fore much preferable to any other ballast that can be used for sailing boats. Thwarts and gang board as usual; three masts and lugg sails, and twelve short oars. In this state, this boat is much safer than any common boat of the same dimensions, will carry more sail, and bear more weather; but to make it completely uniinmergible, empty casks of about twenty-two inches diameter were ranged along withinside the gunwales, lashed firmly to the boat, lying even with the tops of the gunwales, and resting upon brackets fastened to the timbers for that purpose; also two such casks in the head, and two in the stern, and all removable in a short time, if desired; there were also soine empty casks placed under the gang-board; these would be an addition to the boat's buoyancy if empty, and an increase to her ballast if full. Thus equipped, this boat was launched on the 19th of November, in a very, squally day. About twenty men were launched in her, most of them pilots or seamen. They ran her immediately from the beach across the Corton sand, in the midst of the breakers, which would have been almost certain destruction to any common sailing boat, as that would have been filled and sunk immediately, They then turned to the southward along the top of the sand to its end; when they tacked and stond to the northward, pulled up the plugs in her bottom, and let in as much water as would come in that way; the water rose very little above the thwarts. With all this water in it, the boat sailed better than without it. The phugs were now put in again, and water poured in by buckets, until it ran over both gunwales; and in this state it was the opinion of those on board that she would have carried sixty men without sink. ing, and to upset it is not possible. But it is Mr. Lukin's opinion that more than fifty men should not be taken in when the boat is full of water, and all her casks empty. It is particularly advisable that all life boats should be built or the form most approved by the pilots or scamen on the coast where they are to be used; as no one form will suit all shores, and these principles of safety are applicable to every form. bell, principal of Marischal College, Aberdeen, which I was surprised to find in Mr. Good's Life of Dr. Geddes. In de tailing the bigotted opposition, which a bill introduced by Sir George Saville into parliament in 1778, "intended to relieve his majesty's subjects professing the Po pish religion from certain penalties and disabilities imposed upon them by an act made in the 11th and 12th of king Williamu" met with in Scotland, Dr. Good adds, "Pamphlets of the most vehement zeal, written in the north, were circulated with all possible industry throughout the south; and amongst these Lam much astonished to find one by the late very amiable and learned Dr. Campbell, who was at that time principal of Marischal College, in Aberdeen. It is entitled 'A Vindication of the Opposition to the late intended Bill for the Relief of Roman Catholics in Scotland.' Now I have before me a pamphlet, published by Dr. Campbell at Aberdeen, in 1779, which breathes a spirit so totally the reverse of what is here attributed to him by Mr. Good, that I must think it impossible that one of an opposite tendency could have been published by him the year before. The pamphlet I allude to, is entitled “An Address to the People of Scotland upon the Alarms that have been raised in regard to Popery." Its design is to recommend a spirit of toleration as the real spirit of Christianity; and the same candour and liberality are conspicuous in this performance, which, Mr. Good allows, appear in his latter works. As it opposed the reigning prejudices, it procured him great obloquy from the common people, who on this account styled him Pope Campbell. The author of the pamphlet, which Dr. Good has seen, cannot therefore, I think, be Dr. Campbell, but he must have been deceived by a similarity of name or something of that kind. This will be inore apparent by a few extracts from the pamphlet in my possession, which will evince the candid, eightened, aud Christian principles which filled the mind of its author. It is divided into three chapters-the first explains the doctrine of the gospel in regard to persecution and persecutors. From this chapter I extract the following passage: after hav ing exhibited from the New Testament the unresisting conduct pursued by the apostles in the propagation of Christianity in obedience to the commands, and in unitation of the example of their amiablę master, he argues thus: "Is it not most supported by the same means, by which it was founded, and by which it received its first footing in the earth? Ought there not to appear in the servant, some portion, some traces of the spirit of the master? To the dispensation of the gospel, which is the dispensation of grace, mercy, and peace, ought there not to be a suitable ness in the methods employed to promote it? Shall we then think of any expedient for defending the cause of Christ, different from those which he himself and his apostles so successfully employed? Nay, it were well, if all that could be said were, that we employ different measuces from those employed by them: some of ours, I am afraid, on examination, will be found to be the reverse of their's. Christ engaged by being lovely, we would Constrain by being frightful. The former conquers the heart, the latter at most but forces an external and hypocritical compliance, a thing hateful to God, and dis honourable to the cause of his son. "But, say our opponents in this argument, Popery is a superstition so baneful as not to deserve any favour, especially at the hands of Protestants. its intule rance to them, and persecuting spirit, if there was nothing else we had to accuse it of, would be sufficient to justify the the severest treatment we could give it. This treatment to Papists could not be called persecution, but just retaliation, or the