one years. The following anecdote respecting Newton may be new to some of our readers.

"One of Sir I. Newton's philosophical friends abroad had sent him a curious prism, which was taken to the Custom-house, and was at that time a scarce commodity in this kingdom. Sir Isaac laying claim to it, was asked by the officers what the value of the glass was, that they might accordingly regulate the duty. The great Newton, whose business was more with the universe than with duties and drawbacks, and who rated the prism according to his own ideas of its use and excellence, answered, that the value was so great that he could not ascertain it.' Being again pressed to set some fixed estimate upon it, he persisted in his reply, that he could not say what it was worth, for that the value was inestimable.' The honest Custom-house officers accordingly took him at his word, and made him pay a most exorbitant duty for the prism, which he might have taken away upon only paying a rate according to the weight of the glass!”—P. 238.

6

The author, at page 241, thinks it fortunate for science that there was such a body in existence as the Royal Society, to whom Newton could make his scientific communications; otherwise, it is very possible that the Principia might never have seen the light. If this is too high an estimate of the function performed by the Royal Society, it is yet no exaggeration to admit that they eminently aided in ushering the genius. of Newton into public notice. But had there been no patronage and no aid, the history of Newton would only have added another example of the self-inherent force of genius, and have supplied another instance to the many already on record of the pursuit of knowledge under difficulties.

Leuwenhoeck, the great Dutch naturalist, is another of those distinguished self-elevated men whom the Society aided and stimulated at the beginning of their career.

"Amongst the many interesting communications made to the Society during 1673, must not be omitted those of the celebrated Leuwenhoeck, under whose hands the microscope became an instrument of infinite utility to science. The first notice of the Father of microscopical discoveries, as he may be called, occurs in a letter from Dr. Graaf to Oldenburg, dated April 28, 1673, in which one Mr. Leuwenhoeck, he writes, hath lately contrived microscopes excelling those that have been hitherto made, adding that he hath given a specimen of their excellency by divers observations, and is ready to receive difficult tasks for more, if the curious in London shall please to send him such which they are not like to be wanting in. A short communication by Leuwenhoeck accompanied the letter, in which he described the structure of a bee. From this period until his decease in 1723, he was in the habit of constantly transmitting to the Society all his microscopical observations and discoveries. Some idea may be formed of his industry by the fact, that there are 375 papers and letters from him preserved in the archives, extending over a period of fifty years.

"In 1724, the Council of the Royal Society presented Leuwenhoeck's daughter with a handsome silver bowl, bearing the arms of the Society, in testimony of their esteem for her deceased parent, and as an acknowledgment for his valuable legacy."-Pp. 244, 245.

At page 405, the historian of the Royal Society enters into a somewhat particular detail of the well-known controversy between Newton and Leibnitz, as to which had priority in the invention of the mathematical organon called the Differential Calculus. It may be that each of those great mathematicians did separately and independently invent the Calculus. But, on the whole, the weight of evidence inclines us

rather to hold that Leibnitz, on a slight hint of what Newton had done, made the discovery himself. It was no plagiarism, but the effort of a great and independent mind sending forth its powers in the path of discovery. Leibnitz, however, was the first to impart to the philosophical world this new and powerful instrument of calculation. And thus we adjust the difference. The priority of invention probably remains with Newton-Leibnitz was the first to publish it to the world.

In the whole list of Presidents there is scarcely one whose character seems so amiable, or his mind so upright and honourable, as those of Sir Hans Sloane, who for fourteen years presided over the Society.

"Sir Hans Sloane was born at Killeleagh, in the north of Ireland, 1660. Though a native of the sister island he was of Scottish extraction, his father, Alexander Sloane, having been at the head of a colony of Scots settled in Ulster by James I. From a very early period he manifested a great inclination for the study of natural history and medicine, which was strengthened by a suitable education. When about sixteen years of age he was attacked by a spitting of blood, which threatened to be attended with considerable danger, and interrupted the regular course of his application for three years. He had already learned enough of medicine to know that a malady of this nature was not to be suddenly removed, and he prudently abstained from wine and stimulating liquors. By strictly observing this regimen he was enabled to prolong his life beyond the ordinary limits, presenting an example of the worth of his favourite maxim-that sobriety, temperance and moderation are the best and most powerful preservatives that nature has granted to mankind." P. 450.

On his arrival in the metropolis he commenced the study of medicine, cultivating at the same time natural history; and it was his knowledge of this science that introduced him early to the acquaintance of Boyle and Ray. After studying four years in London with unremitting severity, he visited France for further improvement. At the end of 1684, he returned to London, with the intention of settling in the metropolis as a physician, and was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society on the 21st of January following. In 1685, he presented some curiosities to the Society. After a short stay in the island of Jamaica he returned home, bringing with him 800 species of plants. On his museum, which he afterwards bequeathed as public property, he spent large sums of money, and enriched it by every means in his power. Dr. Franklin says in one of his letters,

"I had brought over a few new curiosities, among which the principal was a purse made of the asbestos, which purifies by fire. Sir Hans Sloane heard of it, came to see me, and invited me to his house in Bloomsbury Square, shewed me all his curiosities, and persuaded me to add that to the number, for which he paid me handsomely."-P. 452.

