Brewster be allowed to stand instead of going deterioration: but for want of space these rumours. The papers cannot possibly we shall pass on to 1716, and shall make contain anything from which any such injury one extract from his letter to Conti, in which would arise as unquestionably will arise in his own name, he makes the assertion from the above substitution, which to all that Leibnitz had stolen from him. He says the indefiniteness of mere rumour, adds all that he had explained his "method" to Leibthe authority of a judicial decision. For nitz, "partly in plain words and partly in when Sir D. Brewster declares against New- cyphers," and that Leibnitz "disguised it ton, it is as if a counsel threw up his brief; by a new notation pretending that it was we mean nothing disrespectful, for we re- his own.' His statement contains two unmember when we ourselves would have held truths, which we impute to the forgetfulness it, on such retainers as the Principia, the of irritation. He did not describe part of fluxions, and the optics. Why should not his method in plain words: all that he dethese papers be published? It must come scribed in plain words was the species of to this at last. We have little doubt that problems which he could solve. When the Government would defray the expense, Glendower said, "I can call spirits from the which would be considerable: and the Ad- vasty deep," no one ever supposed that he miralty publication of the Flamsteed papers" partly described" the "method" of doing would be a precedent of a peculiarly appro- it. Secondly, he did not describe the rest priate character. Those who were scandal- in cypher: he put the letters of his sentences ized at the idea of the nation paying for the into alphabetical order, and gave what was printing of an attack upon Newton would take it as reparation: while those who entirely approved of the proceeding would as heartily approve of the new measure. It is impossible that the matter should rest here. Sir D. Brewster himself will probably desire, for his own sake, for that of Newton, and for that of truth, that these documents should undergo public scrutiny. And we have no delicacy in saying that they ought to come under the eyes of persons familiar with the higher parts of mathematics, which Sir D. Brewster neither is, nor pretends to be.

called an anagram. There are many good decypherers in the country, and the task is one for a mathematician: Wallis in past times, and Mr. Babbage now, may be cited as instances. But no one will undertake to say what the sentence is which we have de composed into the following string of letters: 6a 2c 5d 19e 2f 3h 5ij 3kl 6n 50 Sr 9s 9t 3u 2vw 3y: 93 letters in all, six of which are a's, two are c's, &c.

Yet a few years more, and the deterioration is more decided. In 1722, Newton himself wrote a preface and an Ad Lectorem to the reprint of the Commercium EpistoliThe Committee of the Royal Society was cum, and caused to be prefixed a Latin veralways considered in England as judicial, sion of the account of that work which he not as expressly defensive of Newton. A had inserted anonymously in the Philosophi few years ago, Professor De Morgan, a de- cal Transactions for 1715. His authorship cided opposer of Newton and the Committee of this paper, constantly denied, and for in the fluxional dispute-and one whose very cogent reasons, by his partisans, but views Sir D. Brewster states himself to proved from evidence internal and external, have confirmed on several points-rescued is now admitted by Sir D. Brewster. Much the objects of his censure from the infer- is to be got from those documents, but we ences which this notion would lead to, and shall only add that a few years ago Mr. De showed that the Royal Society intended its Morgan discovered that some alterations, Committee for purposes of advocacy, and one in particular of great importance, had that the members of the Committee had no been made in this reprint, without notice. other idea of their own function. Sir D. Of this Sir D. Brewster says not one word. Brewster says that Newton himself asserted He calls the reprint a new edition, which it this also he does not say where, and this was not; so completely does it profess to is only one of several obiter dicta which ought be only a reprint, that the old titlepage, to have been supported by reference; we and the old date, are reprinted after the new remember no such statement. It is now of title and the avowedly new matter at the course perfectly settled that the Committee beginning. We now believe that Newton was not judicial; and we find Newton to was privy to the alterations, and especially have been the real source of the materials to the most important of all: we believe it of the Commercium Epistolicum, and an- independently of what may possibly arise swerable for all the running notes which ac- from further security; and we suppose from company the published correspondence. Sir D. Brewster's silence that he has no We might easily proceed to justify our as- means of contradicting this natural inference. sertion that his moral intellect was under-The famous letter of Newton to Collins, on

