turbations of the heavenly bodies so correct each other, as to ensure the permanency of the whole system within assignable limits. But these, it may be said, are among the improvements and discoveries of Foreign philosophers. We may, therefore, ask, once more, with respect to Dr. Thomson's work, Is it a history of English science. Still, however, the reply must be in the negative; at least if such a work is meant to exhibit exclusively, a fair, complete, and perspicuous view of Fnglish science, and of that alone. We have, for example, accounts (brief enough, it is true) of Leibnitz's Differential Calculus, Euler's Calculus of Partial Differences, and of Lagrange's Calculus of Variations, which are not British inventions; but none of Kirkby's doctrine of Ultimators, Landen's Residual Analysis, and Glenie's Antecedential Calculus, which are. Nay, if we were to set down the various important discoveries, &c. of British philosophers, of which there is not any the least notice in the volume before us, the bare enumeration would Occupy pages. Once more, then, let it be asked, Is the work an historical, or chronological abridgement, of the published volumes of Transactions of the Royal Society? Undoubtedly, the volume answers better to this character than to any other: but even thus considered it is lamentably defective; not to mention that it is a most singular whimsy to abridge an abridgement, and then recommend it to the public, as an useful, if not, indeed, an essential companion to it. In preparing an abridgement, whether upon a large or upon a contracted scale, of a work relating to such an extreme diversity of topics as the Philosophical Transactions, it would be unreasonable to expect that the degree of knowledge and information requisite to assign to each disquisition in every department its due proportion in the general undertaking, can centre in one man. If Dr. Thomson, therefore, have failed, he is rather to be blamed for attempting what no one could perform adequately, that is, for not duly estimating human powers, than because he is often unsuccessful in endeavouring to describe or to appreciate what he does not comprehend. When handling those subjects with which he may be supposed best acquainted, as the different departments of natural history (with the exception, we think, of botany) and chemistry, the composition of the work is respectable, the information, in the main, correct and interesting, and the relative estimate of discoveries, &c. pretty fairly adjusted. But in other branches of knowledge, where the Doctor appears to be "almost a stranger," as in "Mathematics," and "Mechanical Philosophy," the in formation actually presented is too often slight and obscure, while the omissions of important results are most vexatiously frequent. We shall specify only a few instances. 1. In the Philosophical Transactions for 1768, there is an ingenious paper on the theory of circulating decimals, by Mr. John Robertson. This is omitted because, says Dr. Thomson, the subsequent publications of Dr. Hutton have deprived this paper of all its interest.' Now it happens that amidst the great variety of subjects treated by Dr. H. in his excellent publications, he has not a single word on that of circulating decimals, except the little, amounting to scarcely any thing more than definitions, in his Mathematical Dictionary. 2. The late Dr. Waring, was, as is universally acknowledged, one of the greatest mathematicians England could ever boast. According to his own account, in his "Essay on the Principles of Human Knowledge," (and he was far too modest a man to deal in exaggeration) he discovered between three and four hundred new proposi tions of one kind or other; considerably more than have been given by any English writer; and in novelty and difficulty not inferior.' Several of these are to be found in different volumes of the Philosophical Transactions; but our author attempts no detail of their contents, nor even enumerates all their titles. The reason he adduces is this: Waring was one of the profoundest mathematicians of the 18th century; but the inelegance and obscurity of his writings prevented him from obtaining that reputation to which he was entitled. Except Emerson, there is scarcely any writer whose works are so revolting as those of Waring! If obscurity and abstruseness be synonymous, and if those works on mathematics could be revolting which Euler delighted to study, and which D'Alembert and Lagrange characterise as full of excellent and interesting discoveries,' then may Dr. Thomson be excused for so speaking of such an author. 6 3. Among the contributions to the Royal Society by Mr. Geo. Atwood, are two on the equilibrium of floating bodies, and on the stability of ships. These Dr. Thomson characterises as "excellent papers;" but we conceive the subjects to which they relate are much too important, and Mr. Atwood's mode of treating them far too admirable and perspicuous, to allow us to think Dr, T. justifiable in thus passing them over. 4. The subject of Porisms is only once introduced, as far as we recollect, in the whole series of the Philosophical Transactions; and that is in a very ingenious paper by Mr. Brougham, in the volume for 1798. This valuable article Dr. Thomson has not even named; an omission which we cannot but consider as very extraordinary, when it is recollected that notwithstanding the attention which has been paid to the subject by Fermat, David Gregory, Halley, R. Simson, Playfair, and others, among the moderns, it is still a matter of doubt what was the exact kind of proposition the ancients designated by this name and it is, therefore, the more desirable that light should be drawn from every quarter. This catalogue might be almost indefinitely extended; as might also a kindred one of inadvertencies,—such, as when he calls the same person Mr. and Dr. Mudge in two successive pages, or when he calls fluxions, fluctions,-or when he names Maupertuis, Moupertuis,—or when he affirms that we have no history of mathematics in the English language'—or when he ascribes the fundamental principles of hydrostatics to Mr. Boyle in one page, and to Archimedes in the next. But the enumeration of such oversights would be an ungracious task and it is but an act of simple justice to acknowledge that this voluine, with all its errors, will be found to contain