LAMBERT, John, was born on the 7th September 1619, in the parish of Kirkby-Malhamdale, in the west riding of Yorkshire, at Calton Hall, the seat of a family of which he was the representative, and which traced its descent from a daughter of the Conqueror. That his father died when he was thirteen years of age, that he married, when in his twenty-first year, a daughter of Sir William Lister, his neighbour, and that he studied the law in an inn of court, but never pursued it as a profession, is all that we find recorded of his early years. He first participated in political measures, as one of those who signed the address to the king, of the 13 th of May 1642, in answer to his demand of a guard of horse from the county of York. He also signed a declaration and protest against raising troops and money, in preparation for the ominous struggle which was then commencing. He also attended the great meeting on Heworth Moor, on the 3d of June, when a petition was presented by Sir Thomas Fairfax, which Charles refused to accept. In August the royal standard was raised, and the civil war was begun; and, in September, Lambert commenced his military career as captain in the parliamentary forces, under Lord Fairfax, who commanded them in the north. In the following year we find him bearing the rank of colonel: and the earliest exploits in which he is know:n to have distinguished himself, were a sally from Hull on the 11th of October 1642, by which he obliged Lord Newcastle to raise the siege; an engagement at Bradford on the 5th of March 1644, wherein he defeated Colonel Bellasis; and the pursuit of this officer and his troops to Selby, which, being joined by Lord Fairfax, he stormed and took on the 11th of April. The siege of York by the combined forces of Lords Fairfax, Manchester, and Leven ensued; and, on the 2d of July, the eventful fight of Marston Moor. Here Lambert and Sir Thomas Fairfax were the two officers by whom the right wing of the parliamentary forces, consisting of cavalry, was commanded. Opposed to it was the cavalry commanded by Prince Rupert, which Lambert and Fairfax charged and broke; but were carried too far by the ardour of pursuit. Lambert appears to have shown much bravery in this action, but others were more instrumental in its important issue. The siege of York was recommenced by the victorious army, and Lambert was sent in to a parley with the governor, which ended in the surrender of that city. Upon the resignation of Lord Essex in January 1645, and the appointment of Fairfax to succeed him as commander-in-chief of the parliamentary forces, Lambert was appointed commissarygeneral of the northern army, and ordered to take charge of the forces in Yorkshire in the absence of Fairfax. Under Lambert’s command, during 1645, the royalists were beaten in two skirmishes, at Keighley and Ferrybridge; and the garrisons of Scarborough, Pomfret, Sandall, Sherborne, Bolton, and Skipton, surrendered to the parliament. In the commencement of 1646 we find Lambert engaged under Fairfax in the west, in subduing the last remnants of the royalist forces in that quarter: we find him at the sieges of Dartmouth, of Truro, and of Excter, which surrendered, the first on the 20th of January, the second on the 14th of March, and the last on the 9th of April; after which he marched with the army to the siege of Oxford, and was one of the commissioners who conducted the negotiation which ended in the surrender of that important city, of which, by the parliament, he was appointed governor. He was afterwards made one of a select council of five (his colleagues being Cromwell, Ireton, Fleetwood, and Whitelocke), to consult on the disposal of the parliamentary forces for the reduction of the few garrisons which still maintained the authority of the king. These were the principal military services which Lambert is recorded to have rendered to his party during the first civil war. In the struggles for ascendancy between the parliament and the army in 1647, Lambert took a prominent part, and was an able advocate of the cause of the latter. In the declarations published on the part of the army, “Colonel Ireton,” says Whitelocke, “was chiefly employed, or took upon him the business of the pen; and having been bred in the Middle Temple, and learned some grounds of the law of England, and being of a working and laborious brain and fancy, he set himself much upon these businesses, and was therein encouraged and assisted by Lieutenant-General Cromwell, his father-in-law, and by Colonel Lambert, who had likewise studied in the Inns of Court, and was of a subtle and working brain.” He was one of the commissioners who, on the 2d of July, attended at High Wycombe, to treat with commissioners from the parliament, and prepared the proposals for the settlement of the kingdom, which they submitted to the parliamentary commissioners at Colnbrooke, on the 3d of August; proposals which insisted neither on the abolition of episcopacy nor the punishment of the royalists, and which contained terms more favourable to regal power than those to which Charles afterwards acceded in the Isle of Wight.