which the Committee (very absurdly) made taire's insinuation as scarcely deserving the whole point turn, was asserted to have notice; so that by "no stain we are to been sent to Leibnitz, but no date of trans- understand no stain which he thinks worthy mission was given with the letter, though of notice. Now the fact is that, though rethe report of the Committee affirmed a spect for Newton has kept the matter quiet, rough date of which nothing was said in there has always been a general impression their evidence. A date of transmission was that it was a doubtful question, a thing to be smuggled into the reprint. Where does discussed, whether or no Mrs. C. Barton was this date first appear? Who first gave it? the mistress of Lord Halifax. Mr. De Newton himself in the Philosophical Trans- Morgan took up this subject in the Notes actions, anonymously, and without stating and Queries (No. 210) and, perfectly satisany authority. fied that she was either a wife or a mistress, Lastly, in the third edition of the Principia, came to a balance conclusion that, as he says, Newton struck out the scholium in which he" the supposition of a private marriage, had recognised the rights of Leibnitz. It generally understood among the friends of has been supposed that Pemberton, who the parties, seems to me to make all the cirassisted him, was the real agent in this "per- cumstances take an air of likelihood which haps unwise" step: but it appears distinctly no other hypothesis will give them; and this that Newton alone is responsible. He struck is all my conclusion." Sir D. Brewster, out this scholium; did he state openly why, whose mind admits no such balance, makes and let his reader know what had been done? this the "inference" of a private marriage. He supplied it by another scholium, begin- The grounds of the alternative are that she ning and ending in words similar to the old was publicly declared, by the writer of the one, but describing, not the correspondence Life of Halifax, to have lived, when very with Leibnitz, but the celebrated letter to young, and she herself distinguished by Collins. If the old scholium had been mis- beauty and wit, in the house of Lord Haliunderstood, as Newton affirms it was, noth- fax as "superintendent of his domestic ing would have been more easy than to affairs:" and this not in attack, but defenannex an explanation: if the suppression sively, with a declaration that she was a virwere done in the way of punishment, it tuous woman, though "those that were given should have been done openly. Newton, in to censure passed a judgment upon her which the second edition of the Principia, had re- she no ways merited." Further, Lord Halifax venged himself on Flamsteed by omitting held in trust an annuity for her of £200 a Flamsteed's name in every place in which he year, bought in Newton's name: besides could possibly do without it: the omission which, he left her £5000, with Bushy Park of his candid and proper acknowledgment and a manor for life: while neither she nor of what had passed between himself and any one of her friends contradicted the adLeibnitz was but a repetition of the same mission made in the Life of Halifax, which conduct under more aggravated circum- came out at the time when the legacies and stances. Of this letter to Collins, asserted the annuity would have turned public attento have been sent to Leibnitz, and falsely, as proved in our own day both from what was sent to Leibnitz, now in the Library at Hanover, and from the draught which has turned up in the archives of the Royal Society, we shall only say that it proved that Newton was more indebted to Hudde than Leibnitz would have been to him if he had seen the letter. But the relations of Hudde to the two inventors of the differential calculus would be matter for a paper apart.

To discuss every subject would require volumes; and we shall therefore now pass on to Sir D. Brewster's treatment of the curious question of the relation which existed between Newton's half niece, Catherine Barton, and his friend and patron, Charles Montague, Earl of Halifax. Sir D. Brewster declares that for a century and a half no stain has been cast on the memory of Mrs. C. Barton, and then proceeds to quote Vol

tion upon Miss Barton. This is a subject unconnected with mathematics; and we dwell upon it more than its intrinsic importance deserves, because it will enable us to show to every reader the kind of reasoning which can be pressed into the service of biography, when biography herself has been tempted into the service of partisanship. We may judge from the arguments which Sir David is driven to employ, that he would have followed the example of other biographers in slurring this subject, if Mr. De Morgan's closing words had not reminded him that the day for such a suppression was past:-" such points, relating to such men as Newton, will not remain in abeyance for ever, let biographers be as timid as they will." And we may also judge from these arguments why it is that the subject has been allowed to remain in abeyance.

