private character, he is equally the object of our admiration and regret. The abilities he displayed in the senate were only equalled by the integrity of the principle which called them into action. A steady and uniform friend to the liberties of his country, he was the determined, yet temperate, opposer of every attempt to infringe them. Possessed of great intellectual powers, a ready comprehension, a retentive memory, and a discriminating judgment, he rarely entered upon a subject which he was not able to pursue through all its dependencies, and to consider it in all its bearings. In consequence of which, he seldom delivered an opinion to which his unprejudiced hearers did not readily concede. His high rank, his extensive fortune, but, above all, the purity of his character, and energy of his mind, einbracing with equal facility objects of the greatest magnitude or the minutie of business, marked him out as the person best fitted to take the lead in the adıministration of public affairs; to which, there is little doubt, if happily for his country he had lived, he would soon have been invited. In his private, as in his public character, his ruling motive of action was to do good. The predominant passion of his soul was to benefit mankind. And this he did, not by lavish and indiscriminate bounty, which in many cases is little more than a premium upon idleness, but by furnishing employment to the poor and the industrious, and by exhibiting examples for imitation to those of a superior class. In that most difficult of all duties enjoined us by religion, the regulation and government of the temper, whatever rivals he might have in other parts of his character, in this at least, (as far as my knowledge of human nature extends,) he had No EQUAL. Such was the candid habit of his mind, it seemed as though he could not think sufficiently ill of any man to justify anger or resentment. He possessed another quality, also, which is rarely attendant on either rank, fortune, or talents. The self-consequence which to frequently attaches itself to rank and fortune, and the vanity which as frequently accompanies great talents, are very apt to make their possessors dogmatical and opinionative: on the contrary, no man thought more modestly of himself, nor was more diffident of his own talents or judgement, and this, not as often happens, from mere indolence and ductility of temper, but from, what at first sight may appear singular, the very magnanimity of his mind. There are many parts, it is true, in the character we are contemplating, which those only can aspire to imitate, who walk in the same exalted sphere of society as he did; and yet, who is there who may not profit by the example of his virtues? who is there, however humble may be his station, who might not drink deeply of instruction from the blameless current of his life?' Perhaps the very strong and comprehensive epithet, inserted in the last line of this extract, may not be altogether defensible. Art. 45. The Nature, the Causes, and the Effects of Indifference with regard to Religion. Preached before the Society in Scotland for propagating Christian Knowledge, 3d June 1801. By William Laurence Brown, D. D. Principal of Marischal College, and University Professor of Divinity, &c. With an Appendix, con- taining taining an Abstract of the State and Proceedings of the Society, since February 1800. 8vo. pp 88. Printed at Aberdeen. 1802. As religious indifference has offen been mistaken for virtuous moderation, Dr. Brown endeavours to discriminate between two qualities which are materially different, though generally confounded. Moderation, (says he,) in religious matters, can signify only that,-the first and highest place being allotted to pure and enlightened piety, -articles of faith, modes of worship, and rules of practice, which belong not to its essence, are not invested with the importance of fundamental points; and that even essential religion itself is not to be maintained and defended by means inconsistent with its nature and its end, by intolerant zeal and persecuting violence.' Dr. B. points out, moreover, in what respects lukewarmness is essentially different from infidelity; after which, he proceeds to enumerate the effects and to investigate the causes of this disposition; terminating with some observations designed to prevent the increase of religious indifference through the community. Our confined limits preclude us from the satisfaction which we should feel in being able to do justice to this discourse; which is pointed at a prevalent and growing evil, and which is judiciously calculated to awaken that rational and virtuous zeal which is essential to the flourishing state of true Christianity. According to the account annexed, the Society for promoting Christian Knowlege persevere with great success in the career of utility; and all who are