Jan. 1, 188(5.] 



♦ KNOAVLEDGE ♦ 



99 



that Miss Barton never lived in tlie same house with 

 Halifax. Lord ilacaulaj and others have advanced the 

 idea that iliss Bartons relations with Halifax were akin 

 to those of Mrs. Unwin with Cowper, and of Mrs. Brace- 

 girdle with Congreve. De Morgan maintains the theory 

 that Lord Halifax and Miss Barton were privately 

 married. It appears to ns that De Morgan has fairly 

 made out his case. Sir David Brew.ster's theory is simply 

 absurd on the face of it, as is indeed Brewster's po.sition 

 generally in regard to Xewton. Probably no biographer 

 has ever in an attempt to defend a grep^t man through 

 thick and thin, done more to injure his reputation than 

 Sir David Brewster has done to injure Xewton's, by 

 fatuous attempts to deny what is shown by the clearest 

 possible evidence to have actually happened. Xo one 

 probably believed that Newton had consented to profit 

 by the degradation of his niece, until they found Sir 

 David Brewster denying flatly what was well- 

 known and admitted in Newton's lifetime. It is 

 certain that Miss Barton lived in the same house 

 with Lord Halifax, that her as.sociation with him what- 

 ever its nature was greatly valued, and that for this 

 reason he left her at his death a large sum of money and 

 a valuable house. It is also certain that he h*d already 

 bought for her an annuity which in those days amounted 

 to a handsome income, Newton acting as his agent in the 

 matter. Nothing in all this would seem suggestive of 

 evil to those who (being themselves of honest mind) re- 

 cognise the quality of Newton's nature — far from being 

 perfect but free from inherent vice or depravity. So 

 soon, however, as Sir David Brewster attempted to deny 

 these demonstrated facts, even the most zealous admirers 

 of Newton, the most honest believers in his purity, began 

 to fear that after all Newton must have trafficked, as 

 Yoltaire had openly .suggested, in his niece's shame. 



The real fact is, however, that Newton iras blame- 

 worthy, though in small degree. Sir David Brewster had 

 gone far to bring utter opprobrium on his hero by trying 

 to deny that he had done aught amiss. Brewster had 

 actually written to DeMorgan that, asNewton's biographer, 

 he would at all hazards deny what would seem reprehen- 

 sible in Newton, — " every means of defence against such 

 an hypothesis" he says, speaking of Newton's real weak- 

 ness in the matter, " becomes obligatory on me as his 

 biographer," — which indicates about the most foolish 

 idea a biographer could possibly entertain. 



De Morgan shows that in all probability, almost cer- 

 tainly in fact. Lord Halifax and !Miss Barton were man 

 and wife, and that this was known within a small circle 

 of relatives and friends. That Newton's suffering his 

 niece to lie under the stigma of imagined concubinage 

 when really married, would not be thought a grave 

 offence or even an offence at all in those immoral times, 

 is clear enough, whatever some ignorant folk (" clergy- 

 men and persons of rank ' he says) may have told 

 Brewster to the contraiy. That Newton himself knew 

 that he owed more faithful guardianship than this to his 

 niece, can hardly be doubted. He was blameworthy, no 

 doubt, bat not guilty of the foul offence which Sir David 

 Brewster's fatuous defence had seemed to bring home to 

 him. 



That Miss Barton was married to Lord Halifax is 

 shown by his own continued respect for her, and the 

 esteem in which all held her who knew them both ; by 

 the tone of the Montague family towards her and New- 

 ton after Halifax's death : and by many collateral circum- 

 stances. 



More important, though occupying less space, is De 

 Morgan's discussion here of several points connected with 



Newton's scientific career. He takes a fair view of 

 Newton's character, neither attributing to him, as some 

 have done, the whole discredit for the acrimonious dis- 

 pute with Flamstead, nor acquitting him, as has still 

 more unwisely been attempted, of all blame there or else- 

 where. Newton was unquestionably a man of jealous 

 and suspicious temperament, capable of occasional mean- 

 ness as all such men must be, but controlling his own 

 nature for the most part with such care as to deserve 

 more credit than would have been due to him had he 

 inherited an easier nature. His zeal for science was not 

 great enuugh to urge him to laborious research after 

 he had made his name great, and had gained, besides 

 fame, a lucrative post. His career affords, in fact, 

 the strongest proof of the folly of those who imagine 

 that science can be effectivel}- advanced by endowment ; 

 for from the time when his lines were made easy by a 

 lucrative appointment, by no means taxing his time or 

 energy in such degree as greatly to diminish his oppor- 

 tunities for original research, Sir Isaac Newton did 

 nothing for science. Tl'e owe to endowment, in Xewton's 

 cane, the loss of all that that wonderful mind could have 

 done duriu'j the best ^art of a lifetime. 



(gossip. 



Bt Richard A. Proctor. 



It should be clearly understood by this time that if 

 readers send cheques, stamps, instructions, and so forth, 

 to the editor of Knowleuge — i.e., to me, Richard A. 

 Proctor — instead of the publishers, they give a great deal 

 of useless trouble, and they incur the risk of remaining 

 unattended to. The publishers receive an immense 

 number of letters, and have to sort out those belonging 

 to the various editors, aathors, contributors, ic , of the 

 different magazines, works, ifcc, published by them. 

 Here is risk No. 1 : a letter intended for Knowledge 

 editor may (thoiigh the chance is slight) be sent to some 

 one else, and not reforwarded. Then, next, letters for the 

 editor of Knowledge still come in in great numbers. 

 Hence risk No. 2 ; among the multitudinous letters he 

 receives, nine-tenths of which might as well not have 

 been written, the editor may chance to overlook 

 (especially now that he does not give a column of 

 replies) the one which contains a business letter. (I 

 found one the other day in a book sent for review.) 

 Then comes risk No. 3. Such business letters are put 

 on one side to be forwarded to the publishers. But the 

 editor travels about a good deal. (He will have given 

 twenty-nine lectures for example at " all sorts of " places 

 during the four weeks ending December 20.) It is 

 always possible, in the midst of constant travel, lecture 

 arrangements, leeturu correspondence, itc. — combined 

 with book-writing and correction, preparation of new 

 editions, essay writing, study, correspondence, exercise, 

 occasional attempts at relaxation (a mere detail, perhaps), 

 and some few moments passed in association with his 

 family, — that letters thus set aside to be sent to the 

 publishers may be mislaid, or lost in what the late Abbe 

 Moigno pathetically described to the editor as the 

 " bottomless sea of papers and letters." If delay or loss 

 should arise in that way the editor is apt to be energeti- 

 cally abused. He ventures to point out that considering 

 the multitudinotis instructions given during more than 

 I four years on this point, it is he who — were he not a 



