out our indignation against him. The description (in p. 294) seems to refer to the packet which was put into Newton's hands in 1705, and in another place (No. 163) Flamsteed says that the seal was broken when the catalogue was returned to him in 1708; but neither in his personal narrative (p. 86) nor in his letter to Sharp (No. 135), does he make any such complaint as he probably would, if the circumstance had occurred at that time. The sextant observations were completely printed in 1707, and the managers decided on the expediency of immediately proceeding with the catalogue; they may, therefore, have then considered the time to have arrived when it was necessary to open and examine the document; but there are particulars which seem rather to indicate that they had not broken the seal till a later period. Whether they were right or wrong in the proposed arrangement of the publication does not affect the question of the fact, and it is clear that nearly four years having elapsed, during which they could not overcome Flamsteed's opposition to their intentions, they determined to wait no longer for his concurrence. The Queen's order to proceed with the publication appears to have been issued in the beginning of 1711, and this seems to be the probable time when the seal was broken. It is inconceivable that Newton would have pleaded the authority of the Queen's order for what had taken place in 1708; and if he had, it is highly improbable that Flamsteed would have failed to notice so obvious a contradiction. By comparing Nos. 100, 104, and 199, it may be seen that, when irritated, Flamsteed could forget what he had written, and in the hurry of vexation he has here made a confusion in his narrative. Surely, therefore, it would be unjust, without more complete knowledge of particulars, to condemn Sir Isaac Newton and all his friends on such an accusation, which is neither explained nor corroborated by any concurring evidence. In such a case it would be more fair to judge of the story by his established character, than to sacrifice his character for the establishment of the story. One thing, however, may be fairly presumed,— that the Queen's order justified what was done; for Flamsteed in his reflections does not appeal from it, but confines his complaint to the authority not having been really obtained, or not till after the offence had been committed, (which latter supposition is introduced as if the first broader assertion was immediately accompanied by some doubts of its accuracy).

In the reference to what Halley says on the thirty years of Flamsteed's life, at Greenwich, the writer would have done well to have looked to the original. It is indeed said, in the preface, that during that time" nihil prodierat"--and nothing

had been published; but, as Mr. Whewell had observed, it is added immediately after, "tot annos non effluxisse otiosos, schedasque Grenovicenses in haud modicam crevisse molem." The whole, therefore, together is a plain statement of an undeniable truth.

The work which is regularly done in the execution of any employment belongs of course to the employer, and his having made a hard bargain in no way affects his right. Any one, therefore, engaged in a great scientific work, was entitled to apply to the Astronomer Royal for assistance from his unpublished observations, when they had accumulated for years and there was no immediate prospect of their publication. A discretionary power certainly rested with the observer, but it referred to the nature and object of the application, and whether, if not immediately sanctioned by the Crown, it was such as to imply a fair presumption of the Royal approbation: the power did not extend to an arbitrary refusal. Flamsteed may be considered as obliging Newton whenever he readily communicated his official labours to him, but the greatest part of what he specifically "worked for Sir Isaac Newton" consisted in the reduction of his observations, an operation, in which he appears to have persisted contrary to the expressed wishes of Newton (No. 30).

"The sacrifice to heavenly truth" was not a holocaust of 300 copies of the book, for 388 pages of each were retained by Flamsteed, and form a part of the 1st vol. of the Historia Cœlestis. The whole that was burnt was the title and preface, with the catalogue, and 120 pages extracted from the later observations-about one fourth of what had been printed by the referees.

That 100%. per annum was too small a payment to the astronomer royal does not admit of a doubt; but his office existed long before the importance of it was rightly understood, and Burstow was a Crown living, which was given to Flamsteed by Lord Keeper North to set him more at his ease. This is not the manner in which the astronomer royal ought to be remunerated for his services; but in those days it was probably thought an easy method of saving the public money. This in no degree diminishes the injustice of not supplying him with what was necessary for the Observatory; and, although he certainly looked to some return from the sale of his observation, this was a miscalculation of what the market was likely to produce.

Newton, in 1691, (No. 14,) had said to Flamsteed, "If you and I live not long enough, Mr. Gregory and Mr. Halley are young men." The office of astronomer royal was a fair ob

ject of honourable ambition, but those who accuse Halley of the endeavours to supplant his predecessor, are bound to bring forward direct facts, not surmises, in support of the charge. With such an object, it was the more disinterested in him to hold that the salary ought not to be augmented. He may have done so in Flamsteed's time, but I am not acquainted with the authority for it. I have always heard that the objection was made by him to Queen Caroline, when she visited the Observatory, and expressed a wish for the inadequate payment being increased. From a document in the British Museum it is clear that this could not have taken place before September 1729. Halley, then, for nearly ten years continued himself to receive only the original "pitiful salary"; the report was erroneous, which Crosthwait heard, of his having in 1728 got an addition of 100l. per annum (No. 279.); and after all, he only obtained the further pay of the rank which he had held in the navy.

