Page images

300 a course of medicine, was suddenly seized with delirium, which, on account of an hereditary bias in that direction, is in danger of settling into a chronic, and perhaps cureless, aberration of the mental powers. The mind in the latter instance, shattered by disease, may be counpared to the small fragments of a broken mirror, which retain the faculty of reflection, but where, although the number of images is increased, there is no one entire and perfect representation.” I cannot conclude without expressing a wish that Dr. Reid would reprint his Reports of Diseases,with such revision as his more matured practice may suggest; beside their value as a medical history, they contain many aphorisms of practical wisdom, nor are they less distinguished for perspicuity and elegance of style than for originality of thought. It is impossible to peruse these reports without feeling that they are the productions of no common mind. It. BAKEWELL. Robert-street, Bedford row. -oTo the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SI R, OU will highly oblige me by giving room to the following observations in your extensively circulated miscellany, in the hope they may not prove unaccep-table to the curious, and convey communication of considerable importance to several persons whose legal rights are thereby particularly distinguished. - T. L. CURSHAM, M.A. Vicar. Mansfield, Notts. Jan. 18, 1814.

[blocks in formation]

Leiger Book of Beau Vale Priory.

[May 1, deaconry of Richmond, diocese of York. These endowments are first given in the body of the deeds of appropriation, and afterwards in separate acts. They took place at a late period in the year 1343. I am ignorant whether they be registered in the Archiepiscopal Records at York, in which diocese Notts is; but as many at this day are not discoverable, to the great loss and detriment of the vicars, I may perhaps render a service by giving publicity to the repository of these three. Numerous clergy and others are at this moment instituting expensive, and often fruitless searches for these necessary documents. It is well known to what causes their so frequent absence is to be attributed. The identity of this Register Book, for legal purposes, may be questioned, as it is not deposited in an office of records, but in private hands. This must be decided by abler judgment than I can presume to offer. Its internal evidence and correspondence with Thoroton's publication, may perhaps entitle it to the rank of an original. If this be the case, it appears of considerable importance to the vicars, whose endowments' are enumerated in it. It is a well known point of law, that “talibus ordinationibus' mullum tempus occurrit;” in other words, that no prescription will invalidate their contents; that they are esteemed in all cases as conclusive evidence to ascertain the vicarial rights, as if the deeds were of yesterday's production. Should further information respecting this Chartulary be acceptable to any one who may read these pages, I shall be happy in giving extracts and translations, (on account of the abbreviations,) on application for that purpose.

'o the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SIR, OUR correspondent Linnaeus is mistaken in supposing he is the only one who ever took notice of the peculiar manner in which the scarlet-flowered French bean twines itself round sticks or poles. I was led some years ago to ob-. serve the direction which scandent plants take, from seeing the following erroneous assertion in Adams' Summary of Geography and History, p. 38. “Of the Plantae contortar, or such as twist round other plants, some in climbing follow the direction of the sun, as the scarlet kidney-bean, &c. others in climbing follow a contrary direction, as the black briony. The former kind are wholesome and nutri-. tive; the latter noxious, and generally poisonous.” - D. Copsey, r

[ocr errors]

For the Monthly Magazine. 9n the RELATIVE HEights of the MEDITERRAN EAN and the RED seA, or ARABIAN GULF. * IT is a certain truth,” said the cele- brated geometrician and naturalist, Father Boscovich, in 1772, “that the ge. neral balance of the waters on the face of the earth can be deranged only by some extraordinary incident, such as that 9f an abyss opening on a sudden in the bottom of the sea, by which a temporary lowering of the surface, over that gulf, would be produced.