much that is both amusing and instructive. We have said enough to show that the work is very far from perfect; but it is in great measure constituted of selections from the Philosophi cal Transactions, and therefore cannot but be in many respects extremely useful. The lists which Dr. T. has given of the successive Presidents, Secretaries, &c. of the Royal Society, are preceded by an observation which we cannot pass unnoticed. Whoever will examine the Transactions with care, will easily satisfy himself that by far the most valuable volumes of that work are the 32 which have been published during the Presidentship of Sir Joseph Banks; and fortunately for the progress of science, he has enjoyed that situation for a much longer period than any of his predecessors.' Now, we are well aware that Sir Joseph Banks is a very ingenious naturalist, and a very hospitable baronet, and farther, we believe he has no great aversion Though I admire the ingenuity, and fully admit the soundness of Professor Playfair's definition, and also the utility of the principle on which it is founded, in the discovery of Porisms; I must acknowledge my doubt of that particular notion of a Porism having ever been adopted or even proposed, among the ancient geometricians.' Dr. Trail, in his Life of R. Simson, just published. to any department of science except that which includes Cardan's Rules,' and other equally 'obscure and revolting' particulars. We are also anxious to assign their due share of praise to the brilliant discoveries of Dr. Herschel, Sir Humphry Davy, and a few other philosophers of the present day. Yet whether it be that we poor reviewers have not so frequently partaken of the abundant repasts in Soho-Square, as some of our contemporaries, or to whatsoever cause it may be attributable, we certainly do not think the Philosophical Transactions of the last 32 years, any way comparable in point of richness and value to those which were published between the years 1695 and 1727; when the volumes teemed with communications from Wallis, David Gregory, Cassini, Demaiore, Homberg, Woodward, Bernoulli, Pitcairn, Boerhaave, Cheselden, Arbuthnot, Ditton, Keill, Garth, Mead, Loche, Brook Taylor, Desaguliers, Cotes, Huxham, Jurin, Maclaurin, Halley, Newton, Pemberton, R. Simson, Stirling, Stukely, Whiston, Bradley, Hales, &c.-as bright a constellation of genius, as ever illuminated the sciences of any country or any period. The biographical sketches in Dr. Thomson's work, are by no means such as the advertisements with which it was ushered into the world gave us reason to expect. One of the best is the account of Newton, taken avowedly from Turnor's collections for the Town and Soke of Grantham.' But even this occupies only eight pages, a narrow space to be assigned, in such a work, to the greatest philosopher that ever lived. It contains, however, a few amusing particulars; and among others, the following piece of poetry, written. by Newton, when a boy at school, under the portrait of Charles I. A secret art my soul requires to try, If prayers can give me what the wars deny. To this we shall take the liberty of subjoining a quotation relating to the moral character of Newton. 'Notwithstanding the extraordinary honours that were paid him, he had so humble an opinion of himself, that he had no relish for the applause which he received. He was so little vain and desirous of glory from any of his works, that he would have let others run away with the glory of those inventions which have done so much honour to human nature, if his friends and countrymen had not been more jealous than he was of his own glory, and the honour of his country. He was exceedingly courteous and affable, even to the lowest, and never despised any man for want of capacity; but always expressed freely his resentment against any immorality or impiety. He not only showed a great and constant regard to religion in general, as well by an exemplary life as in all his writings, but was also a firm believer of revealed religion; as appears by the many papers which he left behind him on the subject. But his notion of the Christian Religion was not founded on a narrow bottom, nor his charity and morality so scanty, as to show a coldness to those who thought otherwise than he did in matters indifferent; much less to admit of persecution, of which he always expressed the strongest abhorrence and detestation. He had such a mildness of temper that a melancholy story would often draw tears from him, and he was exceedingly shocked at any act of cruelty to man or beast; mercy to both being the topic that he loved to dwell upon. An innate modesty and simplicity showed itself in all his actions and expressions. His whole life was one continued series of labour, patience, charity, generosity, temperance, piety, goodness, and all other virtues, without a mixture of, any known vice whatsoever.' This is such a character as a Christian philosopher should have. Let the reader contrast it with the lives of such men as Voltaire, d'Alembert, Diderot, Condorcet, and many other philosophers on the continent; and if he feel something like "honest pride" at being the countryman of Newton we can readily forgive him. Dr. Thomson adds in a note, 'Newton's religious opinions were not orthodox; for example, he did not believe in the Trinity.' We ask, where is the evidence of this? It is a well-known fact that he was so angry with Whiston for having said he was an Arian, that Whiston was not sure he had thoroughly forgiven him for years after. Is it probable, is it possible, that an Antitrinitarian, of the mildest and most placable disposition should be long and seriously angry with another for calling him an Arian Newton was not likely to embrace any opinion, but upon the maturest deliberation; but when once his opinion was formed, although he was far too modest to be often adverting to it, yet he was infinitely too upright to vent his anger upon the person who represented him as holding that, or any kindred sentiments. But we need say no more respecting this often repeated charge. As yet, it has been adduced completely unsubstantiated by evidence; aud so long as that is the case we hold ourselves justified in disregarding it altogether. Here we must terminate our account of Dr. Thomson's history. As we proceeded we have, we confess, been free in our VOL. VIII. 4 N |