« ForrigeFortsæt »
Mr. Atwood justly observes, feem to have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding the difficulties which occur in folving most cases in practical mechanics ; for if the effects of forces could be truly estimated by a measure, consisting of the quantity of matter moved and any power of the velocities, there could be no occasion to consider the variation of the forces of acceleration or resistance, since the ultimate effects produced would be known, without further investigation, from the due application of the hypotheses.
In the tenth and last fe&tion, the principles of rotation in free space are deduced from those which our author has demonstrated in the fixth section, concerning the rotation of bodies round fixed axis.
The confined limits of our review, prevent us from giving any extracts from this ingenious publication. We will venture to recommend it, however, to our philofophical readers, as a work well worthy of their attention and regard.
ART. IV. First Principles of Philosophy, and their Application to the
Subjects of Taste, Science, and History. By John Bruce, A. M. Professor of Philosophy in the University, and Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Third Edition. 12mo. Edinburgh, Creech. London, Cadell.
UR Author having observed the imperfection of the
art of logic, comparatively, with other branches of knowledge, and that the treatises on this subject are usually commentaries on the systems of antient philosophers, or detached disquisitions into metaphysics and criticism, was induced to find out a remedy to a defect that appeared to him to be.grols and illiberal. Accordingly, he considers logic as the comprehensive science which explains the method of difcovering and applying the laws of Nature. The subject in his opinion, divides itself into two branches: Under the one branch, he treats the natural history of the faculties of the human mind; the method of applying them for the purposes of discovery; and the foundation of the sciences, with the evidence which establishes the laws of Nature, and renders them rules in the arts. Under the other branch, the Author applies the first principles of philofophy to the subjects of tafte, science, and history.
The present volume contains only heads or difquifitions, which are meant to assist the attention of the Author's pupils: It is not, therefore, our business to exert any anxious care in its examination. It is our duty, notwithftanding, to observe, that it affords a flattering promise of his prelections.
He aims at originality of thinking; and this is a great praise to any member of an University. For, in general, the learned fraternity of professors are the last to adopt the rising improvements of the times, or to deviate from the paths of confecrated error. It would seem that they were intended to embalm the follies of the age that preceded them.
With the heads of our Author's lectures on taste and cri. ticism, we are particularly pleased. His ideas appear to follow in a train; and if we may be allowed to judge from his divisions and definitions, his rhetorical system must posfefs that ripeness of investigation, and that spirit of philofophy, which we in vain fought for in the lately published Lectures of Dr. Blair. In an age so luxurious in literature as the present, it is a pain to us to remark, that books are too often fent into the world, without adding to information. Original writers are not common in any age; when they show themselves, neither fashion, nor caprice, nor party can oppress them. If the lectures of our Author correfpond with his pro Spectus, we have not any doubt, but that he will establish the point that he belongs to the class of writers who thirik for themselves; and not to that order of Authors, who fancy themselves immortal when they adopt the inventions, and ftcal the sentiments of other men.
ART. V. The History of Scotland, from the cfablishment of the Reformation
till the Death of Queen Mary. To which are annexed Observations
concerning the Public Law and the Constitution of Scotland. By Gil'bert Stuart, Doctor of Laws, and Member of the Society of Anti
quarians at Edinburgh. In Two Volumes. 2d Edition. 8vo. 128. boards. Murray.
[ Continued from our last. ] T is with particular pleasure that we attend this hiftorian,
in his candid and liberal representations of those parts of Mary's conduct which have been so grossly diftorted hitherto. And we are happy to see a woman and a queen, a worthy woman and a respectable queen, after two centuries of obloquy, rifing bright at last under the hands of impartial history
In vol. 1. 355. Dr. Stuart enters thoroughly into the nature of the Famous Letters. He discusses the subject with great judiciousness and vigour. And we shall therefore exhibit a part of his account.
