Abbildungen der Seite

because pain is necessary to the good of the uni verse; and the pain of one order of beings extending its salutary influence to innumerable orders above and below, it was necessary that inan should suffer; but because it is not suitable to justice that pain should be inflicted on innocence, it was necessary that man should be criminal.

Because it may easily happen, and in effect | thinks it necessary that man should be debarred, will happen very frequently, that our own private happiness may be promoted by an act injurious to others, when yet no man can be obliged by nature to prefer ultimately the happiness of others to his own; therefore, to the instructions of infinite wisdom it was necessary that infinite power should add penal sanctions. That every man to whom those instructions shall be imparted may know, that he can never ultimately injure himself by benefiting others, or ultimately by injuring others benefit himself; but that however the lot of the good and bad may be huddled together in the seeming confusion of our present state, the time shall undoubtedly come, when the most virtuous will be most happy. I am sorry that the remaining part of this Letter is not equal to the first. The author has indeed engaged in a disquisition in which we need not wonder if he fails, in the solution of questions on which philosophers have employed their abilities from the earliest times,

And found no end, in wandering mazes lost. He denies that man was created perfect, because the system requires subordination, and because the power of losing his perfection, of "rendering himself wicked and miserable, is the highest imperfection imaginable." Besides, the regular gradations of the scale of being required somewhere "such a creature as man with all his infirmities about him, and the total removal of those would be altering his nature, and when he became perfect he must cease to be man."

I have already spent some considerations on the scale of being, of which yet I am obliged to renew the mention whenever a new argument is made to rest upon it; and I must therefore again remark, that consequences cannot have greater certainty than the postulate from which they are drawn, and that no system can be more hypothetical than this, and perhaps no hypothesis more absurd.

This is given as a satisfactory account of the Original of moral Evil, which amounts only to this, that God created beings, whose guilt he foreknew, in order that he might have proper objects of pain, because the pain of part is, no man knows how or why, necessary to the felicity of the whole.


The perfection which man once had, may be so easily conceived, that without any unusual strain of imagination we can figure its revival. All the duties to God or man that are neglected, we may fancy performed; all the crimes that are committed, we may conceive forborne. will then be restored to his moral perfections: and into what head can it enter, that by this change the universal system would be shaken, or the condition of any order of beings altered for the worse?

He comes in the fifth Letter to political, and in the sixth to religious Evils. Of political Evil, if we suppose the Origin of moral Evil discovered, the account is by no means difficult: polity being only the conduct of immoral men in public affairs. The evils of each particular kind of government are very clearly and elegantly displayed, and from their secondary causes very rationally deduced; but the first cause lies still in its ancient obscurity. There is in this Letter nothing new, nor any thing eminently instructive; one of his practical deductions, that "from government Evils cannot be eradicated, and their excess only can be prevented," has been always allowed; the question upon which all dissension arises is, when that excess begins, at what point men shall cease to bear, and attempt to remedy.

Another of his precepts, though not new, well deserves to be transcribed, because it cannot be too frequently impressed.

He again deceives himself with respect to the perfection with which man is held to be originally vested. "That man came perfect, that is, endued with all possible perfection, out of the hands of his Creator, is a false notion, derived from the philosophers.-The universal system "What has here been said of their imperfecrequired subordination, and consequently com- tions and abuses, is by no means intended as a parative imperfection." That man was ever en-defence of them; every wise man ought to redued with all possible perfection, that is, with all dress them to the utmost of his power; which perfection of which the idea is not contradictory, I can be effected by one method only; that is, by or destructive of itself, is undoubtedly false. But it can hardly be called a false notion, because no man ever thought it, nor can it be derived from the philosophers; for without pretending to guess what philosophers he may mean, it is very safe to affirm, that no philosopher ever said it. Of those who now maintain that man was once perfect, who may very easily be found, let the author inquire whether man was ever omniscient, whether he was ever omnipotent, whether he ever had even the lower power of archangels or angels. Their answers will soon inform him, that the supposed perfection of man was not absolute but respective, that he was perfect in a sense consistent enough with subordination, perfect, not as compared with different beings, but with himself in his present degeneracy; not perfect as an angel, but perfect as man.

From this perfection, whatever it was, he

a reformation of manners: for as all political Evils derive their original from moral, these can never be removed until those are first amended. He, therefore, who strictly adheres to virtue and sobriety in his conduct, and enforces them by his example, does more real service to a state, than he who displaces a minister, or dethrones a tyrant; this gives but a temporary relief, but that exterminates the cause of the disease. No immoral man then can possibly be a true patriot: and all those who profess outrageous zeal for the liberty and prosperity of their country, and at the same time infringe her laws, affront her religion, and debauch her people, are but despicable quacks, by fraud or ignorance increasing the disorders they pretend to remedy."

Of religion he has said nothing but what he has learned, or might have learned from the d vines; that it is not universal, because it must


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 passion.

