be drawn out according to his will, by Doctor Balcanquil, dean of Rochester. Befides this, he left confiderable legacies to his relations, friends, and fervants, and remitted feveral debts to his benefactors, both in England and Scotland. He had no lawful children. To two natural daugh, ters he left legacies. To the children of his father by his fecond wife Christian Blaw, James, Thomas, Chriftian, Sibilla, Janet, and Marion Heriot, he left likewise bequeaths, and to James, the eldest of his half-brothers, his East India stock. To his step-mother an annuity of 500 merks, with 500 merks more, to be difpofed of by her will; and upon the whole, though he may be accused of unnatural conduct, in preferring a charitable institution to his relations, yet, except we were made acquainted with circumstances, we cannot affix any turpitude or immorality to his character. On the 22d of June, 1627, the executors of George Heriot's will purchased from the city of Edinburgh eight acres and an half of land, near the Grassmarket, and on the first of July 1628, laid the foundation of the present noble pile of building, according to a plan furnished by Dr. Balcanquil, with the advice of Inigo Jones and other eminent architects; in which fcarce any deviation appears from the chafte model of the ancients except the turrets, which give a dignity to the building, not justly to be reprehended. On the 11th of April 1659, thirty boys were received into this hofpital, the use of which had been hitherto prevented by the civil wars, and on the 8th of Auguft of the fame year ten more were admitted on the foundation. On the 23d of December 1661 the number amounted to fifty-two, and when Maitland published his history of Edinburgh it contained 130; fince which time the funds and numbers have confiderably increased. This is an excellent inftitution, and has produced many valuable and ufeful citizens, who might other wife have been loft to fociety from the want of proper education. Without entering into controverfial arguments concerning the use and abuse of public charities in Britain, it may be fafely affirmed, that confidering the loofe morality of a wealthy country and nation, it is of high importance to the good of fociety, that as few individuals as poffible fhould be without proper culture, and as many as poffible kept out of the reach of baneful contagion. This feems to be the fcope and confequence of George Heriot's foundation; and whatever may have been his motive, his deftination of his fortune is entitled to the gratitude of his country. Hereafter it may be proper to confider the numbers that have been educated in this hofpital, and compare them with the lift of citizens that have in confequence been beneficial to the commonwealth. But in all ages and countries few are the individuals who rife above mediocrity, or make themselves known to a diftant pofterity. In the overflow of wealth, acquired by plunder and commerce, we ought not to check that useful vanity which leads to charitable inftitutions. The late Dr Blacklock projected an hospital for the blind, which is yet wanting; and a foundation for old ladies of fmall fortune, who have had a genteel education, and pine in ifolated poverty, is another not lefs to be defired. The old and feeble, as well as the young and active, ought to be remembered. "Sweet fets the fun of stormy life, and sweet Thomfon. Remarks on Grecian and Gothic Architecture. Part Second. (Continued from Vol. V. p. 278.) To fpeak in the language of the painter, the church of St. Stephen, Walbrooke, may be called a cabinet-piece. It is not of dimenfions fufficient to admit of grandeur. Neatness, in a structure of this fize, is all that could with propriety have been aimed at. The architect, however, forgetting thefe principles, has finished the infide of that church with those kinds of ornaments which are adapted to produce the effect of grandeur alone in architecture. Suitable to this idea, it is furrounded with Grecian columns, which are of fuch a diminutive fize as to be made, as I believe, of wood. Thefe are crowned, as ufual, with the architrave, frieze, and cornice, complete; and, that no ornament might be wanting, wooden arches have been devised to connect these pillars with each other. An ancient poet, who has been usually thought to poffefs a good tafte, has faid, in refpect to things of this nature, ridiculum odi; and perhaps we have no fuch certain rule to direct us as that of avoiding devices in architecture that are obviously useless and incongruous, when the nature of the materials employed, or the fize and objects to be effected by the ftructure, are confidered. This rule, however, appears to have been very little adverted to in general by