aware of the advantages of moral education, generally diffused, must wish that a similar system pervaded every part of the United Kingdom: the poor will not be better servants, nor better subjects, for being kept in profound ignorance. CORRESPONDENCE. To the EDITOR of the MONTHLY REVIEW. • SIR, IN the account given of Mr. Atwood's Dissertation on Arches, Page 41, &c. of the last Number for May, the Reviewer has introduced several references to my tract on Bridges, in which he has, inadvertently I suppose, mis-stated my meaning and theory in several instances; and as it is very material, at a time like the present, when works are in contemplation of such importance as the proposed new London bridges, that no erroneous ideas should go to the public, I trust you will have the goodness to mention my protest against them, as follows. In speaking of the magnificent project of Messrs. Telford and Douglass, for a bridge of a single arch, the Reviewer very properly says, "it was natural to suppose that ingenious and scientific men would direct their attention to that subject." But then be inaccurately adds, that "Dr. Hutton has already presented the fruit of his researches to the public." He afterwards states that Mr. Atwood has done the same; and then he proceeds to draw comparisons between the two works. Now, Sir, although I have no objection to such comparisons, when made with accuracy and impartiality, it would have been but justice justice to observe, though Mr. A.'s book has been written from researches made in consequence of the above mentioned proposal, that Dr. H.'s has not. On the contrary, it is stated, in the preface, to be merely a republication of a tract hastily composed on another occasion, about 30 years before, and that another publication, adapted to the present existing circumstances and other considerations, is proposed for a future opportunity. In the second paragraph it is said, "The author of the present treatise (Mr. A.) has considered the subject under another point of view, and supposes the bridge to be composed of parts having the form of wedges." So also has Dr. II. considered the arch as made up of sections of wedges, and has pointed out the direction of the joints. Indeed every writer on arches must consider them as made up of such wedges, for without these there can be no such thing as an arch. In the middle of page 42, it is said, "In one, (Dr. H.'s theory) the parts of the arch are supposed to be so compacted by the means of cement, that the arch is in the same state as if composed of an uniform and equally coherent substance." Now, Sir, this also I utterly disclaim. I suppose quite the reverse. I suppose no coherence by cement or otherwise; but rather that the parts, unconnected, keep each other in balance simply by their weight and shape. Were the case otherwise, and the parts supposed all firmly compacted together as one solid mass, this would no longer act as an arch, but rather as a single beam, block, or lintel. The same erroneous imputation is repeated in the next paragraph, where it is said, if the arch be made of bricks cemented with mortar, then Dr. Hutton's theory seems most proper to be adopted. To which I reply. and repeat, that I disclaim all such feeble and adventitious aid as mortar, cement, &c. as, however convenient for other purposes, incompatable with the true balancing theory. 'Several other objectionable things in the above mentioned article in the Review might be pointed out, if room and your work were proper for the occasion. CHARLES HUTTON. Dr. Hutton uses the word disclaim properly, and we confess that we had no right to force any supposition on his theory: but, if he had done us the justice to remark the note at the bottom of p. 42, he might have conjectured that we expressed ourselves as we did, not because we were ignorant how he and Emerson supposed their theory to be applied, but because such application was unsatisfactory. We now state our opinion in terms that cannot easily be mis-conceived. In Emerson's and in Dr. Hutton's theory, the vertical pressure at each point of the curve is supposed to be such, that the tangential forces mutually destroy each other; and therefore that theory, in its application, is not strictly true, except the arch be conceived to be uniform, or composed of a series of infinitely small globules, and acted upon by forces in directions precisely opposite. Dr. Hutton, however, it appears from the above letter, means to consider the arch as composed of distinct parts having shape and weight: but if the parts have shape and form, they must act as wedges; and in this case, will Emerson's or Dr. H.'s theory apply? We say, no; be cause, cause, in that theory, it is supposed that the balancing forces meet in one point; and they do not necessarily meet, in one point, when the vertical pressures of the wall act on the wedges of