2od S. NO 35., Aug. 30. '56.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



161 



LONJiON, SATUBDAY, AUGUST 30. 185G. 

 lABR BAUFAX AND MES. CATHEEINE BAKTOH. 



(P* S. viii. 429.) 



Three years ago I collected all I could find rer 

 latinj^ to the connexion of Newton's niece with 

 Lord Halifax. My conclusion — and "all my 

 conclusion" — was that " a private marriage, ge- 

 nerally understood among the friends of the parties, 

 seems to me to make all the circumstances take an 

 air of likelihood which no other hypothesis will 

 give them," Sir David Brewster discussed my 

 arguments in his Life of Newton, published in 

 1855 : and I made such reply as I then judged 

 necessary in a review of his book which I wrote 

 for the Noi'th British Review (No. 46, August, 

 1855), Before proceeding to give two additional 

 presumptions, I add some remarks to this review. 



Sir David Brewster neglects the character of my 

 conclusion as to probability : and argues as if I 

 affirmed that I had proved a marriage. He 

 would have done better if he had discussed my 

 opinion from my own words. / could con- 

 tend, as well as himself, that all the facts alleged 

 by me did not prove a marriage. The point on 

 which I gave the opinion that reasonable evidence 

 existed was an alternative, namely, that there 

 was either a marriage or an irregular connexion. 

 Again, Sir D. Brewster speaks thus (vol. ii. 

 p. 277.) : 



" To infer a maiTiage, when the parties themselves have 

 never acknowledged it, — when no trace of a record can 

 be found, — and when no friend or*relation has ever at- 

 tempted even to make it the subject of conjecture, is to 

 violate every principle of sound reasoning ; and we are 

 disposed to think that Mr. De Morgan's respect for the 

 memory of Newton has led him to what he regards as the 

 onlj' conclusion which is compatible with the character of 

 a man so great and pure." 



First, I did not infer a marriage, except as the 

 more probable of two things, of which I held one 

 or the other sufficiently established. Secondly, I 

 leaned towards, not simply a marriage, but a " pri- 

 vate marriage, generally understood among the 

 friends of the parties." Insert this, and see how 

 Sir D. Brewster's sentence then reads. " To infer 

 a [private] marriage [generally understood among 

 the friends of the parties], when the parties them- 

 selves have never acknowledged it, — when no 

 trace of a record can be found, — and when no 

 friend or relation has ever attempted even to 

 make it the subject of conjecture, is to violate 

 every principle of sound reasoning." I think it 

 violates no principle : certainly not every prin- 

 ciple : for instance, how does it violate the prin- 

 ciple that a universal negative proposition is 

 convertible ? But when Sir D. Brewster repre- 

 sents as speaking simpliciter an opponent who is 



speaking secundum quid, he violates one principle 

 of sound reasoning, and enables that opponent, as 

 the fencers say, to beat down his guard. 



Again, Sir D. Brewster conjectures that ray re- 

 spect for the memory of Newton has led me to the 

 only conclusion compatible with the character of 

 a man so great and pure. When did I ever 

 show any respect for the memory of Newton, in 

 any sense in which respect for the memory of the 

 dead means something different from respect for 

 merit in the living ? Respect for memory, in 

 the sense in which Sir D. Brewster appears to 

 use the words, generally includes willingness to 

 cast a veil over faults for the sake of excellences. 

 Now, of all Englishmen living, I am the one who 

 has most dwelt upon Newton's faults, and most 

 strongly insisted that respect for his memory should 

 not prevent the clearest and fullest exposition of 

 them, I have always insisted that greatness, in- 

 tellectual gi'eatness, should be no cover whatever 

 for delinquency of any kind. And I confidently 

 appeal to those who have read any of my writings 

 on the subject of Newton, whether they will not 

 believe me when I make the assertion following. 

 I say that if I had on close reflection seen reason to 

 think Newton had connived at a dishonourable 

 union between his friend and his niece, I would no 

 more have been deterred from giving that opinion 

 to the world by gravitation, fluxions, and optics, or 

 by the world's worship of the discoverer, than I 

 would have been deterred from giving evidence 

 that a man had gone down into a coal-mine by my 

 knowledge of his having at another time gone up 

 to the top of St. Paul's. 



What I did do was this : — I took the purity of 

 Newton's private life (a fact as well established as 

 any such fact can be) for presumptive evidence that, 

 as there is reason to suppose he always countenanced 

 his niece, the connexion of that niece with Halifax 

 was honourable. This is altogether independent 

 of respect : it would equally be my opinion, if I 

 did not respect purity of life. Those who in their 

 secret hearts think a man a fool who would not 

 have connived, if he could have got or kept any- 

 thing by it, may be more difficult to bring to a 

 belief of Newton's character ; but, once brought 

 to that belief, they would, in their own language, 

 think Newton was that Jbol. The second clause 

 of Sir D, Brewster's sentence ought to have run 

 as follows : — 



" Mr. De Morgan has distinctly asserted tliat his 

 opinion of Newton's moral life and sentiments has helped 

 in drawing him to what he regards as the only con- 

 clusion compatible with the character of a man so pure." 



I now proceed to the additional presumptions 

 above alluded to : — 



A few days ago, my friend Mr. Libri showed me 

 a letter, written by Newton, which he had bought 

 at a sale (H. Belward Ray's sale. Lot 938.). The 

 handwriting is indisputable. It appears to have 