necessary means of preventing perdition to ourselves. I do not say that either Popery or Papists deserve favor from us; en the contrary, I admit the truth of the charge against them, but not the consequence ye would draw from it. Let pope ry be as bad as it will-call it Beelzebub if you please; it is not by Beelzebub that I am for casting out Beelzebub, but by the spirit of God. We exclaim against Popery, and in exclaiming against it we betray but too manifestly, that we have imbibed of the character, for which we detest it. In the most unlovely spirit of Popery, and with the unhallowed arms of Popery, we would fight against Popery. It is not by such weapons that God hath promised to consume the man of sin, but it is by the breath of his mouth, that is his word. As for us, though we be often loud enough in our pretensions to faith, our faith is not in his word; we have no faith now in weapons invisible and impalpable, fire and steel suit us a great deal better. Christians in ancient times confided in the divine promises, we in these days confide in acts of parliament. They trusted to the sword of the spirit for the defence of truth and the defeat of error, we trust to the sword of the magistrate. God's promises do well enough, when the legislature is their surety. But if ye de stroy the hedges and the bulwarks which the laws have raised, we shall cry with Israel in the days of Ezekiel, 'behold our bones are dried, our hope is lost, we are cut off for our parts. There is no more security for the true religion. Protestantism is gone! All is lost! We shall all be Papists presently! Shall we never reflect on the denunciation of the prophet: cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.' Let me tell those people so distrustful in God's providence and promises, and so confident in the arin of flesh, that the true religion never flourished so much, never spread so rapidly, as when, instead of persecuting, it was persecuted; instead of obtaining support from human sanctions, it had all the terrors of the magistrate and of the laws armed against it. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy; are we stronger than he?" p. 11, 12. The title of the second chapter of the pamphlet is, "The Conclusion to which sound Policy would lead us in Regard to the Toleration of Papists." In page 28 of this chapter, he observes: "As to the aspect which their (the Papists') tenets bear to civil society (for it is not in a religious nor in a moral view, but solely in a political, that I am here considering them) it must be acknowledged that to social union their tenets are no wise adverse, witness those kingdoms and states in Europe, where the whole or the greater part of the people are popish. It has becu remarked however, that the Romish religion is not equally favourable to a free government, as the Protestant. But though there be something like a servility of spirit in implicit faith, or the belief of infallibility in any human tribunal, which is more congenial to political slavery; it cannot be said that the former is incompa tible with civil freedom. This country, as well as others, was free even when Roman Catholic: and it would not be just to deny that there have been of that communion eminent patrons of the liberties of the people." And again in page 40. "But just or unjust, say some, it is better to have it (the law against popery) as a rod over their heads: that is in other words, 'Though we have no mind to do injustice at present, we wish to have it in our power to be unjust with impunity when we please; nay to bribe others to be villains (for the law gives a high reward to informers) that those who have no religion at all, no sense of virtue or honor may be tempted by avarice. Is this a law becoming a Chris tian nation? Is it such as it would become the ministers of religion to inter pose for either preserving or enforcing? "Woe to him' saith the prophet, that establisheth a city by iniquity and shall the city of God itself, his church, his cause, the cause of truth and purity, be esta blished by such accursed means; Are we protestants, and do we say, 'Let us do evil that good may come?" Yet of such the apostle tells us 'their damnation is just.' I have ever been taught, as a Christian principle, and a Protestant principle, that a good cause ought to be promoted by lawful means only; and that it was in the true spirit of Popery to think that the end would justify the means. We are now adopting all their maxims and making them our own: we seem resolved that we shall have nothing on this hand to reproach Papists with. A great outcry has been raised of late about the progress of Popery. I join in the complaint, I see her progress where I least expected it, and I lament it heartily, the more especially as she comes in so questionable a shape. If we must have Popery, I would above all things have her retain her own likeness. The devil is never so dangerous as when he transforms himself into an angel of light." This pamphlet of Dr. Campbell's is reviewed in the Monthly Review for February, 1780, where it is thus spoken of, "This excellent address does no small honor to the head and heart of its author, it breathes a truly candid and liberal spirit, and well deserves the serious attention of every one who is desirous of acting according to the genuine principles of Protestantism and Christianity." I am solicitous to remove the stain, which Mr. Good has, I am well persua ded, through mistake, affixed to Dr. Campbell's reputation for candor and liberality of sentiment, from the affection ate veneration which I, in common with his other pupils, entertain for the memory of this great and enlightened man. I should be sorry likewise that the bigotry of the present time, which is alas! but too powerful, should have to plead the sanction of such a name, I am, &c. Manse of Boharm, Banffshire, Dec. 26, 1808. PAT. FORBES. he will find but few precedents to