architects; and, in the prefent inftance efpecially, feems to have been entirely difregarded. Fashion, however, that fovereign arbiter of tafte, hath pronounced this ftructure a paragon of elegance and beauty. These wooden arches will have their run of vogue, like the umbrageous arcades cut out by the fciffars, to connect the growing trees into the appearance of a piece of folid mafonry, esteemed by our forefathers the quinteffence of elegance; and probably, like them too, will fall in time. into contempt, as unnatural and abfurd. An arch of ftone is doubtlefs a fublime invention for connecting diftant objects together, that owes its ftability to the weight of the materials of which it is compofed. Wherever, therefore, this becomes neceffary, its obvious utility would be fufficient to entitle it to our applaufe, independent of any other confideration. For the fame reason, a tottering femblance of such an arch formed of wood, which would have been infinitely ftronger and more fimple in its form, if carried for ward in a straight line, ought to be deemed an useless deviation from plain fenfe in queft of a fancied ornament. Such, I am inclined to believe, will be, at fome future period, the decifion of pofterity concern❤ ing the arcades in this boafted piece of architecture. At that time the critic, with a decifive tone, may perhaps obferve, that the architect, with a wonderful exertion of ingenuity, had even contrived to render thefe airy columns, that in one point of view feem to be in danger of falling from want of folidity, when viewed in another light appear loaded and heavy. The arches being contrived to fpring from above a deep projecting cornice, which refts upon an entablature and frieze, that feems to have no continuity of connection with the column, can only be apparently retained in its place by its own gravity. But, in this cafe, the height of this ornament fo far exceeds its breadth in every direction, as to convey no idea of folidity from that circumftance; and, by the great projection of the cornice, it is rendered fo apparently top heavy, as to make it feem to totter, and to threaten the entire deftruction of the pile from its tumbling down. The whole entablature, when it is regularly ftretched from column to column, in one continued mass, we have already feen, has a neceffary tendency to give ftrength to the pile, and may therefore be deemed a proper ornament. But, when this real ufe of it is forgot, and, from a blind attachment to ancient forms, its mouldings are retained, while the ob ject itself is minced into pieces that have no connec tion with each other, it is impoffible for me to form an idea of any thing that can be more abfurd, or that of course can be in a falfer taste. The vegetable birds › of our ancestors I confider as infinitely lefs ridiculous than this is. The structure, however, of which we treat, is, notwithstanding this apparent weakness, fufficiently trong for its fize. The art of phineering is well calculated to promote deceptions of this kind; and the artift who constructed it knew the principles of mechanics too well, not to give it all the ftrength that the nature of the materials he employed was fufceptible of. The columns, instead of being disjoined from the architrave, as they seem to be, are no doubt there continued of one piece, and only altered in form by a few mouldings painted on it. They are, no doubt, alfo continued upwards till they join a ftreight beam, running acrofs, over the top of the arches, which, though concealed, anfwers in effect the fame purpofe with the original architrave, on which other beams reft that form the roof, on principles that have been already explained.— The ftructure, therefore, though in its difguifed itate it does appear to be weak and infufficient, when it is laid open is feen to be strong enough. I complain not, therefore, of its abfolute weakness, but I doubt of the propriety of calling it a building erected in a good taste; on this fubject, however, I pretend not to decide, being perfectly ready to admit that every other perfon hath as good a right as myself to judge for himfelf in this cafe. I may be allowed, however, to beg the reader's indulgence a little longer, till I conduct him to another ftructure, at no great distance from Walbrook, that is built in a different ftile of architecture, and fhall leave him, after seeing both, to judge freely for himfelf, which of them he should prefer as objects of elegance and good taste. The building I here allude to is the Temple church in the Strand. This is a fmall chappel in the Gothic ftile, that, like the former, might, if viewed as a picture, be called a cabinet piece. Its dimenfions, of course, preclude the poffoility of its ever |