be received upon conviction, and successively re- | admit copiousness than to affect brevity. Many ceived by those whom conviction reached; that informations will be afforded by this book to the its evidences and sanctions are not irresistible, biographer. I know not where else it can be because it was intended to induce, not to compel; found, but here and in Ward, that Cowley was and that it is obscure, because we want faculties doctor in physic. And whenever any other instito comprehend it. What he means by his asser-tution of the same kind shall be attempted, the tion, that it wants policy, I do not well under- exact relation of the progress of the Royal Sostand; he does not mean to deny that a good ciety may furnish precedents. caristian will be a good governor, or a good subect; and he has before justly observed, that the good man only is a patriot.

Religion has been, he says, corrupted by the wickedness of those to whom it was communicated, and has lost part of its efficacy by its connexion with temporal interest and human pas

sion.

He justly observes, that from all this, no conclusion can be drawn against the divine original of christianity, since the objections arise not from the nature of the revelation, but of him to whom it is communicated.

All this is known, and all this is true; but why, we have not yet discovered. Our author, if I understand him right, pursues the argument thus: the religion of man produces evils, because the morality of man is imperfect; his morality is imperfect, that he may be justly a subject of punishment; he is made subject to punishment, because the pain of part is necessary to the happiness of the whole; pain is necessary to happiness, no mortal can tell why or how.

These volumes consist of an exact journal of the Society; of some papers delivered to them, which, though registered and preserved, had been never printed; and of short memoirs of the more eminent members, inserted at the end of the year in which each died.

The original of the Society is placed earlier in this history than in that of Dr. Sprat. Theodore Haak, a German of the Palatinate, in 1645, proposed to some inquisitive and learned men a weekly meeting for the cultivation of natural knowledge. The first Associates, whose names ought surely to be preserved, were Dr. Wilkins, Dr. Wallis, Dr. Goddard, Dr. Ent, Dr. Glisson, Dr. Merret, Mr. Foster of Gresham, and Mr. Haak. Sometime afterwards Wilkins, Wallis, and Goddard being removed to Oxford, carried on the same design there by stated meetings, and adopted into their society Dr. Ward, Dr. Bathurst, Dr. Petty, and Dr. Willis.

The Oxford Society coming to London in 1659, joined their friends, and augmented their number, and for some time met in Gresham-College. Thus, after having clambered with great labour After the restoration their number was again from one step of argumentation to another, in- increased, and on the 28th of November, 1660, stead of rising into the light of knowledge, we a select party happening to retire for conversaare devolved back into dark ignorance; and all tion to Mr. Rooke's apartment in Greshamour effort ends in belief, that for the Evils of life College, formed the first plan of a regular socithere is some good reason, and in confession, ety. Here Dr. Sprat's history begins, and therethat the reason cannot be found. This is all fore from this period the proceedings are well that has been produced by the revival of Chry-known.* sippus's untractableness of matter, and the Arabian scale of existence. A system has been raised, which is so ready to fall to pieces of itself, that no great praise can be derived from its destruction. To object is always easy, and it has been well observed by a late writer, that the IN FIVE BOOKS, TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK, hand which cannot build a hovel, may demolish a temple.*

REVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE ROYAL

SOCIETY OF LONDON,

FOR IMPROVING OF NATURAL KNOWLEDGE, FROM ITS

FIRST RISE. IN WHICH THE MOST CONSIDERABLE
PAPERS COMMUNICATED TO THE SOCIETY, WHICH

HAVE HITHERTO NOT BEEN PUBLISHED, ARE INSERTED
PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. BY THOMAS BIRCH,

IN THEIR PROPER ORDER, AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE

D.D. SECRETARY TO THE SOCIETY. 2 VOLS. 4TO.

THIS book might more properly have been entitled by the author a diary than a history, as it proceeds regularly from day to day so minutely as to number over the members present at each committee, and so slowly, that two large volumes contain only the transactions of the eleven first years from the institution of the Society.

REVIEW OF THE GENERAL HISTORY OF
POLYBIUS,

BY MR. HAMPTON.