support, "that all the lineal male descendants of certain ancient families are entitled to bear supporters." If he had said that for many generations they have assumed the bearing of supporters he would have been nearer the truth, as, generally speaking, these families have really no legal right to such honour. One, for instance, assumes the bearing of bulls, because it pleased the fancy of one of his ancestors to place on each side of the gate leading to his mansion two bulls by way of ornament. If the object of N. Y. was to make the public believe and acknowledge their title, it will completely fail, as such attempt only provokes discussion, which I have no doubt would set aside most, if not all, their pretended claims to this honour. At all events, it is only the head of the family, that can have any just pretens sions. The Lord Lyon of Scotland grants supporters to heads of families and baronets, but they are never borne by the junior branches of the family. N. Y. roundly asserts that such and such families are entitled to bear supporters; and it is but fair to suppose he has good grounds for his assertion, at the same time to call on him to state them is equally so. The insertion of the above will oblige To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SIR, IN reply to your correspondent under the signature of W. E. in your last publication, respecting the importation of foreign plants, sea-shells, &c. I beg leave to observe that those things, and every object of natural history to which he alludes, may be imported into this country by paying a certain sum, ad valorem, i.e. a per centage on the value, to be ascertained when they are landed on the quays; but it frequently happens that masters of vessels, to whose care these things are entrusted, omit to enumerate them in the ship's manifest, previous to its being produced at the custom-house, whereby they become, by the Manifest act, liable to seizure; but when that caution has been observed, regular report and entry made at the customs for the duties thereof, they are subject tố no detention by the revenue officers, nor considered contraband by any law what. ever, Yours, &c. I. H. Custom-house, Dec. 16, 1808. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine, SIR, Y attention was attracted by an article in the "Extracts from the Portfolio of a Man of Letters" in your last number, relative to the Pere Bouhours, of critical celebrity. Your correspondent stated, that he had written lives of Saint Ignatius and Saint Xavier, in which he had compared the one to Caesar, and the other to Alexander. If your correspondent will take the trouble to consult the "Manière de bien Penser dans les Ouvrages d'Esprit, par le Père Bouhours." Ed. Paris, 1785, p. 145, he will find that the remark does not belong to Bouhours, but to the great Prince de Coudé, of whomit is said in the same work, "Qu'il étoit de ces hommes extraordinaires en qui l'esprit & la science ne cedent point à la valeur heroique.”— His expression was this: "St. Ignace, c'est Cesar qui ne fait jamais rien que pour de bonnes raisons: St. Xavier, c'est Alexandre que son courage empore quelquefois." There follow several observations upon the propriety of this comparison, by which, I am inclined to think, the absurdity which your correspondent fancied he had discovered, will be entirely removed. The arguments, which are extremely neat and ingenious, are too much at length to be inserted here, The learning and abilities of the Pere Bouhours were held in great estimation during the reign of Louis XIV, and it is no inconsiderable testimony in his favour, that Lord Chesterfield had the highest opinion of his taste and judgment, which appears in many of his Lordship's letters to Mr. Stanhope. Yours, &c. E. S. S. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. T SIR, It is my intention in this and a subsequent letter to trouble you with same reflections on the prevailing system of metaphysical reasoning; I mean the material or modern philosophy, as it has been called. According to this philosophy, as I understand it, all thought is to be resolved into sensation, all morality into the love of pleasure, and all action into mechanical impulse. These three propositions taken together,embrace almost every question relating to the human mind: and in their different ramifications and intersections form a net, not unlike that used by the enchanter of old, which whosoever has once fairly thrown, ever him, will find all further efforts vain and his attempts to reason upon any subject, in which his own nature is concerned,baffled and confounded in every direction. This false system of philosophy has been gradually growing up to its present height ever since the time of Lord Bacon, from a wrong interpretation of the word experience; confining it to a knowledge of things without us, whereas it in fact includes all knowledge, relating to objects either within or out of the mid, of which we have any direct and positive evidence. Physical experience is indeed the foundation and the test of that part of philosophy, which relates to physical objects: farther, physical analogy is the only rule by which we can extend and apply our immediate knowledge, or reason on the nature of the different substances around us. But to say that physical experiment is either the test, or source, or guide, of that other part of philosophy, which relates to our internal perceptions, that we are to look in external nature for the form, the substance, the colour, the very life and being of whatever exists in our own minds, or that we can only infer the laws which regulate the phenomena of the mind, from those which regulate the phenomena of matter, is to confound two things essentially distinct. Our knowledge of mental phenomena from consciousness, reflection, aud observation of others, is the true basis of metaphysical inquiry, as the knowledge of facts is the only solid basis