And first, as to the annuity. Halifax holds in trust an annuity for Miss Barton

and directs his executor to give her all aid the dinner, which he pays for and gives her in the transfer this annuity was bought in share of, running him into debt, actual or Newton's name. Sir D. Brewster declares virtual (O the virtue of this word!) is an that "an annuity purchased in Sir Isaac absurdity. No doubt a man ought to proNewton's name can mean nothing else than vide for such a niece after his death: but if an annuity purchased by Sir Isaac Newton." he should leave her, as Newton did to Miss This is an assertion of desperation-it could Barton, the eighth part of £32,000, producing have meant, not thereby saying that it did an income of more than £200 a year, he mean, a settlement by Halifax on Miss Bar- treats her very handsomely: especially if a ton, done in Newton's name, with or with- friend of his should have left her a large forout Newton's knowledge; and done in New-tune, and his introduction should have marton's name purposely that people might ried her to a member of Parliament. Now think it was made by Newton, or at least, to Sir D. Brewster's statement. Just benot by Halifax. This may appear impossible fore our quotation begins, he informs us that to Sir D. Brewster in 1855, and yet it may by the act of transference it appears that have been done in 1706. We may fairly this trust was created in 1706, so that he infer that Halifax did not draw his will with seems to say that Miss Barton, aged six the intention of giving colour to those re- years, began to keep Newton's rooms in ports against which his biographer protests, Trinity College, when he was writing the or with the intention of exciting such reports; Principia: for he says she "had" kept his if the annuity were bought by Newton, what house for twenty years. He does not more easy than to have said so? In spite mean this: but here and elsewhere he heaps of Sir D. Brewster, who is neither lawyer circumstances together without sufficient nor actuary, we affirm positively that the attention to consistency. We very much description of an annuity upon the life of doubt if Newton could have afforded the A. B, as bought in the name of C. D, does price of that annuity in 1706. He came to not imply that C. D paid for it, and that so London with very little in 1696: by 1706 far as it implies anything on the point, which he had enjoyed £600 a year for four years, is little enough, it is the very contrary. and £1500 a year for six years. An annuity Again, Conduitt does not mention this annu- of £200 on a life of twenty-six, money makity in his list of the benefactions which New-ing five per cent., now costs above £3000: ton, who was very generous to his family, if we say, which is straining the point to the bestowed on his poorer relations. For this utmost, that Miss Barton's annuity cost Sir D. Brewster has to find a reason: Conduitt was the husband of Catherine Barton, knew of the assertions in Halifax's biography, had read Halifax's will, and must have been cognisant of the fact that the existence of a scandal had been asserted in print. And he finds a curious reason.

*

£2000, we confess we think it not very likely that Newton could have bought it, or that he would have held it just to his other relatives to have bought so large an annuity. But we are quite sure that Conduitt, under all the circumstances, would never have held this

*Conduitt tells us that his wife lived with her riage: it is believed that the Conduitts resided with uncle nearly twenty years, before and after her marNewton from the very marriage. Newton lived in London thirty years; therefore, ten or more of those years his niece did not live with him. The annuity was bought in 1706 and Halifax died in 1715. Miss Barton, being sixteen years old when Newton came to London, must have finished her school education shortly afterwards. Either Newton did not invite his favourite niece, whom he had educated, to live with him for ten years afterwards, or there is a gap which tallies most remarkably with the hypothesis of her residence under the roof of Halifax. But, as a presumption against the first supposition, there is extant a short letter from Newton to his niece, written in 1700, which by the contents seems written to an inmate of his house, absent for change of

air.