The President's love of natural history is exhibited by the pains he took to collect specimens, living and dead. He brings a snake from Jamaica:

"I had the snake tamed by an Indian, whom it would follow as a dog would his master. I kept it in a large earthen jar, such as are for keeping the best water for commanders of ships during their voyages, covering its mouth with two boards, and laying weights upon them. I had it fed every day on the garbage of fowl, &c. Thus it lived for some time, when being weary of its confinement, it shoved asunder the two boards on the mouth of the jar, and got up to the top of a large house wherein lay footmen and other domestics

of her grace the Duchess of Albemarle, who being afraid to lie down in such company, shot my snake dead. It seemed before the disaster to be very well pleased with its situation, being in a part of the house which was well filled with rats, which are the most pleasing food for this sort of serpents.”—P. 453.

The worthy old President died at the age of 93, bequeathing his museum to the public. It had cost him, he declares in his will, £50,000. His library, consisting of 3566 manuscripts and 50,000 volumes, was included in this bequest. Parliament accepted the trust, and Sloane's collections formed the nucleus of the British Museum. Here follows a picture of his later life:

"Sir Hans Sloane in the decline of his life left London and retired to his manor house at Chelsea, where he resided about fourteen years before he died. After his retirement to Chelsea he requested it as a favour to him (though I embraced it as an honour done to myself), that I would visit him every week, in order to divert him for an hour or two with the common news of the town, and with any particular that should happen amongst his acquaintance of the Royal Society, and other ingenious gentlemen, many of whom I was weekly conversant with; and I seldom missed drinking coffee with him on a Saturday, during the whole time of his retirement at Chelsea. He was so infirm as to be wholly confined to his house, except sometimes, though rarely, taking a little air in his garden in a wheeled chair, and this confinement made him very anxious to see any of his old acquaintance to amuse him. He was always strictly careful that I should be at no expense in my journeys from London to Chelsea to wait on him, knowing that I did not superabound in the gifts of fortune; he would calculate what the expense of coach-hire, waterage or any other little charge that might attend on my journeys backward and forward would amount to, and obliged me annually to accept of it, though I would willingly have declined it."-P. 455.

About the year 1771, it was determined by the Government to despatch Captain Cook, with a sufficient train of scientific men, on an expedition to the high southern latitudes, in order to decide whether there existed, as was supposed, a great southern continent. Priestley had been applied to, in order that he might accompany Cook, and his scientific attainments well fitted him for such an undertaking. But here, as on so many other occasions, Bigotry insinuates herself even into the halls of Science, and with foul harpy fingers taints even the pure and peaceful pursuits of Philosophy. By the connivance of the Government of the day, or by the too zealous intermeddling of some of their subalterns, Priestley's philosophical knowledge was regarded as questionable, because he had not inhaled along with it that perspicuous and coherent formulary of Christian belief, the Athanasian Creed, with the other points thereunto pertaining. It is one of the social evils of the political establishment of Christianity that it usurps for itself power, privilege, status and nobility; by ennobling itself, it fixes a brand of ignominy upon all that calls itself Dissent, and renders their virtues, their patriotism and their science suspected. The chemistry and the geology of a Dissenter are supposed to retain a tinge of his theological heresy. Happily this spirit is passing away. But in the days of Priestley it was rife and rampant, and a Church-and-King mob could wreak their Vandal vengeance on one of the purest of men, one of the most sainted of Christians, and the wisest of sages. The author of the History of the Royal Society is ashamed of such miserable narrowness, and visits it with his censure.

"But a darker shadow remains upon the history of this expedition. This is, the rejection of Priestley as astronomer on account of his religious opinions. Sir Joseph Banks had invited the Doctor to join the expedition, proposing advantageous terms, including a provision for his family. Priestley consented to go, but was objected to by certain members of the Board of Longitude, and consequently lost the appointment."-II. p. 56.

The following letter we have not been able to find in Rutt's Memoirs of Priestley, and therefore we shall copy it, as it may possibly be new to some of our readers. Unitarians of the present day are far from making an idol of Dr. Priestley. We reverence him as a great thinker, an earnest reformer, a distinguished philosopher, and a devout Christian; but we do not elevate him into an oracle, or accept his views any further than their evidence commends them to our acceptance. Yet Joseph Priestley shall ever be to us in the list of our saints and heroes, whose example shall justify us when we are zealous, and animate us when we are languid. Here is the letter which Priestley addressed to Sir Joseph Banks on his being thus so unhandsomely rejected by those who should have shewn a sympathy for science, and judged it without respect to persons or creeds.

