Page images

"With respect to Reviews, however, I must say that I have not written a single one since my sickness last spring. In the new London Review I have only written those of, 1st, Horne Tooke ; 2d, Brown's Observations on Zoonomia; 3d, Smith's Discourses on the Clerical Character; 4th, Walker on Magnetism; 5th, Vallancey's Sanscrit History of Ireland; 6th, Epistle of Lady Grange. As I thought the character of my coadjutors contemptible, I very soon renounced all engagements with the editors.

[ocr errors]

"The Gleaners' designated 'L.' are my production,--very rapid, as you perceive; but I neither expect to derive fame nor profit from them, and solely undertook that department to prevent the introduction of a very rancorous, illiberal, and unjust review of the 'Pleasures of Hope.' Apropos of the 'Pleasures of Hope,' we (i.e., Drs. Anderson, Brown, &c., and myself) have had a very serious quarrel with the author, which introduces likewise the history of the Clerical Review.' Mr. Campbell had been accustomed, without our knowledge, to visit and associate with various young men of infidel principles, which abound, as I understand, in Glasgow. Mr. Wa printer here, whose character you probably know, if a man totally devoid of character can be said to have any character at all, like another Hercules, resolved to destroy the hydra of superstition, i.e., religion, and for this purpose engaged his Atheistic associates in the scheme of the 'Clerical Review. In this vile publication, most unfortunately, Mr. Campbell was engaged; and the rascal W— dexterously took advantage of his (Campbell's) connection with us, to insinuate all over the town that Dr. Anderson was the conductor, and his friends, especially myself, the authors. The ministers admitted all this very currently. We, who had always believed it to be a scheme of the enthusiasts, and expressed our contempt of it, and declared that we would destroy it if no others would, were surprised to hear that we were ourselves the chief objects of suspicion. I waited on Dr. Finlayson in no very complaisant mood, and with some acrimony evinced that we had no connection with it. Dr. Anderson and myself were mentioned before the Presbytery as the authors, but Dr. Finlayson opposed the supposition. Meanwhile the ministers got upon the right scent, and then the scoundrel W- came forward and delivered up his associates, among whom was Mr. Robertson of one of our Chapels of Ease, who has a chance to suffer most by the exhibition. We all resented indignantly the conduct of Campbell; he attempted to explain away, but I cannot say that he has succeeded entirely to my satisfaction. But my only concern in the 'Clerical Review' was in the discovery of the authors. -I shall write you very soon, and remain yours ever sincerely,


Dr. Irving, to whom I have been much indebted in the preparation of this volume, remarks on the preceding letter:

"I have a strong impression that Leyden's account of his misunderstanding with Campbell is substantially correct; it corresponds with the account which I received when the facts were recent. As to his propagating a report that his poetical friend intended to commit suicide, I never heard the slightest surmise before the publication of Dr. Beattie's work.*

"The editor of the Clerical Review' was Andrew Oswald, respecting whom Campbell makes a friendly enquiry in one of his printed letters. He was employed in the office of a writer to the signet, but was more devoted to literature than to law, nor was he finally prosperous in his career. He was a man of ability, which however was somewhat overrated by himself. In a district of Stirlingshire, where he had relations, he was distinguished by the appellation of the Philosopher.' The Rev. Joseph Robertson, minister of the Chapel of Ease in Leith Wynd, was famous in his generation for accommodating, at various rates of payment, those who were in a great haste to be married; but he was at length banished from Scotland for forging some document intended to expedite a matrimonial union. As to the threat of prosecuting the printer, publisher, or editor of the Clerical Review,' it is not easy to discover on what ground an action was to be brought; but those were arbitrary and iniquitous times, and it was a prudent measure to discontinue a publication which no exertion could have rendered profitable. The notices of sermons are not often unfavourable or severe, but, on the contrary, some preachers of very ordinary ability receive ample commendation. Of this fugitive and evanescent publication I subjoin the full title: The Edinburgh Clerical Review; or, Weekly Report of the different Sermons preached every Sunday by the Established Clergy of Edinburgh. Drawn up by a Society of Gentlemen.' Edinburgh, 1799, 8vo. It only reached two numbers, each consisting of two sheets; and it includes reports of the sermons preached on the 10th and the 17th of November. Whatever insidious designs might be imputed to the projector, or to some of his associates, these pages contain no statement or insinuation exhibiting the slightest tendency to confirm Dr. Leyden's account of a project which appears to have excited so much alarm."


"EDINBURGH, January 2, 1801.

"DEAR SIR,-I send enclosed the copy of a paper I gave in lately to Dr. Hope, which has met with a less welcome reception than I thought it was * Beattie's Life and Letters of Thomas Campbell, vol. i. p. 246.