THIS appears to be one of the books which will long do honour to the present age. It has been by some remarker observed, that no man doubtedly translations into the prose of a living ever grew immortal by a translation: and unlanguage must be laid aside whenever the language changes, because the matter being always to be found in the original, contributes nothing to the preservation of the form superinduced by the translator. But such versions may last long, though they can scarcely last always; and there is reason to believe that this will grow in reputation while the English tongue continues in its present state.

The great difficulty of a translator is to preserve the native form of his language, and the unconstrained manner of an original writer. This Mr. Hampton seems to have attained in a degree of which there are few examples. His book has the dignity of antiquity, and the easy flow of a modern composition.

I am yet far from intending to represent this work as useless. Many particularities are of It were, perhaps, to be desired that he had importance to one man, though they appear tri-illustrated with notes an author which must have fling to another, and it is always more safe to many difficulties to an English reader, and par

New Practice of Physic.

* From the Literary Magazine, 1756.

ticularly that he had explained the ancient art of war; but these omissions may be easily supplied by an inferior hand, from the antiquaries and

commentators.

of thought, and liberty of press. Our clamor ous praises of liberty sufficiently prove that we enjoy it; and if by liberty nothing else be meant, than security from the persecutions of power, To note omissions where there is so much per-it is so fully possessed by us, that little more is formed, would be invidious, and to commend is to be desired, except that one should talk of it unnecessary where the excellence of the work less, and use it better. may be more easily and effectually shown by exhibiting a specimen.*

But a social being can scarcely rise to complete independence; he that has any wants, which others can supply, inust study the gratification of them whose assistance he expects; this

REVIEW OF MISCELLANIES ON MORAL AND is equally true, whether his wants be wants of

RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS,

IN PROSE AND VERSE, BY ELIZABETH HARRISON.

THIS volume, though only one name appears upon the first page, has been produced by the contribution of many hands, and printed by the encouragement of a numerous subscription, both which favours seem to be deserved by the modesty and piety of her on whom they were bestowed.

nature or of vanity. The writers of the present time are not always candidates for preferment, nor often the hirelings of a patron. They profess to serve no interest, and speak with loud contempt of sycophants and slaves.

There is, however, a power, from whose influ ence neither they nor their predecessors have ever been free. Those who have set greatness at defiance, have yet been the slaves of fashion. When an opinion has once become popular, very few are willing to oppose it. Idleness is more willing to credit than inquire; cowardice is afraid of controversy, and vanity of answer; and he that writes merely for sale, is tempted to court purchasers by flattering the prejudices of the public.

It has now been fashionable for near half a

The authors of the essays in prose seem generally to have imitated, or tried to imitate, the copiousness and luxuriance of Mrs. Rowe; this however is not all their praise: they have laboured to add to her brightness of imagery her purity of sentiments. The poets have had Dr. Watts before their eyes, a writer, who, if he stood not in the first class of genius, compensated that defect by a ready application of his century, to defame and vilify the house of Stuart, powers to the promotion of piety. The attempt and to exalt and magnify the reign of Elizabeth. to employ the ornaments of romance in the deco- The Stuarts have found few apoligists, for the ration of religion was, I think, first made by Mr. dead cannot pay for praise; and who will, withBoyle's Martyrdom of Theodora, but Boyle's out reward, oppose the tide of popularity? Yet philosophical studies did not allow him time for there remains still among us, not wholly extinthe cultivation of style, and the completion of the guished, a zeal for truth, a desire of establishing great design was reserved for Mrs. Rowe. Dr. right, in opposition to fashion. The author, Watts was one of the first who taught the dis-whose work is now before us, has attempted a senters to write and speak like other men, by showing them that elegance might consist with piety. They would have both done honour to a better society, for they had that charity, which might well make their failings forgotten, and with which the whole Christian world might wish for communion. They were pure from all the heresies of an age, to which every opinion is become a favourite that the universal church has

hitherto detested.

vindication of Mary of Scotland, whose name has for some years been generally resigned to infamy, and who has been considered as the murderer of her husband, and condemned by her

own letters.

Of these letters, the author of this vindication confesses the importance to be such, that if they be genuine, the queen was guilty; and if they be spurious, she was innocent. He has, therefore, his treatise into six parts. undertaken to prove them spurious, and divided

This praise the general interest of mankind requires to be given to writers who please and In the first is contained the history of the letdo not corrupt, who instruct and do not weary.ters, from their discovery by the earl of Morton, But to them all human eulogies are vain, whom their being produced against queen Mary, and I believe applauded by angels, and numbered their several appearances in England, before with the just.f queen Elizabeth and her commissioners, until they were finally delivered back again to the earl of Morton.