After delivery of these proposals, Lambert wa⅛ sent into Yorkshire as major-general of the four northern counties. In 1648 the civil war again broke out, and his military talents were again exerted. He defeated Langdale and Musgrave near Carlisle, whilst awaiting a junction with the Scotch army under the Duke of Hamilton, which was about to invade England. The junction, however, could not be prevented; and Lambert, much inferior in strength to the combined armies, was obliged to await the arrival of Cromwell before he hazarded an action. When reinforced by Cromwell in August, the parliamentary forces were scarcely more than 8000 men, whilst those of Hamilton and Langdale were 20,000. But availing themselves of the detached position of the allied forces, the parliamentary generals attacked them successively, and put each army utterly to rout; and Hamilton, who with the remnant of his forces fled towards the south, was pursued by Lambert and his cavalry to Uttoxeter in Staffordshire, where, having in his progress dispersed and beaten the scattered portion of the Scotch army, Lambert forced its commander to surrender. He then followed Cromwell into Scotland, where they were received cordially by Argyll’s party; and Lambert, after remaining awhile at Edinburgh at Argyll’s request when Cromwell had returned, and having received thanks for his good services from the committee of estates, marched back into England to reduce Pomfret, a strong fortress which the royalists had seized anew. Before this place he arrived in December 1648, and here he remained till after the trial and execution of Charles; events in which he bore no part, and of which we have no evidence of his having approved. Pomfret surrendered soon afterwards; and the parliament, on receiving this intelligence in March 1649, voted thanks to him, and a grant of lands out of the demesnes of Pomfret, of the value of L.300 a year, “in [7:13:34]respect of his many great and eminent services, performed with much care, courage, and fidelity, as well against the Scots army as against the forces of Sir Marmaduke Langdale, and in reducing the castle of Pomfret, being the last garrison in England held out against the parliament, and in respect of his extraordinary charges therein, he having not been allowed any pay as a major-general.” When the parliament found it expedient to appoint some person to command in Ireland, Sir William Waller was supported by the Presbyterian party, and Lambert, whom Clarendon calls “the second man in the army” (Cromwell being the first) was preferred by the Independents. Both, however, waived their pretensions in favour of Cromwell, who was consequently appointed to the government of Ireland, and soon afterwards, upon the resignation of Fairfax, to the post of commander-in-chief of all the parliamentary forces. Lambert was at the same time made second in command; and the two generals, in June 1650, marched towards Scotland, where Charles II., who had been acknowledged in that portion of his dominions, was at the head of a numerous force, hoping by its aid to subdue the remainder. Lambert, in a gallant but indecisive action near Musselburgh, was wounded, his horse killed, and himself for a while in the hands of the enemy, but was rescued by his troops. Nothing decisive occurred till the memorable battle of Dunbar, in which Lambert led the van, and eminently contributed to the successful issue of that important action; which was followed by the occupation of Edinburgh and Leith, and the surrender of the castle of Edinburgh in the course of the winter. No further advantage was obtained till the summer of 1651, when, in the month of July, Lambert defeated above 4000 of the king’s troops at North Ferry, and obtained minor successes in thecourscof the same month at Inchgarvey and Burntisland. The parliamentary generals had not been careful to keep between the king and the English frontier; and, profiting by their oversight, Charles, immediately after these actions, embraced the bold resoltition of marching into England, and passed through Carlisle on the 5th of August, at the head of 16,000 men. Leaving Monk before Stirling with 7000 men to reduce that fortress, Cromwell and Lambert hastened in pursuit of Charles; and it was the duty peculiarly assigned to Lambert to hover with his cavalry round the royalist army, and harass and divert its progress, whilst Cromwell pursued a more direct route southward, in order to interpose between the king’s army and the capital. Lambert, though with a far inferior force, engaged the royal army at Warrington; but the country, being much enclosed, was unfavourable for his cavalry, and he retired to Knutsford Heath, where he could act with more effect. The king, however, rightly judging that it was Lambert’s policy to disturb the march of the royalist forces, was unwilling to attack him, and passed on towards Worcester. Lambert, instead of pursuing him further, attended Cromwell’s summons for a general rendezvous of the parliamentary forces at Warwick. From thence the combined forces, amounting to about 30,000 men, marched to Worcester, where, on the 3d of September, the anniversary of the battle of Dunbar, occurred that important conflict which reduced Charles from the leader of a mighty host to the condition of a proscribed, disguised, and solitary fugitive. Lambert behaved with skill and gallantry in this battle, in which he was much exposed, and had his horse shot under him. He bore as large a share of the honours of success as could fairly be ascribed to a second in command, where Cromwell was the chief; and the gratitude of the parliament was promptly shown, on the sixth day after the battle, by a resolution “that lands of inheritance in Scotland, to the yearly value of L.1000 sterling, be settled upon Major-general Lambert and his heirs, for his great and eminent services for this commonwealth ;” and it was ordered that both of his regiments should continue on the English establishment. In the winter of this year, Lambert was made a commissioner, together with Monk, Vane, St John, and four others, for the settlement of affairs in Scotland, where he remained a very short time, being, on the death of Ireton, appointed by the parliament, in January 1652, to succeed him as lord-deputy of Ireland. But the term of this office was limited to six months, and Lambert, filled with displeasure against the parliament (a displeasure which Cromwell artfully fomented), resigned the proffered post; upon which Fleetwood, who had married Ireton’s widow, the daughter of Cromwell, was appointed in his stead. Lambert appears to have been amongst those who were most favourable to the assumption of supreme power by Cromwell, and whose influence chiefly contributed to elevate him to the situation of protector. He was the leading person in a general council of officers convened to deliberate on the settlement of the kingdom; he was one of a select committee deputed by that council to prepare the ground and conditions of a plan; he participated in framing the instrument of government, presented it to the council, and urged its acceptance; and he bore a prominent part in the installation of Cromwell as lord-protector. As president of the council, he came forward to declare the dissolution of the parliament (called Barebone's), and the adoption of the plan of government prepared by the council; and invited Cromwell to undertake the office of chief magistrate under this constitution; upon which Cromwell, “having heard the instrument of government read, and taken the oath as directed in the close of the said instrument, Major-general Lambert, kneeling, presented him with a sword in the scabbard, representing the civil sword, which Cromwell accepting, put off his own, intimating thereby that he would no longer rule by the military sword.”