"The xx. day of June June MDLXVII. is fixed as the æra of the discovery of the letters. If this discovery had been real, the triumph of the eneinies of the Queen would have been infinite. They would
not have delayed one moment to proclam their joy, and to reveal to her indignant subjects, the fulness and the infamy of her guilt. They preserved, however, a long and profound filence. It was not till the iv. day of December MDLXVII. that the papers receceived their first mark of notice or distinction. From the xx. day of June to the iv. day of December many transactions and events of the highest importance had taken place; and the most powerful motives that have influence with men had called upon them to publish their discovery. They yet made no production of the papers, and ventured not to appeal to them. In the proclamation which they issued for apprehending Bothwel, they inveigh against his guilt, and express an anxious delire to punish the regicides; yet though this deed was posterior to the xx. day of June, there is no affertion in it to the dishonour of the Queen; and it contains no mention of the box and the letters. . An ambaffador arrived from France in this interval, to inquire into their rebellion, and the imprisonment of the Queen; yet they apologized not for their conduct by communica. ting to him the contents of the casket. Sir Nicholas Throginorton was sent to Scotland by Elizabeth with instructions to act with Mary as well as with her adversaries. They denied him the liberty of waiting upon her at Lochlevin where she was detained a close priso- . her; and they were earnest to impress him with the idea that her love of Bothwel was incurable. He pressed them on the subject of their behaviour to her. At different times they attempted formally to vindicate themfelves; and they were uniformly vehement on the topic of the love which she bore to that nobleman. There could not poffibly, therefore, have been a happier period for a display of the box and the letters. They yet abstained from producing them to him. They were solicitious to divide the faction of the nobles for the Queen; and there could not have been a measure so effectual for this end as these vouchers; yet they called no convention of her friends to surprize and disunite them with this fatal discovery. They flattered the protestant clergy, attended the assemblies of the church, and employed arts to inflame them against the Queen ; but they ventured not to excite the fury of these ghostly fathers, by exhibiting to them the box and the letters. They compelled the Queen to subscribe a refignation of her crown; and they had the strongest reasons to be solicitous to justify this daring transaction. The box and the letters would have served as a complete vindication of them ; yet they neglected to take any notice of these important vouchers; and were contented with resting on the wild and frivolous pretence that the Queen from fickoess and fatigue was disgusted with the care of her kingdom. In fine, when the Earl of Murray went to Lochlevin to pay his verỳ remarkable visit to the Queen, and proceeded, to extremities the most rúde, indecent, and cruel, he did not reproach her with the box and the letters. Yet, if these papers had been real, it is incredible to conceive that he would have abstained. from preffing them upon her. For it was his purpose to overwhelm her with distress. It was not long after this visit that he accepted the Regency, and completed his ufurpation of the government. The conclusion to be drawn from this enumeration of concurring particu
lars, is natural and unavoidable. These memorable papers had not yet any
existence. ! When the adversaries of the Queen had atchieved the overthrow of Bothwell, and had thrown her into the prison of Lochlevin, they had occafion to fear her return to popularity, and her deliverance from confinement. They were not ablolutely certain that Elizabeth would refuse to take the part of the Queen; and they had apprehensions from the interposition of France. They accordingly held conlulations about the method the most efficacious for their técurity and protection. When the Earl of Murray assumed the Regency, it was abiolutely necellary that they should come forward with their vindication; and from their being pofleffed of the power of government, they could manage their vindication to the greater advantage. Accordingly in this critical period they in reality made their defence. In a privy council assembled by the Earl of Murray upon the iv. day of December. MDLXVII. An inquiry was concluded, which had been agitated for some days, and of which it was the object to examine in o the conduct of the Lords Barons, and gentlemen who had acted against the Queen. This was in fact an investigation made by them elves into their own behaviour and actions. The event was as favourable as might be expected. They pronounced, that from the time of the murder of the King, till the period of their deliberations, they had acted as faithful and true subjects; and that every extremity to which they had proceeded against the Queen, had its source in her own miiconduct. They affirmed that she was a party with ihe Earl of Bothwel in the King's murder, and that this murder had been committed with a view to their marriage. To support this conclusion, they appealed to the letters which she had written to him; and they mentioned them as the chief and justifying causes of their rebellion. It appears not, however, that the letters were read in this council
, or examined in it; but it may be concluded at least, that they were now actually in existency. Upon the iv.day then of December, MDLXVII. the letters received their first mark of dis, tinction.