entitled to. He was illustrating the radiation of heat by means of concave mirrors, by placing a hot body in the focus of the one, and the blackened ball of an air thermometer in the other. He proved in the same manner also the radiation of cold, by placing a phial with ice in the focus, which occasioned a reduction of temperature in the other focus. Dr. Hutton's reason for this reduction of temperature is, that less heat is emitted by the cold body than by that portion of atmospherical air which it displaces. Dr. H. expressed himself with doubt as to the truth of this opinion; and I proposed to him the contained experiments which I think can afford a complete decision as to Dr. Hutton's opinion, It is to be observed, that I do not absolutely assert that emanations are emitted by the cold body. I only speak in subservience to Dr. Hutton's opinion; and the one result will disprove the consistency of his supposition with the opinion of such emanations; and the other proves the consistency of his two suppositions, and, at the same time, confers a high probability on the real existence of these emanations. The experiments are exceedingly obvious, and I take to myself no merit for having suggested them. I only mention them as a specimen of that spirit of monopoly and exclusion which extends to more of the Edinburgh professors than Dr. Hope. He told me that he had not read all my paper when I called upon him, nor had performed any of the experiments which I proposed. He evidently did not understand them. His objections were so trifling and absurd, that I am ashamed to think they came from the mouth of a professor. He obliged me to repeat my meaning half a dozen of times, and seemed to be labouring under the desire of saving himself the indignity of being dictated to. I at last, however, extorted from him a faint and reluctant acknowledgment of the validity of my reasonings; but he wished to arrogate to himself the anticipation of what I suggested. I told him that I thought that we were warranted to speak of Dr. Hutton's opinion in a more decided manner than he had done in the class; and, upon the whole, cannot blame myself with having expressed myself throughout in a forward or disrespectful manner. Though the experiments are obvious, yet I suspect they have not yet occurred to the consideration of chemists. As the radiation of cold is a new subject, Dr. Hope having exhibited the phenomenon to Count Rumford last summer for the first time, it is upon this phenomenon that Count Rumford now rests the principal weight of his arguments for heat consisting in the vibrations of the minute particles of bodies. "I have come on pretty well in the way of pupils. I have got a mathematical one from Mr. Playfair, and have two other pupils beside. I attend Mr. Stewart's first class. I have only seen him twice since I came to Edinburgh, and that for a very short time.-I am, yours, with esteem,

"Dr. James Brown.


"I apprehend that Dr. Hutton's opinion respecting the radiation of cold admits of being either refuted or confirmed by the following simple experiment.

"If, as he says, the reduction of temperature in the bulb of the thermometer arises not from any positive efficiency exerted by the cold, but merely from less heat being radiated by the cold body than by an equal portion of atmospherical air, it is evident that if a vacuum be formed in the focus of the concave mirror, no rays at all will be emitted, and consequently a still greater reduction of temperature will take place.

"If the thermometer is placed indifferently without the reach of any of the mirrors, it will exhibit the temperature of the room; place it in the focus of a concave mirror A, the consequence is, a small elevation of temperature; for though the rays from any object in the axis of the mirror do not light upon the mirror in a parallel direction, yet, as you remove from the mirror, the divergency of these rays is so small, that though not accurately collected in a point, they fall in great abundance upon the bulb, and raise its temperature. It is impossible to say, a priori, whether, if you now place another concave mirror B in the axis of this mirror, it will have any effect in producing a further elevation of temperature. Certain it is, that the air in the focus of the mirror B is more powerful than before, because its emanating rays are more accurately collected in the bulb of the thermometer; but, again, the divergent rays from the more remote portions of air are thereby intercepted. However this be, it does not affect the validity of the second method, which I humbly propose for determining the truth of Dr. Hutton's opinion. Let both the mirrors still retain the same place; let the cold body be placed in the focus A, and let the temperature upon the bulb in B be observed. The deviation of this temperature from the temperature of the room arises from the joint effect of those rays which are accurately collected from the cold body, and those rays which are less accurately collected from the intermediate axis between the mirrors. Let the mirror A, in whose focus the cold body is placed, be now turned round, and observe the change of temperature which ensues when the convex side of it is now presented to the cold body. The change, whatever that be, is owing solely to the collected emanations of the cold body being now removed from the bulb of the thermometer, for all other circumstances remain the same. The divergent rays from the more remote parts of the axis are still intercepted by the mirror A, and those in the intermediate part of the axis fall on the mirror B as before, and have the same effect on the temperature of the bulb. Hence, if this change be an increase of temperature, it proves that the emanation from the cold body had a positive efficiency in reducing

the temperature, since the abstraction of these emanations increases that temperature. But if the change be a reduction of temperature, it proves that the abstraction of these emanations is a diminution of caloric, and that the arguments which those who oppose the materiality of heat derive from this phenomenon fall to the ground. I hope that my total unacquaintance with the present state of chemical knowledge will excuse anything which appears trite or familiar in these observations. THOMAS CHALMERS."

"EDINBURGH, Feb. 25, 1801.

"DEAR SIR,-I received your very kind letter some weeks ago, and am much obliged to you for your instructive observations. I met with Dr. Hope some time after, who told me that he had looked over my paper with more attention, and found it was correct. I am not sure what to understand by this-if he admits the justness of its hypothetical reasonings, or if he has performed the experiment, and obtained any new or original result. He went off without telling me any more particulars, and though I have met with him several times since, he has never mentioned anything more of the subject. I am, yours, with sincerest esteem, THOMAS CHALMERS.

"Dr. James Brown."

The letter which follows was addressed to James Wood, M.D., now of Edinburgh, who had interested himself in obtaining the offer of a situation for Mr. Chalmers :

"EDINBURGH, April 3, 1801.

"DEAR SIR,-I received yours about an hour ago, and am extremely obliged to you for the friendly concern you have manifested in my behalf. I have determined not to go; but the interest you have taken in my welfare demands a more particular explanation. The office itself is highly agreeable to my wishes, and is as much superior to my professional prospects as the manly energy of active life is to be preferred to the habits of mawkish indolence and retirement, so incidental to the situation of a clergyman. But there are reasons, which you have in part anticipated, that oblige me at present to an opposite determination. In the first place, I would not without the greatest reluctance interrupt the course of my present studies, which for the last winter have been chiefly directed to that most interesting of subjects-chemistry. In the next place, I have some engagements in the way of teaching, which, though they may be got over, yet cannot well be relinquished without a degree of indelicacy. In the third place, and chiefly, I cherish some faint yet I hope well-founded prospects of preferment in this country in a line I prefer above all others—the teaching

« PreviousContinue »