Lambert sat as member for the west-riding of Yorkshire in the new parliament, which met on the 3d of September 1654. He appears to have been an active member of the legislature, being named on almost all committees, and frequently a teller in divisions; but his share in debate is not recorded, except on one important occasion, where he acted in a manner which appears unquestionably disinterested. It was debated in a committee of the whole house, on the act of settlement, whether the office of protector should be hereditary or elective ; and Lambert, on whom, after Cromwell’s death, the office would be most likely to fall, spoke strongly in favour of its being made hereditary.

In the parliament which was convened in 1656, Lambert was again member for the west-riding of Yorkshire, and exerted himself to maintain that form of government, in the constitution of which he had been principally concerned. He vehemently opposed the proposal of investing Cromwell with the title of king; and though the offer of that title was carried in the obsequious parliament, the opposition of Lambert, and the murmurs of the army, with which he had much influence, made Cromwell feel that it was prudent to decline it. He had at one time resolved to accept the title; upon learning which, Lambert, Fleetwood, and Des-borougĥ, declared to him, in their own names and those of others, that in that event they must resign their commissions, and sever themselves from his councils and service for ever. Cromwell consequently refused the title, but accepted all those other attributes of royalty with which he was invested, on his second inauguration, of the 12th of May 1657. Lambert, disgusted with these inordinate assumptions of power, refused to take the oath of fidelity to the protector; gave up his commissions, which brought him an income of six thousand pounds per annum; and retired on a pension of L.2000. Lambert took no prominent part in political events until after the death of Cromwell, the succession of Richard, and the meeting of a new parliament in January 1659, in which Lambert was elected for Aidborough and Pomfret, and took his seat for the latter.
[7:13:35]