There are some particulars respecting Halley's observations which ought to be added to the writer's account, because they bear immediately on the present question. It was on the 2nd of March 1727 that Sir Isaac Newton reminded the Council of the Royal Society that they had neglected their duty by not having of late demanded, in obedience to the Queen's order, the fair copy of the annual observations. We see, therefore, that Newton's earnestness on this point did not originate in any personal feeling against Flamsteed, and the minute shows that he took the opportunity of Halley's being present to make the representation. The whole is given by Mr. Baily (in the Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. viii. p. 188.), and he adds, "It is worthy of remark, that this was the last meeting of the Royal Society at which Sir Isaac Newton was present, as he died on the 20th of the same month." It is not indeed improbable that his death was hastened by this exertion of the good old man in the execution of what he considered to be a duty. Hearne says, in one of his memorandum books, "Some time before he died, a great quarrel happened between him and Dr. Halley.......This 'tis thought so much discomposed Sir Isaac as to hasten his end." Sir David Brewster, in his Life of Newton, has alluded (p. 339) to this circumstance, but he does not seem to have noticed the time to which it refers. Halley, it must be admitted, in this case was wrong. His withholding the required documents and taking up Flamsteed's idea of the observations being private property were possibly, after Newton's death, never interfered with; and by the tacit acquiescence of the Government, not only the rights of the Crown were virtually abandoned, but the

claims of the astronomer royal were confirmed by long-continued usage.

I have much regretted the line which has been taken by the Reviewers. The public mind will be made up on the differences between Newton and Flamsteed, and after a time this history will be left to the few who are curious about such subjects; but while new, there was something exciting in it, and it has been put prominently forward, while the British Catalogue, as republished by Mr. Baily, has been noticed with merely transient praise. Now this is certainly not the least valuable part of a very valuable volume. It is a work of useful and lasting reference for the astronomer, which possibly no one would have undertaken excepting the person to whom we are indebted for it, and which no one could have executed who had not, with the advantages of modern science, been, like him, for years familiar with the Historia Cœlestis.

XLIII. On Whiston, Halley, and the Quarterly Reviewer of the "Account of Flamsteed." By A CORRESPONDENT.

To the Editors of the Philosophical Magazine and Journal.
GENTLEMEN,
Manchester, Feb. 20.

THE Note on Mr. Whewell in the late Quarterly Review is sufficiently revolting on account of its coarseness, and the insulting imputation on that gentleman of having presumed upon his official station in the University, and treated the subject of Newton and Flamsteed as if he were palming his opinions upon undergraduates. Now I leave it to the readers of Mr.Whewell's letter to judge if ever imputation could be more unfounded, and if his letter be not altogether free from all appearance of assumption of the authority either of his office or (what is much more) of his high scientific reputation.

But what is still more reprehensible is the barefaced disingenuousness which the writer displays. What can be a more palpable misrepresentation than that contained in the following passage relating to Whiston: "If, therefore, he was the worthless, shallow person that Mr. Whewell would have us to believe...."? Now what Mr. Whewell really says of Whiston is, that his judgement is worthless. What is this, but an attempt to deceive the reader?

Another instance of this utter want of principle is displayed in the writer's reviling Halley for the very same conduct Third Series. Vol. 8. No. 46. March 1836.

2 B

which he had in the preceding page eulogized in Whiston, namely, that he would not dissemble his religious opinions. "The secret history," says he, "of the enmity against Whiston, is his conscientious departure from the doctrine of the Church of England, and his adoption of the principles of Arianism." While of Halley he says, "Mr. Whewell cannot be ignorant that Halley was a self-convicted infidel, and that he lost an honourable and lucrative situation by being so;-and therefore, it seems more than probable that Flamsteed was disgusted with him."

It must be evident to everybody that the opprobrious term "self-convicted" must have been meant to impute to Halley a consciousness of guilt, of moral depravity*: and his deviation from orthodoxy, whatever it was, and ingenuous acknowledgement of it, are, to suit the purposes of detraction, stigmatized as a disgraceful crime, while Whiston's, in order to make him an auxiliary, is justified and even praised as “a conscientious departure." Let us try the question by making the terms change sides. Why did he not call Halley's "a conscientious departure," and Whiston "a self-convicted Arian”? -evidently to serve the cause of falsehood by insinuating a prejudice. As for the term infidel, we know how vaguely and inconsiderately, and malignantly, it has often been used; and that Newton himself was even called an atheist by some of his contemporaries +. The character and extent of the deviation of these distinguished men from any standard of opinion is wholly another consideration: but the moral quality of the fact of their entertaining and avowing their convictions is the same. With regard to Halley, Whiston's account bears direct testimony to his sincerity and disinterestedness.

I will only add, that the Note is, with regard to honesty, of the same stamp with the article which it vainly attempts to defend; and remain, Gentlemen, yours, &c.

Sirrah, 'tis conscience makes you squeak.

So saying, on the fox he flies.

The self-convicted felon dies.-Gay's Fables, ii. 1.

C. S.

+ Even in our own time a venerable and pious divine and distinguished naturalist has not escaped similar malignity from one who aspired to be a competitor; see Phil. Mag. and Annals, Ñ.S. vol. x. p. 373: and in the Morning Chronicle, a journal pretending to great liberality, those philosophers, who from their ascribing to the Creator the power of enduing matter with life and thought, are denominated materialists, have also lately been stigmatized as atheists.