"Leeds, Dec. 10, 1771.

"Dear Sir,-After the letter which I received about a fortnight ago from Mr. Eden, who informed me that he wrote at your request, I cannot help saying that yours and his, which I have now received, appear a little extraordinary. In the former letter there was far from being the most distant hint of any objection to me, provided I would consent to accompany you. You now tell me that as the different Professors of Oxford and Cambridge will have the naming of the person, and they are all clergymen, they may possibly have some scruples on the head of religion; and that on this account you do not think you could get me nominated at any rate, much less on the terms that were first mentioned to me. Now what I am and what they are, with respect to religion, might have easily been known before the thing was proposed to me at all. Besides, I thought that this had been a business of philosophy, and not of divinity. If, however, this be the case, I shall hold the Board of Longitude in extreme contempt, and make no scruple of speaking of them accordingly, taking it for granted that you have just ground for your suspicions. I most sincerely wish you a happy voyage, as I doubt not it will be greatly to the emolument of science; but I am surprised that persons who have the chief influence in this expedition, having (according to your representation) minds so despicably illiberal, should give any countenance to so noble an undertaking. I am truly sorry that a person of your disposition should be subject to a choice restricted by such narrow considerations. "I am, &c.,

J. PRIESTLEY.”

This outrage, committed on Priestley in the name of Philosophy, did not, however, prevent the Royal Society from afterwards, in 1773, awarding him the gold medal of the Society "for his curious and useful experiments on Air."

Priestley was the victim of one kind of illiberality; Franklin, another illustrious Dissenter from the stereotyped orthodoxy of "the powers that be," was the victim of another kind of illiberality. Soon after Franklin's grand discovery of the identity of the lightning with the electricity that can be artificially produced, that great practical genius suggested an application of it for the protection of buildings, churches, &c. Franklin recommended pointed conductors, another party suggested

that they should be blunt. Great Britain was then in contest with America, on the right of taxation without representation-a contest which happily terminated in favour of freedom, and in opposition to the arbitrary proceedings of the British Ministry. Political partizanship unfortunately entered the field of philosophy against Franklin, as theological illiberality had before voted against Priestley. Franklin's pointed conductors must be suspected and denounced, because he was an American, and the blunt conductors of an Englishman must be set up in rivalry. Even George III., more remarkable for his dogged obstinacy than for his acquaintance with science-who took it as a personal insult to himself that the Americans should resist oppression and assert the rights of British subjects-of course this model king of oligarchs took part against Franklin, and may have thought that his kingly suffrage could do something to determine a point of practical science, which rests on experiment alone, and ignores even royal authority. We subjoin an extract of a letter from Franklin on occasion of this paltry controversy; it shews in what spirit a philosopher should receive opposition; and the entire despicable wrangle reminds us how scrupulously we should protect the schools of learning and the halls of science from any invasion of the evil demons of ecclesiastical and political faction.

“I have never entered into any controversy in defence of my philosophical opinions. I leave them to take their chance in the world. If they are right, truth and experience will support them; if wrong, they ought to be refuted and rejected. Disputes are apt to sour one's temper and disturb one's quiet. I have no private interest in the reception of my inventions by the world, having never made, nor proposed to make, the least profit by them. The King's changing his pointed conductors for blunt ones is therefore a matter of small importance to me. If I had a wish about it, it would be that he had rejected them altogether, as ineffectual. For it is only since he thought himself and family safe from the thunder of Heaven, that he has dared to use his own thunder in destroying his innocent subjects.

"I am, &c.,

B. FRANKLIN."

At page 150, the author gives a portion of a letter of Franklin addressed to Priestley, which is very characteristic of the bold, original, prophetic, yet practical turn of mind of the American philosopher.

"I always rejoice," says Franklin, " to hear of your being still employed in experimental researches into Nature, and the success you meet with. The rapid progress which true science now makes occasions my regretting sometimes that I was born so soon. It is impossible to imagine the height to which may be carried, in a thousand years, the power of man over nature. We may, perhaps, learn to deprive large masses of their gravity, and give them absolute levity for the sake of easy transport. Agriculture may diminish its labour and double its produce; all diseases may by some means be prevented or cured, not excepting even that of old age, and our lives lengthened at pleasure, even beyond the antediluvian standard."

At p. 193, we have an interesting letter from Sir I. F. W. Herschell, giving some account of the present condition of the remains of the great Herschellian 40-ft. reflecting telescope, the entire cost of which was defrayed by George III.-certainly not the least creditable thing that we may place to his account. Sir John Herschell has an European reputation for science; some of us were not aware that he could touch