He was one of an opposition characterized as “republicans,” amongst whom Were Vane, Hazlerig, Ludlow, and Fairfax; a body small in number, but formidable from their ability, activity, and union. The first important measure debated was the bill of recognition for establishing Richard in his office, in which, though the protectorists succeeded, Lambert’s party obtained a resolution, that, previous to its commitment, “the house should declare such additional clauses to be part of it, as should bind the power of the chief magistrate, and fully secure the rights and privileges of parliament, and the liberties and rights of the people.” The acknowledgment of the House of Lords as constituted by Oliver was next debated, and warmly opposed by Lambert and his party, who, though unable to succeed, in consequence of the union in this instance of the protector’s friends with the concealed royalists, rendered the recognition much less full than had been contended for by the court party. Meanwhile, Lambert, with Fleetwood and other leaders of the army, had begun to meet at Fleetwood’s residence, Wallingford House, where they held council how to subvert Richard, and to uphold what they called “the good old cause.” A struggle ensued between the array and the parliament now become Richard’s sole support. The Commons, on the 18th of April, carried a resolution that there shall be no council of officers during the sitting of parliament, without permission of the protector and of the houses; and, on the 21st of that month, the command of the army was vested in the three estates, to be exercised by the protector. This brought the struggle to a crisis. Richard was peremptorily told by Desborough that the parliament must be dissolved; and he accordingly dissolved it on the following day. From this time Richard’s power had departed, and the country for a while was without a government. The army was the predominant power, and Lambert was its real leader; for Fleetwood, the nominal commander-in-chief, was too vacillating for such emergencies. But the army leaders felt that it was dangerous to attempt to govern without some semblance of civil administration; so the members of the long parliament, excluded by Cromwell in 1653, were invited to assemble; and this remnant, ridiculed under the name of “the Rump,” met as a parliament on the 7th of May. Order was for a while restored; but the royalists were encouraged, by the state of the country, to make a bold effort for the restoration of Charles; and Lambert’s military prowess was again required in August for the suppression of a rising in Cheshire under the command of Sir George Booth. Lambert obtained a complete and easy victory at Nantwich, in reward for which service the parliament voted him L.1000. But the parliament feared Lambert’s power and probable ambition, bis influence in the army, and the control of his more powerful mind over the wavering Fleetwood; and, on a petition having been presented from the army in his favour, the effect of which would have been to give to Fleetwood the nominal command, and to Lambert the real power (as was formerly the case under Fairfax and CromwelD, Hazlerig, suspecting Lambert to be the instigator, rashly moved that he should be sent to the Tower. This motion, and the votes hostile to the power of the army, produced a breach, which Hazlcrig rashly made irreparable, by attempting to deprive Fleetwood, Lambert, and other leaders of the army, of their commissions. Upon this, Lambert, with Cromwell’s example before his eyes, dissolved the parliament by military force; and the supreme authority again devolved on the military council at Wallingford House. The people murmured at their sway; and Monk commenced his celebrated march from Scotland, with the professed intention of restoring the power of the parliament. Lambert, with a view to subdue or win this formidable opponent, proceeded northward, at the head of 7000 men, having previously exacted a promise from Fleetwood that he would not, without his concurrence, make any terms with Charles II. or with Hazlerig. But when arrived at Newcastle, Lambert allowed himself to be overreached by the subtlety of Monk, who amused him with negotiations, of which the real object was delay, whilst Monk was strengthening his force by recruiting in the north, and events were favouring his views in the south. There the power of the military council was crumbling away in the absence of Lambert, and under the feeble administration of Fleetwood, who resigned his commission on the 26th of December. The ejected members resumed their authority; and one of their first acts was to disband Lambert’s forces, and order him to return to his own house. Desertion had thinned his ranks; to resist was useless; he obeyed, and being thought too dangerous and powerful to remain at liberty, was soon afterwards committed to the Tower. In April, when Monk had almost withdrawn the mask, and appeared the restorer rather of monarchy than of that “good old cause,” as it was termed, to which many had believed him friendly, the republicans again turned their eyes towards Lambert. Apprized of their wishes, he escaped from the Tower, and after lying hid a short time in the city, he hastened into Warwickshire, where, on the 13th of April, he placed himself at the head of six troops of horse and several companies of foot. He was opposed near Daventry, on the 21st, by an equal force, under the command of Ingoldsby. His soldiers refused to fight; and, without a blow being struck, Lambert, the idol of the army, was compelled to surrender, and was again committed to prison.

After the restoration of Charles II. Lambert, though not a regicide, was excepted out of the bill of indemnity. But the Lords and Commons of the convention parliament concurred in a petition, that if he shall be attainted, execution as to his life might be remitted; to which petition the king assented. The succeeding parliament, less mercifully disposed, pressed urgently that he and Vane should be brought to trial, which was accordingly done on the 4th of June 1662, when Lambert was arraigned in the Court of King’s Bench, for levying war against the king. His demeanour was meek, and is represented by some as having been deficient in manliness. But an absence of useless bravado is surely an insufficient ground for attributing cowardice to one whose whole previous career had incontestably proved his courage. Lambert was found guilty, and received judgment of death; but his punishment was commuted to imprisonment for life in the island of Guernsey. There he seems to have been mildly treated. It appears, from the warrant-book in the State-paper office,· that in November 1662 a warrant was issued to the governor of Guernsey for permitting Lambert to have the liberty of the whole island. That this was afterwards withdrawn (though at what time and for what reason is not known), may be inferred from another warrant of March 12, 1664, directing that Lambert should have his former liberty. A letter, hitherto unpublished, is extant in the Bodleian Library; it is from Lambert to the Chancellor Clarendon, dated 27th April, and probably in the year 1664, from which it appears that he owed this favourable treatment to the good offices of that minister. The following extracts, whilst they declare this fact, also display the grateful and contented spirit of the writer “Here, my Lorde, give me leave (seeing I believe it cannot be unwelcome to you to know the happie effects of what yo r Lopp has beene so industrious to procure) to acquaint yo r LoPP that my L d Hatton (since his arrival here) has becne pleased to give a great alaye to my affections, by assuring mee that I still live under those gratious reflections his Ma tie was once pleased to cast upon mee.” “And here, my Lord, againe I beg y r patience while I acquaint you that my Lord has not only poured this oyle into my bones, but [7:13:36]has confirmed and improved it by a most frendly and candid deportment towards mee, so as his Ma ty ' s late orders of grace were dispensed to mee w th as liberal a hand as I can expect, so as in truth I find it rather difficult to finde what is fit to aske then to obtaine.” Lambert remained in Guernsey till his death, which occurred about thirty years afterwards. The favourite pursuits of this tranquil remainder of his active life were botany and painting. It does not appear that he devoted any part of it to literature, or left any record of the great events in which he had been engaged.