ACCOUNT OF A BOOK ENTITLED, AN HISTO-
RICAL AND CRITICAL INQUIRY INTO THE

EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE EARLS OF
MORAY AND MORTON AGAINST MARY
QUEEN OF SCOTS:

WITH AN EXAMINATION OF THE REV. DR. ROBERTSON'S
DISSERTATION, AND MR. HUME'S HISTORY, WITH RE-
SPECT TO THAT EVIDENCE.§

We live in an age in which there is much talk of independence, of private judgment, of liberty

From the Literary Magazine, 1756.

That on

The second contains a short abstract of Mr. Goodall's arguments for proving the letters to be spurious and forged; and of Dr. Robertson and Mr. Hume's objections by way of answer to Mr. Goodall, with critical observations on these authors.

The third contains an examination of the arguments of Dr. Robertson and Mr. Hume, in support of the authenticity of the letters.

The fourth contains an examination of the confession of Nicholas Hubert, commonly called French Paris, with observations showing the same to be a forgery.

From the Literary Magazine, 1756.-There are other Reviews of Books by Dr Johnson in this Magazine, but, in general, very short, and consisting chiefly of a few introductory remarks, and an extract. Mrs. Harrison's Miscellanies may be accounted somewhat interesting from the notice of Dr. Watts. Written by Mr. Tytler, of Edinburgh. Printed in the Gentlemen's Magazine, October, 1760. question. And,

The fifth contains a short recapitulation or summary of the arguments on both sides of the

The last is an historical collection of the direct or positive evidence still on record, tending to show what part the earls of Murray and Morton, and secretary Lethington, had in the murder of the lord Darnley.

The author apologizes for the length of this book, by observing, that it necessarily comprises a great number of particulars, which could not easily be contracted: the same plea may be made for the imperfection of our extract, which will naturally fall below the force of the book, because we can only select parts of that evidence, which owes its strength to its concatenation, and which will be weakened whenever it is disjoined.

The account of the seizure of these controverted letters is thus given by the queen's enemies: "That in the castell of Edinburgh thair was left be the Erle of Bothwell, before his fleeing away, and was send for be ane George Dalgleish, his servand, who was taken be the Erle of Mortoun, ane small gylt coffer, not fully ane fute lang, garnisht in sindrie places with the Roman letter F. under ane king's crowne: wharin were certane letteris and writings weel knawin, and be aithis to be affirmit to have been written with the Quene of Scottis awn hand to the Erle."

The papers in the box were said to be eight letters in French, some love sonnets in French also, and a promise of marriage by the Queen to Bothwell.

To the reality of these letters our author makes some considerable objections, from the nature of things; but as such arguments do not always convince, we will pass to the evidence of

facts.

June 20th, 1567, Dalgleish was seized, and six days after he was examined by Morton; his examination is still extant, and there is no mention of this fatal box.

December 4th, 1567, Murray's secret council published an act, in which is the first mention of these letters, and in which they are said to be written and subscrivit with her awin hand. Ten days after Murray's first parliament met, and passed an act, in which they mention previe letters written halelie [wholly] with her awin hand. The difference between written and subscribed, and wholly written, gives the author just reason to suspect, first, a forgery, and then a variation of the forgery. It is indeed very remarkable, that the first account asserts more than the second, though the second contains all the truth; for the letters, whether written by the queen or not, were not subscribed. Had the second account differed from the first only by something added, the first might have contained truth, though not all the truth; but as the second corrects the first by diminution, the first cannot be cleared from falsehood.

In October, 1568, these letters were shown at York to Elizabeth's commissioners, by the agents of Murray, but not in their public character as commissioners, but by way of private information, and were not therefore exposed to Mary's commissioners. Mary, however, hearing that some letters were intended to be produced against her, directed her commissioners to require them for her inspection, and in the mean

time, to declare them false and feigned, jorged and invented, observing that there were many that could counterfeit her hand.

