Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

As the politics of this period were complicated and myfterious, it will be neceffary, in order to form an idea of them, to delineate the characters of the different parties who laid claim to the direction of state affairs. They confifted of three different factions. The first, highly respectable as to rank and fortune, poffeffed of a confiderable fhare of parliamentary intereft, and the greatest fway with the monied people, was composed of those who had grown into place and power under the old miniftry. Their adulation, and courtly complaifance, had likewife rendered them greatly respected by the king; but in fome very material points their weakness was confpicuous; they were deficient in popularity, and their political abilities were but indifferent.The fecond faction, though fuperior in point of abilities, was poffeffed of lefs parliamentary intereft, and much more unpopular than the firft. They derived their power from their influence at one court*, by means of a then powerful connection; but which only tended to make them lefs refpected with the other court, and even added to their unpopularity.-The third party had little influence in parliament, and lefs at court; but they poffeffed, in the highest degree, the confidence and fupport of the people. The fhining abilities of their leader, and his fteady adherence to an upright, difinterested conduct, claimed veneration, even from his opponents.-Thefe factions differed extremely in the general scheme of politics. The two first agreed in opinion, that the increafing power of France was much to be dreaded; that it was abfolutely neceffary to maintain a balance of power; and that this was to be done chiefly, by keeping up a clofe connection with the powers of the continent, by efpoufing their quarrels, and even affifting them with troops if required. This furnished an argument for a standing army; and though they thought the navy fhould by no means be neglected, yet it only ought to be employed in fubferviency to the continental fyftem. In their opinions of conftitutional liberty they were likewife fingular. Though they pretended to be ftaunch friends to the liberties of the people, yet, as government must be supported, they looked upon it as juftifiable to fecure a majority in Parliament, by creating many lucrative places and em

Can any thing be more ridiculous than this air of myfterious fecrecy in a work evidently calculated for the young and ignorant only? How many, among fuch readers, will be puzzled to difcover who were the principal perfons meant to be included in each of thefe factions,-which would have been entirely cleared up by naming, as is ufual, the parties from their leaders-Newcastle, Bute, and Pitt. Or could any harm have arisen from mentioning, in plain terms, the court of the Prince of Wales, although an apology would perhaps have been unneceffary for applying the term COURT in this ipitance.

I 4

ployments

ployments at the difpofal of the crown; alleging, as a palliation of this mode of ruling, that the particular form of our government, and the general depravity of mankind, rendered any other less excep tionable method impracticable.

The third, and popular party, was actuated by principles of a different nature. They viewed, indeed, the increafing power of France, in the fame light with the two former, and acquiefced in the neceffity of fetting bounds to it; but they differed widely in the means to be used for that purpose. They were for making the military operations of Great Britain entirely fubfervient to our naval ftrength, as a more natural, safer, and lefs expenfive plan of politics. Our fituation as an ifland, faid they, points out to us a conduct different from that of other nations. The fea is our natural element, and to quit that, and involve ourfelves in continental quarrels, is acting diametrically oppofite to our real interefts. The fuperiority of France lies entirely on the continent, and the attacking her on that fide would be evidently dangerous, and like (to ufe a ftrong, though vulgar expreffion) taking a bull by the horn. Our government, they faid, ftood in no need of fupport from a standing army, which was ever dangerous to freedom; and that a well trained militia would prove our best protection against an invasion. From a higher notion of human nature, they judged it poffible to influence the minds of men by nobler motives than that of interest. A minifter who governs uprightly, will never be oppofed by the people.'

Our Author feems really, and honeftly, to think that Mr. Pitt was in very deed what he pretended to be, and to believe, in good earnest, that the British Parliament were actually fincere and unanimous in the character they all agreed to give of that great man after his death. If fo, Mr. R. is certainly ill quali fied to develope the intrigues of the cabinet. The miniftry, before Mr. Pitt's adminiftration, were weak enough, in truth; but we never heard that they were fo exceedingly weak, as to avow the principles we have diftinguished by italics, although there is no doubt that both they, and Mr. Pitt, and every adminiftration fince, and before them, for half a century paft, have privately adopted thofe principles, and purfued that mode of conduct. Mr. Pitt had abilities fufficient to perfuade the nation, at large, that his opponents were actuated by motives which their own imbecility hardly enabled them to difcover, and to make them believe, that he alone was poffeffed of fome excellent qualities, to which no other politician could, with juftice, lay claim. A well-informed hiftorian would do justice to his abilities-although he would often find occafion to condemn him in other refpects.-But the time is not, perhaps, yet come, for an impartial hiftory of that period.