Lambert’s abilities as a military man were great. In this capacity he was second only to Cromwell, and was, next to him, the idol of the army. As a politician he was less eminent; and though greatly superior to the vacillating Fleetwood, he wanted that union of caution and boldness which enabled Cromwell to surmount all difficulties. That he failed to stem the tide of returning attachment to monarchy is not imputable as a proof of deficiency in political skill, since it may be questioned whether even Cromwell, had he lived, would have been able ultimately to counteract it. A want of caution was the fault which made him at length a victim to the subtlety of Monk. He appears to have been of a mild and amiable disposition, and to have exhibited more of refinement and a courteous bearing than was common amongst his associates. His ambition appears to have been not of an inordinate and reckless kind, but mingled with traits of generosity and disinterestedness. His career was unsullied with crimes against humanity. In troubled times he long held the second place of power, and for a short period the supreme authority, without being chargeable with any act which reflects discredit on his moral character. Though the last and most formidable opponent of the restoration, he seems to have been regarded by the royalists with a degree of good will which was not extended to his inferior associates. He was not one of those master-minds which seem to direct the course of events. He belongs to that secondary class, who display ability in execution rather than in direction. Amongst such, Lambert is entitled to a high place; and he may ever be considered as a very able, and in some respects an estimable man.

(Sec Whittaker’s History of Craven ; May’s History of the Parliament; Whitelock’s Memorials; Ludlow’s Memoirs ; Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion, and Life of himself; Rushworth’s Collections; State Trials.) (y. y.) Lambert, John Henry, a natural and moral philosopher of great talent and originality, born on the 29th of August 1728, at Mülhausen, in Upper Alsace, was the son of a French refugee in a very humble station, and one of a numerous family.

His early studies were only assisted by the instruction he obtained at a small free school in his native town. His father, who was a tailor, could scarcely even afford him leisure from mechanical labour. He was obliged to read and write in the night; and, in order to procure candles, he made little drawings for sale, while he was watching the cradle of his infant sisters. Having learned to write a good hand, he obtained some employment as a copying clerk in the chancery of the town, which he gave up when he was only fifteen, upon being appointed book-keeper at some iron-works in the neighbourhood. At seventeen he became secretary to a Doctor Iselin, who was the editor of a newspaper at Bale, and who became his firm friend through life. He had now time to render himself familiar with the works of Wolf, Locke, and Malcbranche, to which he was in a great measure indebted for the correct logical method that he ever afterwards followed in his researches; having, however, confirmed and improved it by the study of the mathematics, to which he devoted himself with great zeal, and which, after all, constitutes the best practical school of genuine logic.

In 1748, he removed to Coire, having been recommended by Iselin, as private tutor to the family of the president, Count Peter de Salis, whom he undertook to instruct in history and religion, as well as in languages and science. The library of his patron was extensive; he profited by it in all its departments; and his residence at the house of an accomplished statesman, frequented as it was by the best-informed persons of different countries, and with different pursuits, could not but greatly contribute to the extension of his knowledge, and the improvement of his taste. He even amused himself with some poetical exercises in various languages, which must, at least, have been of advantage to his style in prose. He felt the importance of his literary and scientific pursuits to himself and to the world; and in 1752 he determined to keep a journal of all his studies, which he continued throughout his life. He began to publish a variety of fugitive pieces, on different subjects, in the newspapers and in other periodical works of the day, some of which attracted the notice of his learned countrymen; and, in 1754, he was made a member of the Physicomedical Society, then lately established at Bale, to the Transactions of which he contributed many interesting papers. In 1756 he went to Göttingen with two of his pupils, and in 1757 to Utrecht. The next year the party returned to Coire, by way of Paris, Marseilles, and Turin. At Paris he paid a visit to D’Alembert, who does not appear at that time to have appreciated his merit very highly, though he afterwards rendered him some services with the king of Prussia; but he became more intimately acquainted with Messier the astronomer.