of natural philosophy. To argue other wise, is to assert that the best method of ascertaining the properties of air is by making experiments on mineral substances. It is assuming the very point in dispute, namely the strict analogy between mind and matter (insomuch that we may always judge of the one by the other) on no better a foundation than a mean and palpable play of words. Lord Bacon was undoubtedly a great man, indeed one of the greatest that have adorned this or any other country. He was a man of a clear and active spirit, of a most fertile genius, of vast designs, of general knowledge, and of profound wisdom. He was in oue sense what Plato was among the ancients, and what Burke was in our own times; or he united the powers of imagination and understanding (as they are generally called)in a greater degree than any other man, except them. These three are perhaps the strongest instances of men, who by the rare privilege of their nature were at once poets and philosophers, and and saw equally into both worlds-the material and the visible, and the incorporeal and invisible form of things. The school-men and their followers attended to nothing but the latter: they seem to have discarded with the same indifference both kinds of experience, that whieh relates to external objects, and to our own internal feelings. From the imperfect state of knowledge, they had few facts to go by; and intoxicated with the povelty of their vain distinctions they would be likely enough to despise the clearest and most obvious suggestions of their own minds. Hence arose "their logomachies," their everlasting wordfights, their sharp disputes, their captious, bootless controversics. As Lord Bacon expresses it, they were made fierce with dark keeping;" signifying that their angry and unintelligible contests with one another, were the consequence of their not having really any distinct objects to engage their attention. "They built en tirely on their own whims and fancies; and, buoyed up by their specific levity, they mounted in their airy disputations, in endless flights and circles, clamouring like birds of prey, till they equally lost sight of truth and nature." This great man did the highest service to philosophy in wishing to recal men's attention to facts and experience, which had been foolishly neglected; and so by incorporating the abstract with the concrete, and general notions with individual objects to give to our reasonings that solidity and firinness which they must otherwise always want. He did nothing therefore but insist upon the necessity of experience. He laid the most stress upon this, because it was the most wanted at the time, particularly in natural science; and from the wider field that is open to it there, as well as the prodigious success it has met with, this latter sense of the word, in which it is tantamount to physical experiment, has so far engrossed all our attention, that mind has for a good while past been in great danger of being overlaid by natter. We run from one error into another; and as we were wrong at first, so in altering our course, we have faced about into the opposite extreme; we despised experience altogether before, now we would have nothing but experience, and experience of the grossest kind, as if there was some charm or talisman in the name. We have (it is true) gained much by not consulting the suggestions of our own minds in things where they could Inform us of nothing, namely in the laws and phenomena of the material world; and we have hastily concluded (reversing the problem) that the only way to arrive at the knowledge of ourselves also was to lay aside the dictates of our own consciousness, thoughts, and feelings as deceitful and insufficient guides, though they are the only things that can give us the least light upon the subject. We seem to have resigned the use of our natural uns derstandings, and to have given up our own existence as a non-entity. We look for our thoughts and the distinguishing properties of our minds in some image of them in matter, as we look to see our faces in a glass. We no longer decide physical problems by logical dilemmas, but we decide questions of logic by the evidence of the senses. Instead of putting our reason and invention to the rack, and setting our ideas to quarrel with one another on all subjects, whether we have any knowledge of them or not, we have adopted the easier method of suspending the use of our faculties altogether, and settle all controversies by means of "four champions fierce, hot, cold, moist, and dry," who, with a few more of the retamers and hangers-on of matter, determine all questions relating to the nature of man and the limits of the human understanding very learnedly. That which we seek however, namely the nature of the mind, and the laws by which we think, feel, and act, we must find in the mind itself, or not at all. The mind has laws, powers, and principles of its own, and is not a mere dependent ou matter. This original bias in favour of mechanical reasoning and physical demonstration, was itself owing to the previous total neglect of them in matters where they were strictly necessary, strengthened by the powerful aid of Hobbes; who was indeed the father of the modern philosophy. His strong mind and body appear to have resisted all impressions but those which were derived from the downright blows of matter. All his ideas seemed to lie, "like substances in his brain: what was not a solid, tangible, distinct," palpable, object, was to him nothing. The external image pressed so close upon his mind that it destroyed all power of consciousness, and left no room for attention to any thing but itself. He was by nature a materialist. Locke assisted greatly in giving popularity to the same scheme, as well by espousing many of Hobbes's metaphysical principles, as by the doubt ful resistance he made to the rest. And it has of late been perfected, and has received |