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.

Thus, after having clambered with great labour from one step of argumentation to another, instead of rising into the light of knowledge, we are devolved back into dark ignorance; and all our effort ends in belief, that for the Evils of life there is some good reason, and in confession, that the reason cannot be found. This is all 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.*

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 lanFOR IMPROVING OF NATURAL KNOWLEDGE, FROM ITSguage changes, because the matter being always FIRST RISE. IN WHICH THE MOST CONSIDERABLE to be found in the original, contributes nothing PAPERS COMMUNICATED TO THE SOCIETY, WHICH to the preservation of the form superinduced by HAVE HITHERTO NOT BEEN PUBLISHED, ARE INSERTED the translator. But such versions may last long,

[ocr errors]




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.

I am yet far from intending to represent this work as useless. Many particularities are of importance to one man, though they appear trifling to another, and it is always more safe to


[blocks in formation]

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, it is so fully possessed by us, that little more is to be desired, except that one should talk of it less, and use it better.

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

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



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

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 moThere is, however, a power, from whose infludesty and piety of her on whom they were be-ever been free. Those who have set greatness ence neither they nor their predecessors have


When an opinion has once become popular, very at defiance, have yet been the slaves of fashion. 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.

century, to defame and vilify the house of Stuart, It has now been fashionable for near half a and to exalt and magnify the reign of Elizabeth. The Stuarts have found few apoligists, for the dead cannot pay for praise; and who will, withont reward, oppose the tide of popularity? Yet there remains still among us, not wholly extin

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 powers to the promotion of piety. The attempt to employ the ornaments of romance in the decoration of religion was, I think, first made by Mr. Boyle's Martyrdom of Theodora, but Boyle's philosophical studies did not allow him time for the cultivation of style, and the completion of the great design was reserved for Mrs. Rowe. Dr.guished, a zeal for truth, a desire of establishing Watts was one of the first who taught the dis-whose work is now before us, has attempted a right, in opposition to fashion. The author, senters to write and speak like other men, by vindication of Mary of Scotland, whose name showing them that elegance might consist with has for some years been generally resigned to piety. They would have both done honour to a infamy, and who has been considered as the better society, for they had that charity, which murderer of her husband, and condemned by her 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.

own letters.

confesses the importance to be such, that if they
Of these letters, the author of this vindication
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 do not corrupt, who instruct and do not weary.ters, from their discovery by the earl of Morton, In the first is contained the history of the letBut 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





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

From the Literary Magazine, 1756.

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. That on Mrs. Harrison's Miscellanies may be accounted somewhat interesting from the notice of Dr. Watts.

Written by Mr. Tytler, of Edinburgh.

queen Elizabeth and her commissioners, until they were finally delivered back again to the earl of Morton.

Goodall's arguments for proving the letters to be The second contains a short abstract of Mr. 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.

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

Printed in the Gentlemen's Magazine, October, 1760. question. And,

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


On June 15th, 1567, the queen delivered herself to Morton, and his party, who imprisoned her.

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.

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 December 4th, 1567, Murray's secret council box and letters were seen no more. They have published an act, in which is the first mention of been since lost, and the discovery, which comthese letters, and in which they are said to be parison of writing might have made, is now no written and subscrivit with her awin hand. Ten longer possible. Hume has, however, endeadays after Murray's first parliament met, and voured to palliate the conduct of Elizabeth, but passed an act, in which they mention previe let-his account, says our author, is contradicted alters 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

most 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

his trial with the rest at Edinburgh, was con- of every formality requisite in a judicial evidence. veyed to St. Andrew's, where Murray was abso-In what dark corner, then, this strange produc lute, put into a dungeon of Murray's citadel, and tion was generated, our author may endeavour to two years after condemned by Murray himself find out, if he can. 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:

"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 at Paris's execution, would surely have given clear testimony against, as a notorious impos


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.

"Upon what does this author ground his sentence? Upon two very plain reasons, first, That the confession was a judicial one, that is, taken in presence, or by authority of a judge. And secondly, That it was regularly and judicially given in; that must be understood during the time of the conferences before queen Elizabeth and her council, in presence of Mary's commissioners; at which time she ought to have canvassed it, says our author, if she knew her in


"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

"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 judicially 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."

The state of the evidence relating to the let ters is this:

Morton affirms that they were taken in the hands of Dalgleish. The examination of Dalgleish is still extant, and he appears never to have been once interrogated concerning the letters.

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 mentioned 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 be thought on by a forger. Crawfurd's testimony is not without suspicion. Whoever practises forgery, endeavours to make truth the vehicle of falsehood. Of a prince's life very minute incidents are known; and if any are too slight to be remarked, they may be safely feigned, for they are likewise too slight to be contradicted. But there are still more reasons for doubting the genuineness of these letters. They had no date of time or place, no seal, no direction, no superscription.

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

« ZurückWeiter »