To counterfeit a name is easy, to counterfeit a hand through eight letters very difficult. But it does not appear that the letters were ever shown to those who would desire to detect them and to the English commissioners a rude and remote imitation might be sufficient, since they were not shown as judicial proofs, and why they were not shown as proof, no other reason can be given than they must have then been examined, and that examination would have detected the forgery.

These letters, thus timorously and suspiciously communicated, were all the evidence against Mary; for the servants of Bothwell, executed for the murder of the king, acquitted the queen at the hour of death. These letters were so necessary to Murray, that he alleges them as the reason of the queen's imprisonment, though he imprisoned her on the 16th, and pretended not to have intercepted the letters before the 20th of. June.

Of these letters, on which the fate of princes and kingdoms was suspended, the authority should have been put out of doubt; yet that such letters were ever found, there is no witness but Morton, who accused the queen, and Crawford, a dependent on Lennox, another of her accusers. Dalgleish, the bearer, was hanged without any interrogatories concerning them; and Hulet, mentioned in them, though then in prison, was never called to authenticate them, nor was his confession produced against Mary till death had left him no power to disown it.

Elizabeth, indeed, was easily satisfied; she declared herself ready to receive the proofs against Mary, and absolutely refused Mary the liberty of confronting her accusers, and making her defence. Before such a judge, a very little proof would be sufficient. She gave the accusers of Mary leave to go to Scotland, and the box and letters were seen no more. They have been since lost, and the discovery, which comparison of writing might have made, is now no longer possible. Hume has, however, endeavoured to palliate the conduct of Elizabeth, but his account, says our author, is contradicted almost in every sentence by the records, which, it appears, he has himself perused.

In the next part, the authenticity of the letters is examined; and it seems to be proved beyond contradiction, that the French letters, supposed to have been written by Mary, are translated from the Scotch copy, and, if originals, which it was so much the interest of such numbers to preserve are wanting, it is much more likely that they never existed, than that they have been lost.

The arguments used by Dr. Robertson, to prove the genuineness of the letters, are next examined. Robertson makes use principally of what he calls the internal evidence, which, amounting at most to conjecture, is opposed by conjecture equally probable.

In examining the confession of Nicholas Hubert, or French Paris, this new apologist of Mary seems to gain ground upon her accuser. Paris is mentioned in the letters, as the bearer of them to Bothwell; when the rest of Bothwell's servants were executed, clearing the queen in the last moment, Paris, instead of suffering

of every formality requisite in a judicial evidence. In what dark corner, then, this strange production was generated, our author may endeavour to find out, if he can.

his trial with the rest at Edinburgh, was conveyed to St. Andrew's, where Murray was absolute, put into a dungeon of Murray's citadel, and two years after condemned by Murray himself nobody knew how. Several months after his death, a confession in his name, without the regularly and judicially given in, and therefore gular testifications, was sent to Cecil, at what exact time nobody can tell.

Of this confession, Lesly, Bishop of Ross, openly denied the genuineness, in a book printed at London, and suppressed by Elizabeth; and another historian of that time declares, that Paris died without any confession; and the confession itself was never shown to Mary, or to Mary's commissioners. The author makes this reflection::

"As to his second assertion, that it was re

ought to have been canvassed by Mary during the conferences, we have already seen that this likewise is not fact: the conferences broke up in February, 1569: Nicholas Hubert was not hanged till August thereafter, and his dying confession, as Mr. Hume calls it, is only dated the 10th of that month. How then can this gentleman gravely tell us, that this confession was ju dicially given in, and ought to have been at that very time canvassed by queen Mary, and her commissioners? Such positive assertions, apparently contrary to fact, are unworthy the character of an historian, and may very justly render his decision, with respect to evidences of a higher nature, very dubious. In answer then to Mr. Hume: As the queen's accusers did not choose to produce this material witness, Paris, whom they had alive, and in their hands, nor any declaration or confession from him at the critical and proper time for having it canvassed by the queen, I apprehend our author's conclusion may fairly be used against himself; that it is in vain at present to support the improbabilities and absurdities in a confession, taken in a clandestine way, nobody knows how; and produced after Paris's death, by nobody knows whom; and from every appearance destitute of every formality requisite and common to such sort of evidence: for these reasons, I am under no sort of hesitation to give sentence against Nicholas Hubert's confession, as a gross imposture and forgery."