the arch. Dr. H. says that he has considered the arch as made up of wedges, and has pointed out the direction of their joints.' In what part of his work has he considered the arch thus composed? The article Voussoir, at the end of his dictionary of terms, is all that we can find relative to this point: but will he assert that his theory is practically true when the arch is formed of wedges? To us it seems that, whoever should adopt that theory, without considering the mode of applying the weight and the forms of the wedges, would be deluded by a speculative truth. If the arch be composed of wedges, sooner or later their proper ties must be considered: but of wedges Dr. H. can scarcely be allowed to have made mention; and, if the arch be composed of wedges, then is his theory not applicable, or can only be made appli cable by additional reasonings and calculations. Perhaps, in the projected work of which he speaks, the theory will be rendered complete : at present, between his or Emerson's theory of Equilibration, and its practical application, there are many chinks and intervals which require to be filled up, with the cementing aid of experimental proofs and mathematical demonstrations. A Lover of Consistence,' who writes to us on the subject of the religious opinions of the late Duke of Bedford, is requested to consider that, in speaking of Mr. Fox's panegyric of that nobleman, our views were no more directed to his Grace's orthodoxy, heterodoxy, or infidelity, than, apparently, were those of the Honourable orator; who probably conceived, as we do, that in characterizing the Duke as a public man, a politician, and an agriculturist, and in pronouncing this eulogy in the House of Commons, the introduction of his religious principles would have been wholly irrelevant and mis-placed. What really were the Duke's sentiments on this important subject, we are morcover entirely ignorant; and of the immorality of his conduct in life we never heard any thing peculiarly flagrant. On the question of a death-bed repentance we shall not here enlarge.Our correspondent will never find us indifferent to the cause of vitue and the interests of religion: but "every thing is beautiful in its season;" and in the instance in question, we neither saw the propriety of introducing this subject, nor were we qualified to speak on it. We cannot satisfy the queries of J. C. which are not sufficiently explicit nor is it altogether right to occupy our time and attention with such inquiries. In the last Appendix, P. 476. 1. 5. dele the marks of parenthesis. P. 486. 1. 14. from bott. for too much,' r. not much. P. 491. 1. 30. for Philosophers', r. Philosophes. P. 502. 1. 10. for vout,' r. vont. P. 514. note, dele p. 31 & 32.' P. 521. 1. 5. from bott. for on,' r. eu. P. 535. 1. 16. from bott. for from her, I. for him. THE MONTHLY REVIEW, For JULY, 1802. ART. I. Voyages from Montreal, on the River St. Laurence, through the Continent of North America, to the Frozen and Pacific Oceans; in the Years 1789 and 1793. With a preliminary Account of the Rise, Progress, and present State of the Fur Trade of that Country. Illustrated with Maps. By Alexander Mackenzie, Esq. * 4to. PP. 544. 11. 11s. 6d. Boards. Cadell jun. and Davies. 1801. FEW Ew ages have been more fruitful than the present in extraordinary atchievements; and among those which will be regarded with interest by posterity, will be numbered the enterprizes of the hardy and adventurous travellers who, undaunted by the known danger of their attempts, have traversed regions which had been deemed impenetrable to the most ardent. efforts of the civilized world. The publication, to which our attention is now called, affords another instance of this bold Mr. Mackenzie has twice, in difand persevering spirit. ferent directions, crossed the great continent of North America, from shore to shore: the first time, in 1789, to the Frozen sea; the second, in 1793, to the Western coast; and these two voyages are related in the volume before us. In his preface, the author thus speaks of himself and his work : I was led, at an early period of life, by commercial views, to the country North-West of Lake Superior, in North America; and being endowed by Nature with an inquisitive mind and enterprizing spirit; possessing also a constitution and frame of body equal to the most arduous undertakings; and being familiar with toilsome exer, tions in the prosecution of mercantile pursuits; I not only contemplated the practicability of penetrating across the continent of Ame-. rica, but was confident in the qualifications, as I was animated by the desire, to undertake the perilous enterprize.' * Since the publication of this volume Mr. Mackenzie has received the honour of knighthood, in consideration of his labours: but we shall speak of him, in this article, only by that title which appears in the work. • The |