. In the act of this fingular privy council it is observuble, that the enemie's of the Queen impute to the letters their knowledge of her guilt, and point to them as the fource or spring of their rebellion. Now, according to their own account, the letters were not disco. vered till the xx. day of June. Yet there is nothing more certain than that they were in arins, and had displayed their hostile banners in the month of May. In consequence of their order the Queen was. even coininitted to the castle of Lochlevin upon the xvi. day of June. The letters' therefore could not possibly give rise to events which werè prior to their discovery. This is to reverse altogether the laws of nature. Previously to the period in which they acknowledge that they first saw the letters, they affect to have been governed by them.
This act of council, a folemn deed of their own, is therefore an ex press evidence against the authenticity of the letters.
But let this act of council be considered in the light the most favourable to them, and be tryed by transactions of their own, which were absolutely posterior to the xx. day of June, It was upon the XXVI: day of this month that they proclaimed Bothwel a traitor. In
this act of proclamation they impute to him the murder of the King i but they charge him also with treason, as the ravisher of the Queen affirm that her marriage with him was forced, and that she was under bondage; assign as their reafon for taking arms, their defire to punith him as the author of the murder and the rape; and command the iubjects of Scotland not to atlist him in any respect, under the penalty of being accounted partakers with him in thete horrible crimes. Now if their act of council is to be believed, and if the letters are genuine, they were at this very time under the strongest .conviction of her guilt, considered her as a deviser and accomplice of the murder, and believed that her view in the murder was to accompliíli the marriage, They could not therefore with any probability have charged Bothwel as exclusively guilty of the murder, of having commited a rape upen her in order to accomplish his purposes, and of being expofed to the laws of his country for the joint crimes of murder, treason, and ravishment. This evidence is not. single and unfupported. In a laboured manifesto on the subject of their rebellion which they delivered to Throgmorton upon the xi. day of July, they exprefsly "represent the Queen as free from any concern in the death of her hufband. They directly acknowledge that the crimes of Bothwel had put arms into their hands; that he had accomplished the murder in order that he might compel the Queen to marry him; that in reality the marriage was effected by force and power: and that he kept her in captivity. They exprefs it as their firin persuafion that he had schemed to take away her life, as well as that of the prince her son. These are positive and definitive declarations ; and they are the most absolute contradiction to the sense of their act of council and to the authenticity of the letters. In a regular and for, mal deed, which they issued upon the xxi. day of July, they. def cribe the wickedness of Bothwel, and positively assert, that after he had committed the murder, he treasonably affaulted the person of the Queen, took her captive to Dunbar, and keeping her in bondage, constrained her to mary him. To the same purpose additional evi, dence might be brought ; but these vouchers are sufficiently powers ful and instructive. For if it had been true that the conspirators had been poffefled of the letters upon the xx. day of June, and had been actuated with resentment against the Queen as art and part of the murder with a view to the marriage they could not possibly in a posterior day of that month, and in the month of July, have described her as under bondage, as innocent and ravished, as compelled to marry, in danger of her life, in constraint, and in captivity.
* This remarkable act of Murray's privy, council.is the key to difcover the forgery of the letters. It is not to be controverted that they received in it their first mark of distinction. There is no previous memorial of them in history, and if there had been any, the conspirators would not have failed to have produced it. They had ifsued many proclamations and public papers ; but in no proclamation or public paper preceding the iv. day of December, did they ever announce or appeal to the letters ; although it was infinitely their interest to have done fo. It is impossible that this could have been their line of conduct, if the letters had been genuine. It is only to be accounted for on the hypothefis that they are a for