"From the violent presumptions that arise from their carrying this poor ignorant stranger from Edinburgh, the ordinary seat of justice; their keeping him hid from all the world, in a remote dungeon, and not producing him with their other evidences, so as he might have been publicly questioned; the positive and direct testimony of the author of Crawfurd's manuscript, then living, and on the spot at the time; with the public affirmation of the Bishop of Ross at the time of Paris's death, that he had vindicated the queen with his dying breath; the behaviour of Murray, Morton, Buchanan, and even of Hay, the attester of this pretended confession, on that occasion; their close and reserved silence at the time when they must have had this confession of Paris in their pocket; and their publishing every other circumstance that could tend to blacken the queen, and yet omitting this confession, the only direct evidence of her supposed guilt; all this duly and dispassionately considered, I think one may safely conclude, that it was judged not fit to expose so soon to light this piece of evidence against the queen: which a cloud of witnesses, living, and present Morton affirms that they were taken in the at Paris's execution, would surely have given hands of Dalgleish. The examination of Dalclear testimony against, as a notorious impos-gleish is still extant, and he appears never to ture." have been once interrogated concerning the letters.

Mr. Hume, indeed, observes, "It is in vain at present to seek for improbabilities in Nicholas Hubert's dying confession, and to magnify the smallest difficulties into a contradiction. It was certainly a regular judicial paper, given in regularly and judicially, and ought to have been canvassed at the time, if the persons whom it concerned, had been assured of their innocence." -To which our author makes a reply, which cannot be shortened without weakening it.

The state of the evidence relating to the letters is this:

Morton and Murray affirm that they were written by the queen's hand; they were carefully concealed from Mary and her commissioners, and were never collated by one man, who could desire to disprove them.

Several of the incidents inentioned in the letters are confirmed by the oath of Crawfurd, one of Lennox's defendants, and some of the incidents are so minute, as that they could scarcely "Upon what does this author ground his sen- be thought on by a forger. Crawfurd's testitence? Upon two very plain reasons, first, That mony is not without suspicion. Whoever prac the confession was a judicial one, that is, taken tises forgery, endeavours to make truth the vehiin presence, or by authority of a judge. And cle of falsehood. Of a prince's life very minute secondly, That it was regularly and judicially incidents are known; and if any are too slight given in; that must be understood during the to be remarked, they may be safely feigned, for time of the conferences before queen Elizabeth they are likewise too slight to be contradicted. and her council, in presence of Mary's commis-But there are still more reasons for doubting the sioners; at which time she ought to have can- genuineness of these letters. They had no date vassed it, says our author, if she knew her in- of time or place, no seal, no direction, no superscription.

nocence.

"That it was not a judicial confession, is evident; the paper itself does not bear any such mark; nor does it mention that it was taken in presence of any person, or by any authority whatsoever; and, by comparing it with the judicial examinations of Dalgleish, Hay, and Hepburn, it is apparent, that it is destitute

The only evidences that could prove their authenticity were Dalgleish and Paris, of which Dalgleish, at his trial, was never questioned about them; Paris was never publicly tried, though he was kept alive through the time of the conference.

The servants of Bothwell, who were put to

death for the king's murder, cleared Mary with | turies have been considered as originals, by the their last words. enemies of Mary's memory, are now discovered The letters were first declared to be sub- to be forgeries, and acknowledged to be transscribed, and were then produced without sub-lations, and, perhaps, French translations of a scription. Latin translation. And the modern accusers of Mary are forced to infer from these letters, which now exist, that other letters existed formerly, which have been lost in spite of curiosity, malice, and interest.

They were shown during the conferences at York privately to the English commissioners, but were concealed from the commissioners of Mary.

Mary always solicited the perusal of these letters, and was always denied it.

She demanded to be heard in person by Elizabeth, before the nobles of England, and the ambassadors of other princes, and was refused. When Mary persisted in demanding copies of the letters, her commissioners were dismissed with their box to Scotland, and the letters were

seen no more.

The French letters, which for almost two cen

The rest of this treatise is employed in an endeavour to prove, that Mary's accusers were the murderers of Darnley: through this inquiry it is not necessary to follow him; only let it be observed, that, if these letters were forged by them, they may easily be thought capable of other crimes. That the letters were forged, is now made so probable, that perhaps they will never more be cited as testimonies

78