In 1759 he quitted the family of the Count de Salis, and went to settle at Augsburg, having a small salary as a member of the Electoral Academy of Bavaria. From 1761 to 1763 he was again at Coire and in its neighbourhood, being employed in fixing the boundaries between the country of the Grisons and the Milanese territory. Towards the end of 1763, having had some disputes with the Bavarian academicians, he went to Leipzig, and the next year to Berlin, where he was made a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, and where he continued to reside during the remainder of his life, receiving many marks of favour from the discriminating liberality of Frederic: thus, in the year 1770, he was made superior counsellor of the board of works, with an additional salary. He contributed a number of valuable memoirs to the collection of the academy; and in 1774 he undertook the direction of the Astronomical Almanac, for which he was admirably qualified. He was also a constant writer in the journal published by Nicoai, under the title of the Universal German Library ; and he kept up a very extensive correspondence on various subjects of literature and science.

He was regularly in the habit of writing or reading from five in the morning till twelve, and again from two till midnight; a degree of application unquestionably far beyond that which would have been best calculated for producing the maximum of valuable effect. Perhaps, if he was paid for writing by the ream, he may have earned as much from the booksellers as he would have done by a more judicious economy of his powers; but a nervous system, attenuated by the daily study of seventeen hours, could never have been capable of being employed in any very elevated flights of genius, or in the invention of any sublime or exquisite novelties either in science or in literature; and it is only wonderful that he did any thing so well, as almost to form an exception to this general remark. He was indeed supposed to have injured his health by continued application, and he died consumptive, on the 25th September 1777, at the age of forty-nine. He had never been married. His person was of the middle size, with an interesting and expressive countenance; he was [7:13:37]animated and lively in conversation, and liked discussion, •but not disputation. He had no literary quarrels; and his criticisms were not offensive, even when they ceased to be flattering. His morals were strictly correct, but his manners were not altogether in unison with those of the society to which his talents had elevated him. He is said to have been timid, awkward, slovenly, and fond of low company; but upright, patient, unostentatious, and compassionate; essentially modest, but as ready to assert his . own merits as to admit his defects. He had a happy facility in managing the instruments of computation, especially in the arrangement of converging series; and he had a peculiar talent for expressing the results of observation by an analytical formula, having first thrown them into the form of a geometrical diagram to assist his invention; a process which he employed with regard to the probabilities of life in London, and to the inequalities of Jupiter and Saturn. In short, after Euler, Lagrange, D’Alembert, and Daniel Bernoulli, there are few mathematicians and natural philosophers of any age who can be put in competition with him, and still fewer who benefited the public by so many diversified labours.

It would be hopeless to attempt to pursue his indefatigable pen through all its wanderings; and a complete catalogue of his works would be as useless as it is unattainable. A man who wrote so incessantly must have written many things which were destined to oblivion from their first production. It will be sufficient to mention the most remarkable of his works, without any very strict regard to the priority of their publication.

1. In the Acta Helvetica of the Society of Bale, ii. 1752, we find an Essay on the Force and Measurement of Heat, a subject which the author resumed in the latter part of his life. 2. A General Series, somewhat resembling Taylor’s, Act. Hel. iii. 1758. 3. Meteorological Observations, ibid. 4. He also published a paper on the Vibration of Chords, in the same collection.

5. Les Propriétés les plus Remarquables de la Route de la Lumière par les Airs, et en general par plusieurs milieux Réfringents, Hague, 1759, in 8vo; German by Templehof, Berk 1773. This work does credit to the ingenuity and mathematical abilities of the author, though its results may be obtained in a simpler manner by some methods more recently invented.

6. La Perspective Libre, Zurich, 1759, 8vo; another edition in German. The second German edition, 2 vols. 8vo, Zurich, 1773, contains some additional matter, especially a system of geometry, depending, as it is said, upon the ruler alone, without any other instrument. Such a system must, however, have been extremely limited in its application, much more so than Mascheroni’s Geometria del Compasso,

7. Photometria, sive de Mensura et Gradibus Luminis Colorum et Umbrae, Augsb. 1760, 8vo. This original and interesting volume includes and supersedes the greater part of Bouguer’s experimental determinations. It contains the important discovery, that a luminous surface emits its light with equal intensity in all directions; together with some improvements in the theory of twilight, and an investigation of the comparative light of the sun and moon, and stars and planets.

8. Insigniores Orbitae Cometarum Proprietates, Augsb. 1761,8vo. We here find the elegant theorem for expressing the relation of the area of a sector to the sides of the triangle inscribed in it. This theorem had been demonstrated with respect to the parabola by Euler in 1740; but Lambert first extended it to the other conic sections, and he certainly re-invented the whole, without being aware of what Euler had done. It may be found, together with a concise demonstration, and a further account of this work, in the translation of Olber’s Essay on Cornets, published in the Journal of the Royal Institution.