“All seas having a communication with the ocean (excepting the Caspian, and some other smaller internal seas, from which no outlet is visible), the general level of the sea must he always maintained. It is therefore without any reason, not to say absurd, that fears are entertained respecting the opening of a canal, or other communication, between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, as if thereby Egypt and other countries, on both shores of the Mediterranean, would

be inundated and overwhelmed.
“Should the smallest inequality of le-
vel in those seas take place, the waters
would soon find their way round the

Cape of Good Hope, and the true balance
of surface would very speedily be re-
stored.” -
Such was the opinion of Boscovich;
but in it he formed an erroneous judg-
ment, as was established by the French
engineers employed in the expedition to
Egypt. In a memoir on the communica-
tion between the Indian ocean and the
Mediterranean, through the Red Sea and
the isthmus of Sucz, it is shown that the
surface of the Red Sea, at high water of
spring tides at Suez, is more elevated
than the surface of the Mediterranean,
taken at low water of spring-tides, at
Tineh, the ancient Pelusium, by 9.903
metres, or 3 feet English.
From the same researches it also ap-
peared that the waters of the Red Sea
might overflow the Delta; and that there-
fore the apprehensions of the ancients
and the moderns on that head are not
without a good foundation.
A difference does therefore exist be-
tween the level of the Red Sea and that
of the Mediterranean; a fact not easily
explained, but well deserving the atten-
tion of any modern Boscovich. -
Ipswich, Jan. 1814, INQUISITOR.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][graphic]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

into which I assuredly thought the controversy was fallen. When I first read his letter of October 1806, sneeringly endeavouring to controvert my hypothesis, I wondered who and what he could be that could attack me in so uncandid a manner; for an air of sarcasm runs through his whole paper. That he was a scientific man I had no doubt, for his catoptrical remarks had great merit, if they had been given with candour. I certainly thought myself entitled to better treatment, as what I offéred with the

best intention was, at least, an amuse

ment to the picturesque observer, if it could be rendered of no use; and therefore ought not to have been made a subject of derision, however deficient in mathematical precision. I have

eretofore shown that Mr. S. himself * not infallible; for he asserted that the situation of the eye is not material in reflections, when every one must be convinced it is the only essential point. As he has thought it proper to revive the controversy after so many years have elapsed, I will now endeavour to return the compliment he paid to me; and in the first place will say that his shifting the scene from another Magazine to your miscellany, in the seemingly undermining manner he has done, without even hinting at my second paper, wherein I have cleared away all the ambiguities of my first, must be reprobated by every candid mind. If he had any thing further to say, why did he not answer my second paper, and fight the battlé out at the time? The answer is obvious—because he could not. I freely confess there are some things unguardedly said in my first paper, and which I now regret; but they are trifles, and no way derogatory to the principal aim of that paper, namely, to assert that the eye is the certain and only vanishing point of reflections, and which I still maintain. Though I have great deference for mathematical disquisitions as far as I understand them, yet I am convinced they cannot do away the common sense he speaks of; and what I have said on the subject in my second paper is so much in point, that Mr. S. will have hard work to overthrow it. I shall not offend the tender conscience of Mr. S. by endeavouring to force his faith to accept what must be

obvious to every picturesque observer

that is not wilfully blind; who has seen,

or may wish to see, the controversy be

tween us, Audi alteram partem, (Vide

Gentleman's Magazine for August, Octo- 1

ber, and November, 1806.) Whoever troubles himself to do this will find that after having demonstrated that the eye is the certain and only vanishing point of reflections, beyond the possibility of a doubt of its truth, my argument goes to prove that where two or míðre objects in a picture are reflected perpendicularly, they are out of nature; because they do not both, or all, tend to the eye, fixed in a certain point; and that the eye must be fixed in a certain point in viewing a picture, no one of any scientific taste, I presume, will deny; for if it is moved ever so little from the original point it makes a new picture; and for the truth of this I appeal to the members of the Royal Academy. But having in my second paper observed that most of the objects of nature are seen in two planes; if two or more objects are reflected as tending or inclining to the eye, they are equally out of nature, because the rays of incidence and reflection are not in the same plane. And therefore it follows of course that there never was a true representation of the reflections of two or more objects in a picture; because a picture must ever consist of one plane only. Of the two therefore, seeing both are out of nature—for if one has not the perpendicular, the other has not the inclination—per. haps the latter ought, in strictness, to be preserred; because reflections are always so seen on the water, and the ray of incidence is not so very perceptible'; but custom has established the former. I have said that I set reflections on water in the first class of the picturesque beauties of nature, and I hope Mr. S. will not pretend to controvert that. Let us now see what he wants to know, that he might not have gathered from my second paper, which he seems assiduously to keep in the dark. . He says, “I am particularly desirous of seeing the reflections on water (as far as regards particular objects) the picture and the vanishing point, fully elucidated by some of your mathematical correspondents; for I must confess my faith is not sufficient to subscribe to the opinions of this artist, while they are at variance with science, common sense, and every day's observation.” Very well, Mr. Squire!' And I also should be glad to see what a mathematical man may make of them; and further—to see Mr. Squire's definition of the terms, science, common sense, and every day's observation : for if they are not all of them fully elucidated in my second paper, which he seems studiously to avoid noticing, I con2 R 3 feia



