, as remarked by Forsyth, “rather an historical composition, in which Cicero is the principal figure, than the portrait of the man himself”; and Dr Parr has pointed out Middleton’s unacknowledged obligations to the forgotten Bellendenus, which, however, with the ardour of a discoverer, he seems to have considerably overrated. The work was undertaken at the instance of Lord Hervey, in correspondence with whom also originated his disquisition on The Roman Senate, published in 1747. The same year and the following produced the most important of all his writings, the Introductory Discourse and the Free Inquiry concerning the miraculous powers then commonly deemed to have subsisted in the church after the apostolic age. In combating this belief Middleton indirectly established two propositions of capital importance. He showed that ecclesiastical miracles must be accepted or rejected in the mass; and he distinguished between the authority due to the early fathers’ testimony to the beliefs and practices of their times and their very slender credibility as witnesses to matters of fact. Some individual grudge seems to have prompted him to expose, in 1750, Bishop Sherlock’s eccentric notions of antediluvian prophecy, which had then been before the world for a quarter of a century. The same year he died of a decline at his seat at Hildesham in Cambridgeshire, leaving a widow, but no children.

Middleton’s most ambitious work is obsolete from no fault of his, but his controversial writings retain a permanent place in the history of opinion. In his more restricted sphere he may not inappropriately be compared to Lessing. Like Lessing’s, the character of his intellect was captious and iconoclastic, but redeemed from mere negation by a passion for abstract truth, too apt to slumber until called into activity by some merely personal stimulus. His diction is generally masculine and harmonious. Pope thought him and Hooke the only prose writers of the day who deserved to be cited as authorities on the language. Parr, while exposing his plagiarisms, heaps encomiums on his style. But his best qualities, his impatience of superstition and disdain of mere external authority, are rather moral than literary. As a scholar he is rather elegant than profound; as a controversialist he has more vigour than urbanity, and more wit than humour. He has been unjustly attacked both as author and as man by De Quincey, who strangely accuses his style of colloquialism, and taxes him with eating the church’s bread while denying her doctrines. In fact Middleton’s private means were ample, his ecclesiastical emoluments trifling, and his candour obstructed his path to much more considerable preferment. The best general view of his intellectual character and influence is to be found in Leslie Stephen’s English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, chap. vi. A handsome edition of his works, containing several posthumous tracts, but not including the Life of Cicero, appeared in 1752.

MIDDLETON, Thomas (c. 1570-1627), held a leading place among the dramatists of the reign of James I. His popularity would seem to have first come to a height about 1607. This is a fair inference from the fact that in this and the following year a whole swarm of comedies from his pen were licensed and published— A Trick to Catch the Old One, The Family of Love, The Phoenix, Michaelmas Term, Your Five Gallants, A Mad World My Masters. Only the first of these kept the stage after the author’s own generation, though in point of wit and constructive skill it is not superior to The Phoenix (a serious comedy) or Your Five Gallants (a bustling and gaily humorous farcical comedy). The plot of the Trick bears a family likeness to that of Massinger’s New Way to Pay Old Debts·, the titles in fact might be interchanged. A ruined scapegrace outwits his creditors and a usurious uncle by coming to town with a courtesan and passing her off as a widow with a fortune, whom he treats with deferential friendship, but hardly dares to love, ruined and hopeless as he is. His uncle lends him money that he may woo in proper state; his creditors also intrigue to have the honour of supplying him with all the needs of fashion; and the lady receives many costly presents from aspirants to her hand and fortune. Though Middleton was apparently not in high popularity till 1607, he had made his debut as a satirist ten years before; and if Malone is right in his conjecture that the Mayor of Queensborough is identical with the Randall Earle of Chester mentioned by Henslowe in 1602, he had done dramatic work of a much higher kind. Like The Changeling, a later production, in which Middleton had the assistance of Rowley, the tragedy of the Mayor is named after a character in the insignificant comic underplot. Such a title scares away readers weary of half-intelligible Elizabethan fun and satire; but Simon the comic mayor is a very subordinate figure in the play, and the tragic portions alike in situation, characterization, and language rank among the very noblest productions of the Shakespearian age. There are scenes in the Changeling also which Mr Swinburne, with a judgment that will not be disputed, assigns to Middleton, unsurpassed for intensity of passion and appalling surprises in the whole range of Elizabethan literature. The execution of these scenes is far beyond any power that Rowley showed in single-handed work, but well within the scope of the author of the Mayor of Queensborough and Women Beware Women. This last play, in which every one of the characters important enough to be honoured with a name perishes at the end in a slaughter so rapid as to be somewhat confusing, was apparently one of Middleton’s later works, and the simple and measured development of the plot In the first acts seems to show traces of the influence of Massinger. Middleton’s verse, when charged with the expression of impassioned love, contains many echoes of the verse of Romeo and Juliet, as if his ear had been fascinated by it in his youth. His language generally proclaims him an admiring disciple of Shakespeare’s; and in daring and happy concentration of imagery, and a certain imperial confidence in the use of words, he of all the dramatists of that time is the disciple that comes nearest the master. The Witch, by which Middleton’s name has of late been linked with Shakespeare’s in groundless speculation as being part author of Macbeth, is by no means one of Middleton’s best plays. The plot is both intricate and feeble, as if the play had been written with a view to the half-comic spectacular exhibition of the witches, with their ribald revelry, their cauldrons, hideous spells, and weird incantations. Charles Lamb’s comparison of Middleton’s witches with Shakespeare’s is one of the most exquisite morsels of criticism; but, when he says that Middleton’s witches are “in a lesser degree fine creations,” he ought perhaps to have added that they are merely embodiments of the vulgar superstition, put on the stage to excite laughter rather than fear among a half-believing audience, an audience ready to laugh at them in the light and in a crowded meeting, whatever each might do in the dark alone. That Middleton had any share in Macbeth is a conjecture resting solely on the fact that the opening words of the song of the witches about the cauldron in Shakespeare’s Macbeth occur also in the incantations about a cauldron in the last act of Middleton’s Witch, and that Middleton’s song was inserted by Davenant in an “amended” reproduction of Macbeth. If either borrowed the words of this song from the other, that is no evidence of further co-operation; besides all that is common to the two was probably as much public property as a nursery rhyme. There is no evidence as to whether The Witch appeared before or after Macbeth. Middleton co-operated with Dekker in the Roaring Girl ; with Rowley in A Fair Quarrel, The Spanish Gipsy, and The Changeling; and with Jonson and Fletcher in The Widow (one of the few of Middleton’s plays reproduced after the Restoration). Towards the close of his life Middleton got into difficulties with the privy council from writing a very clever political play apropos of Prince Charles’s unsuccessful wooing of the Spanish infanta in 1623. The chief personages in Spanish politics and their manoeuvres were represented with most ingenious skill in the pieces and movements of A Game at Chess. This play was stopped by royal authority, and the prosecution of the author was allowed quietly to drop. The few unimportant facts known in Middleton’s private history are collected in Mr Dyce’s admirable edition of his plays. He enjoyed the office of city chronologer, and was often employed to write pageants and masques, in one case at least contracting for the whole exhibition, besides furnishing the words. He died in 1627, and was buried at Newington Butts.

MIDDLETOWN, a manufacturing village of the United States, in Wallkill township, Orange county, New York, 55 miles N.N.W. of New York, at the junction of four railroads. It is a clean well-built place, in the midst of a fine dairy-farming and stock-raising district, manufactures saws, files, felt hats, blankets, agricultural implements, printers’ materials, <fcc., and is the seat of the State Homoeopathic Insane Asylum. The population was 6049 in 1870 and 8494 in 1880.