9. Cosmologische Briefe, Augsb. 1761, 8vo. A French translation of these Letters on the Universe appeared in the Journal Helvétique of Neuchâtel, 1763-4; an extract was published by Merian, with the title of Système du Monde, Bouillon, 1770, Berlin, 1784, in 8vo; and a translation by Darquier appeared at Amsterdam, 1801, in 8vo. The whole work is written in a popular style, and adapted to the taste of general readers. The author’s favourite idea was to make the sun a sort of planet, revolving round some other great body; and he supports the opinion by an argument derived from the supposed insufficiency of the laws of gravity, as relating to the solar system, for explaining some of the inequalities of the motions of Jupiter and Saturn, which have, however, since been reduced to the general analogy by Lagrange and Laplace.

10. Zusatze zum Traité de Nivellement Von Picard, 12th August 1761, explaining some improvements on Picard’s level, executed by Brander, an ingenious artist, whom Lambert also assisted in the improvement of Gunter’s sliding rule. 11. He published an explanation of this scale, entitled Logarithmische Rechenstabe, 12th August 1761.

12. Remarks on Incommensurable Quantities, Mem. Ac. Perl. 1761. A demonstration of the incommensurability of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, which has been adopted by Legendre in his Geometry. It depends on the method of reducing a fraction to its lowest terms, as laid down by Euclid, and on the properties of continual fractions; an expression is obtained for a tangent in terms of the arc from the quotient of the series for the sine and cosine, and the continual fraction thus obtained is proved to be infinite. It is also shown that the ratio of the arc to its tangent can never be expressed by any finite quadratic surds. 13. On the Specific Gravity of Salt, and of its Solutions, Μ. Berl. 1762.

14. Novum Organum, Leipzig, 1763, in German, two vols. 8vo. An attempt to restore and improve the Aristotelian method of syllogism, in which the author is allowed to have displayed much ingenuity, though its success was greatly limited, on the one hand, by the sober good sense of the empirical reasoners of the school of Bacon and Locke, and, on the other, by the wild enthusiasm of the German innovators, who were beginning to be intoxicated with the high-sounding phrases and exaggerated pretensions of the disciples of Kant. A manuscript Latin translation of the work, by Pfleiderer, was once in the possession of the late Lord Stanhope.

15. A paper on Trigonometry appears in the Nova Acta Eruditorum for 1763. 16. In the Berlin Memoirs for the same year, we find an Essay on Acoustic Instruments, investigating the best forms for hearing trumpets. 17. Remarks on the Properties of Equations of all Degrees. 18. On Divisors of Equations, which may be found without solving them. 19. On some Measurements relating to the Intellectual World; that is, on probabilities and expectations.

20. Beytrage zur Mathematik, Berlin, 1765, 1770, 1772, in four vols. 8vo: a collection of essays on every department of mathematical science. The first volume contains Remarks on Trigonometry, and on the Certainty of Observations; on the Divisors of Numbers, and on Annuities: the second, Tables of the Moon; an Essay on Dialling, and on Geographical Projections, with the Elements of Te-tragonometry, a subject which was afterwards resumed by the younger Mayer: in the third volume there is an Essay on Interpolation, Remarks on Celestial Maps, with other articles.

21. Description of a Table of Eclipses, Berl. 1765, with the easiest mode of computing them. 22. In the Memoirs of the Academy of Berlin for 1765, we have a paper on Projectiles, including the effect of resistance. 23. In those of the Bavarian Academy for the same year, some remarks [7:13:38]on the Improvement of Terrestrial Measurements; and, 24. Meteorological Observations. 25. In the Nov. Acta Erud. for 1765, An Attempt to employ Calculation in the Moral Sciences. 26. On the Magnet, Ac. Perl. 1766. 27. Another paper on Magnetic Currents. 28. A Magnetic Chart was published separately the same year. 29. Remarks on the General Outline of the Ocean, Ac. Perl. 1767. 30. A General Solution of the Problem of Three Bodies by means of Series, ibid. 31. Notes on Richer’s Philosophical Algebra, 1767.

32. Remarks on the Velocity of Sound, Μ. Ac. Perl. 1768; an unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the theory with observation. It was reserved for Laplace, by a single happy suggestion, to remove the whole difficulty. 33. On Photometry, as applied to Painting, ibid. 34. Trigonometrical Observations, ibid.

35. De Topicis Schediasma, 1768. 36. Remarks on the Divisors of Numbers, Nov. Act. Erud. 1769. 37. Anmerkungen fiber die Branderschen Micrometern, Augsb. 1769. Brandcr’s micrometers were of glass.