Newton has been charged with avarice; of which there is really no proof, unless his dying worth more than £30,000 be one. But Conduitt was in easy circumstances, and his wife also; their daughter was said to have had £60,000. Supposing, as is probable, that they bore their fair share of the joint expenses, Newton might have saved nearly all his income for the last ten years of his life.

biographer. Those assertions a

annuity as payment of a debt due to his tion." Sir D. Brewster appends a note to wife; he would not have made the twenty prove that love and affection "had not, in years end with 1706, to speak of nothing Halifax's day, the same meaning which they else. have now." Does he really think they mean Next, we come to the way in which Sir D. nothing now except conjugal love and its Brewster treats the assertions of Halifax's imitations? Does not a man still love his not in friends, and might not Pope write to H. attack, but in defence; the witness is a Cromwell now, as then, of his affection and friendly one, and the publication was made esteem? If we come to old meanings, we at the very time when Halifax's will had might remember that conversation did not. just drawn public attention to the legacies. always mean colloquy. If Miss Barton did live with Halifax under one roof, and if "I am likewise to account for another Omission Halifax did buy the annuity, these words are in the Course of this History, which is that of to be interpreted accordingly. And they the Death of the Lord Halifax's Lady; upon must be looked at jointly with the other whose Decease his Lordship took a Resolution of things. There is a fallacy which has no living single thence forward, and cast his Eye

upon the Widow of one Colonel Barton, and name in books of logic, but is of most freIt is that because neither Neice to the famous Sir Isaac Newton, to be Su-quent occurrence. perintendent of his domestick Affairs. But as this A, nor B, nor C, will separately give moral Lady was young, beautiful, and gay, so those that conviction of D, that therefore they do not were given to censure, pass'd a Judgment upon give it when taken together. her which she no Ways merited, since she was a Woman of strict Honour and Virtue; and tho' she might be agreeable to his Lordship in every Particular, that noble Peer's Complaisance to her, proceeded wholly from the great Esteem he had for her Wit and most exquisite Understanding, as will appear from what relates to her in his Will at the Close of these Memoirs."

We have seen that Sir D. Brewster can omit, as in the case of the secret alterations in the reprint above mentioned: we shall now see that he can omit when he distinctly declares he has not omitted. We are far from charging him with any unfair intention: we know the effect of bias, and nothing disgusts us more than the readiness with which Now Sir D. Brewster is so far biased by suppressions and misrepresentations are set the necessities of his case, as to affirm that down to deliberate intention of foul play. it is not here stated that Miss Barton (that Sir D. Brewster informs us that he has given she had been married is a mistake) lived in an appendix "all the passages" in which under Halifax's roof. "His biographer Swift mentions Miss Barton or Halifax. He makes no such statement. How could has not given all. When he wrote this (vol. any person contradict the cast of an eye-ii. p. 278), he intended to give all: but when the only act ascribed to Halifax by his bio- he came to the appendix, he altered his grapher?" The writer of " Newton" in the mind, omitted two, and forgot his previous Biographia Britannica-as strong a partisan announcement. It was not oversight, because as Sir David-could not get so far as this Mr. De Morgan had particularly mentioned ingenious solution: for he makes Halifax's these curious passages, in which Swift quotes continuance in his widowed state "the less to Stella some of Miss Barton's conversato be regretted" on account of this "cast of tion, which has the freedom of a married an eye." We are to infer, according to Sir woman (we mean of that day; our matrons David, that this friendly biographer, wishing are more particular). Either the Professor, to defend Miss Barton from censure she no who declines to repeat the stories, is over ways deserved, and alluding to rumours fastidious, or is unskilful in rendering the which had no source except a "plan or a license of the seventeenth century into the wish" of Lord Halifax, omitted to state that decorums of the nineteenth: we think we the plan was all Montague's eye; and forgot can convey an idea of the good joke over to assert the very material circumstance that which Catherine Barton, aged 31, and Jonashe did not accede to the plan, that she did than Swift, aged 43, enjoyed a hearty laugh. not live in the house of her earnest admirer. A man had died, leaving small legacies to We make no doubt, on the other hand, that those who should bear him to the grave, the apologist means to say that she did live who were to be an equal number of males there, and made her a widow to give some and females: provided always that each colour of respectability to it. Her noble bearer, male or female, should take a deadmirer left his large legacy "as a token," claration that he or she had always been a he writes, "of the sincere love, affection, strict votary of Diana. The joke was, that and esteem, I have long had for her person, there lay the poor man, unburied, and likely and as a small recompense for the pleasure to remain so: and this was the joke which and happiness I have had in her conversa- Miss Barton introduced, in a tête-à-tête with