fess I do not know their meaning. If Mr. Squire has no other motive for raising this controversy from the dead, perhaps more than myself may think he is now sufficiently answered. Worcester, Iisarch 1, 1814. -oTo the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SIR, HE, late minister, Mr. Pitt, with the view of satisfying not his own doubts, but those of many respectable persons, conceived the happy idea of applying, A.D. 1788, to six of the most celebrated foreign Catholic Universities, Louvaine, Douay, Alcala, Salamanca, Valladolid, and the Sorbonne, for the purpose of solving the following questions: 1. Has the Pope or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the church of Rome, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoever within the realm of England * 2. Can the Pope or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance upon any pretext whatsoever ? 3. Is there any principle in the tenets of the Catholic faith, by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with Jheretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transactions either of a public or private nature ? To the above queries it is well known that these learned bodies answered, not merely by a decided, but indignant negative:* and to the answers thus returned, the Irish Catholic Prelates in a Synod, held November 1812, formally


* The University of Salamanca observes, “ that Christ invariably denied that he had received any temporal power; declaring that his kingdom was not of this world. And they argue, that no other power than that which Christ himself possessed, could be given by him to St. Peter, or vested in the universal church.” To the same purpose, a learned and most respectable Catholic divine, in an excellent Tract published some years since, entitled, ‘Enquiry into the Moral and Political Teudency of the Religion stiled Roman Catholic,’ says, “The author of christianity neither exercised himself, nor imparted to his followers any degret of earthly dominion. The Apostle, therefore, from whom the Bishops of Rome claim their supremacy,

[ocr errors]

Remarks on Catholic Emancipation.

[May 13: expressed their high and unreserved ap-. probation. In the year 1791, the Catholic bishops of Ireland requested from the See of . Rome, an authentic explanation of cer- . tain words in the pontifical oath which had been industriously perverted as giving countenance to persecution. The congregation of Cardinals de Propaganda . being convened, not only did the official . document transmitted upon this ocea- . sion, and sanctioned by the then-Pope Pius VI. disclaim the obnoxious meaning attached to the words, “haereticos persequar et impugnabo,” but it allowed . the words themselves to be in future . omitted : moreover, reprobating in au

thoritative and pointed language the de- ..

testable maxims, “that faith is not to be kept with the heterodox; that an oath to Kings separated from the Catholic

communion can be violated; or that it is .

lawful for the Bishop of Rome to invade their temporal rights and dominions.” In the Class-book used in the Catholic College of Maynooth, it is expressly stated, “that subjects cannot be absolved from their allegiance to their respective sovereigns by any power or ju- . risdiction granted by Christ to the Pope, or church; acknowledging, nevertheless,

the high pretensions of the Papal See

during the dark ages, and accounting for the occasional acquiescence of Kings and Princes in these claims, from the necessity they were often under of courting the aid of the Roman Pontiffs. In fine, the oath imposed on Catholics by the 18th of George III. which disavows all temporal power and jurisdiction on the part of the Pope, has been taken with an emulation of loyalty throughout the kingdom. Strange, however, as it may seem, some there still are who, in defiance of this phalanx of authorities, hesitate not to brand the Catholics as incapacitated by their religious principles, from giving satisfactory proof of their allegiance to the government; and the reasons assigned in justification of the perpetual exclusion of this large portion of the

[blocks in formation]

community *

r - 1

« PreviousContinue »