38. Experiments on Hygrometry, Μ. Acad. Perl. 1769; relating to evaporation, and to the indications of hygrometers, especially those of catgut.

39. Supplementa Tabularum Logarithmicarum,8vo,Berl. 1770; with a valuable introduction in German, on the abridgment of computations.

40. Anmerkungen über die kraft des Schiesspulvers, 8vo, Berl. 1770. In this investigation of the force of fired gunpowder, the author attacks several points in the theory of Robins, published a few years before.

41. Hygrométrie, 4to, Augsb. 1770.

42. On Directors for the Light of Lamps, Μ. Acad. Perl. 1770. 43. On Ink and Paper, ibid. 44. Analytical Observations, ibid.; relating to the general theorem resembling Taylor’s, which was further discussed by Euler, and modified by Lagrange. 45. On Taxeometry, or the Measurement of Order, ibid. ; considered as comparable in degree, and expressible by numbers.

46. Architectonik, 2 vols. 8vo, Riga, 1771; a logical and metaphysical treatise on the most simple bases of philosophical and mathematical knowledge, written in 1763. The last part, which relates to magnitude, is the most approved; but the whole work was never much read, being partly superseded by the more ostentatious novelties of the day.

47. In the Perlin Memoirs for 1771, we find papers on Meteorology. 48. On the Atmospheric Influence of the Moon. 49. On Achromatic Telescopes of one kind of Glass only. 50. On the Apparent Paths of Comets. 51. On the Grounds of Superstitious Belief, as compared with Probability.

52. Ueber das Farbenpyramide, 8vo, Berl. 1772; a description of a pyramid of wax, intended for the illustration of all the possible varieties of combination of the primitive colours.

53. Astronomisches Jahrbuch, Berl. 1774-9, in 8vo; an accurate and extensive ephemeris, with many original communications annexed to it.

54. In the Μ. A. Perl. 1772, a paper on Friction; supposed to follow the law of the resistance of fluids, with some remarks on that resistance. The opinion of the uniformity of the force of friction, which was even at that time general, was somewhat too hastily rejected by the author; but his computations may still be of use in some cases. 55. On the Fluidity of Sand; as resisting motion. 56. On Hygrometry; continued. 57. On the Density of the Air, with respect to sound and to refraction.

58. Μ. A. Perl. 1773: A Balistic Scale; for determining the paths of projectiles in the atmosphere. 59. Physical Observations, relating to Meteorology and to Optics. 60. On the Satellite of Venus; affording a remarkable instance of misapplied labour and ingenuity. 61. A Second Essay on Taxeometry. 62. A Note on the Inequalities of Jupiter and Saturn; intended to confirm the principles advanced in the Cosmological Letters. The detail was reserved for a subsequent volume.

63. Μ. A. Perl. 1774: On the Temperament of Musical Instruments. 64. On Aerial Perspective. 65. Report on a Bedstead for Sick Persons.

66. Μ. A. Perl. 1775: On the Elasticity of the Air. 67. On Windmills, and on the Force of the Wind. 68. On the Sounds of Flutes; an elaborate comparison of the various tones of a flute, with the theory of Daniel Bernoulli for determining the sounds of compound organ-pipes.

69. Μ. A. Perl. 1776: On the Strength of Men employed in Labour. 70. On Imperfect Fluids.

71. Μ. A. Perl. VI11 : On the Elasticity of the Air.

72. Μ. A. Perl. 1779: Two Memoirs on the Inequalities of Jupiter and Saturn.

73. Pyrometrie, 4to, Berl. 1779; a posthumous work, upon a subject which had long occupied the author’s attention; with a Preface by Karsten, and a Biographical Memoir by Eberhard.

74. A Paper on Annuities, Leipz. Mag az. 1780.

75. Deutscher Gelehrter Briefwechsel, Berl. 1781-7, in five vols. 8vo; published by John Bernoulli, and consisting principally of the author’s correspondence with Holland, Kant, Karsten, Segner, Basedow, Scheibel, and Brander. The contents are more fully described by Lalande. Pibl. Astr. p. 584.

76. Μ. A. Perl. 1783: On Friction.

77. Logische und Philosophische Abhandlungen, Berl. 1787, in two vols. 8vo. Edited by J. Bernoulli.

78. On the Theory of Parallel Lines, Hinderb. Arch, der Math. i.

(Bernoulli in Nouvelles Littéraires, 8vo,Berl. 1777: Eberhard in Pyrometrie Briefwechsel, iii. Phil. Mag. May 1804; Aikin’s General Biography, vi. 4to, Lond. 1807; Ser vois in Biographie Universelle, xxiii. 8vo, Par. 1819.) (l. l.)