1888. ] NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 201 
ing largess. His forehead was magnificent; the organs of com- 
parison, constructiveness, and of individuality were immense. 
The characteristics of Mr. Watt, his partner, were altogether 
different. Mr. Boulton was a man to rule society with dignity; 
Mr. Watt to lead the comtemplative life of a deeply introverted 
and patiently observant philosopher. He was one of the most 
complete specimens of the melancholic temperament. His head 
was generally bent forward or leaning on his hand in meditation; 
his shoulders stooping, and his chest fallen in; his limbs lank 
and unmuscular, and his complexion sallow. His intellectual 
development was magnificent. . . . Whilst Mr. Boulton’s eye 
and countenance had something of radiance, Mr. Watt’s were 
calm, as if patiently investigating or quietly contemplating his 
object. His utterance was slow and unimpassioned, deep and 
low in tone, with a broad Scotch accent; his manners gentle, 
modest, unassuming. In a company where he was not known,. 
unless spoken to, he might have tranquilly passed the whole 
time in pursuing his own meditations. But this could not well 
happen; for, in point of fact, everybody practically knew the 
infinite variety of his talents and stores of knowledge. When 
Mr. Watt entered a room, men of letters, men of science, nay, 
military men, artists, ladies, even little children thronged around 
him. J remember a celebrated Swedish artist having been in- 
structed by him that rats’ whiskers make the most plant and 
elastic painting-brush; ladies would appeal to him on the best 
means of devising grates, curing smoking chimneys, warming 
their houses, and obtaining fast colors. I can speak from ex- 
perience of his teaching me how to make a dulcimer and improve 
a Jew’s harp.” ‘Quite different was the aspect of Dr. Wither- 
ing; he was the personification of that which belongs to a 
physician and a naturalist; enormous were his organs of propor- 
tion and individuality, and great were his powers of active 
investigation and accurate detail. His features were sharpened 
by minute and sagacious observation. He was kind, but his 
great accuracy and caution rendered his manner less open, and 
it had neither the wide popularity of Mr. Boulton’s, nor the 
attraction of Mr. Watt’s true modesty.” 
Of Dr. Priestley she says: he was ‘‘a man of admirable sim- 
plicity, gentleness, and kindness of heart, united with great 
acuteness of intellect. I can never forget the impression pro- 
duced on me by the serene expression of his countenance. He, 
indeed, seemed present with God by recollection and with man by 
cheerfulness,” She differed from Dr. Priestley in his religious 
views, but pays a handsome tribute to his earnestness, candor, 
and sincerity. 
Captain Keir she characterizes as ‘‘ the wit, the man of the 