Mr.

Mr. Ramfay is the avowed panegyrift of Mr. Pitt, and of every other person who had the good fortune to obtain popular fame during the war. Observe in what manner he apologizes for Mr. Pitt's adopting continental measures after he affumed the reins of adminiftration:

[ocr errors]

The unpopular party, however, was not entirely excluded from a fhare in the adminiftration. Their influence in the Privy Council, and credit in the Houfe of Commons, were fill great, and fufficient to thwart every measure in which they did not partake. A coalition of parties therefore took place from neceffity.-- It was now propofed to gratify our King, with affifting our allies on the continent, in the manner most agreeable to our infular fituation, which is by making diversions with our fleets; and it was alfo agreed that we should aid them with fuch land force and money as our ftrength and finances would admit.'

Mr Ramfay here thinks it neceffary to make an apology for his hero, that he did not judge neceflary for himself, as he afterwards claimed the fole honour of having conquered America in Germany.

This compendium would have been more useful, if the Author had taken care to infert, in the margin, the precife dates of the several occurrences that are mentioned in the text; for want of which the Reader is often at a lofs, in regard to the order of time and the fucceffion of events.

With respect to the copper-plates mentioned in the title-page, for elegant,' read execrable.

ART. V. A Difcourfe on the Theory of Gunnery. Delivered at the Anniversary Meeting of the Royal Society, Nov. 30th, 1778. By Sir John Pringle, Baronet. Publifhed by their Order. 4to. I s. 6 d. L. Davis.

TH

HIS moft excellent difcourfe, the laft we are to expect from its truly ingenious and learned Author, was delivered on prefenting Sir Godfrey Copley's gold medal to Mr. Cha. Hutton of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, for his paper, entitled, "The Force of fired Gunpowder, and the initial Velocities of Cannon-Balls, determined from Experiments."

After premifing a fhort account of fome of the principal military engines, ufed by the ancients before the discovery of gunpowder, and the invention of guns, the Prefident proceeds to give a concife account of the principal improvements which have been made, from time to time, in the theory and practice of gunnery. From which it appears that Nicholas Tartaglia, who lived about the beginning of the fixteenth century, was the firft who maintained that no part of the path of a cannon

ball

ball is a ftraight line. It does not, however, appear that Tartaglia made any attempts towards determining what the true path was. There is indeed, reafon to fuppofe that he had deviated fufficiently from the opinions of his contemporaries in denying that it was a ftraight line, obvious as it may appear at this day, and which is more to be wondered at, as every operation in nature, where projectile motion is concerned, muft have tended to convince them of it. But, as Sir John obferves, one would imagine, from numerous inftances, that men of science were fo far from making experiments themselves in those days, that they even shut their eyes against what chance would other wife have prefented to their fight.

To investigate the path which a projectile actually defcribes in a non-refitting medium was referved for Galileo, the inventor of the telescope, and the morning star of the seventeenth century; which afterwards produced thofe glorious luminaries of fcience Hook, Huygens, Halley, and Newton. After the demonftrations of Galileo, every one feems to have rested satisfied that the theory of gunnery was complete, and that nothing remained to be done for it but to reduce the theory to practice, until Newton, in 1687, published his Principia, wherein he demonftrates that the refiftance of the air is great enough to make the difference between the curve of projection of heavy bodies, and that of a parabola, very fenfible, and therefore too confiderable to be neglected. Soon after, namely, in 1690, M. Huygens demonftrated the fame thing. No notice, however, appears to have been taken of the demonftrations of these great men; nor yet of M. de Reffens, a French officer of artillery, of high military rank, and great profeffional abilities; and, moreover, diftinguished by the number of fieges which he had ferved at; who, in the year 1716, reprefented to the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris, that," although it was agreed that theory joined to practice conflituted the perfection of every art, yet experience had taught him that theory was of very little fervice in the ufe of mortars. That although, in the work of M. Blondel*, the feveral parabolic lines are juftly enough described, according to the different degrees of the elevation of the piece, yet that practice had convinced him there was no theory in the effects of gunpowder: for that having endeavoured, with the greatest precifion, to point a mortar agreeably to thefe calculations, he had never been able to establish any folid foundation upon them +." For we find no attempts toward improving this art before our countryman, Mr. Benjamin Robins, undertook it, about the year 1740, and made the experiments which are

L'Art de jetter les Bombes.

Mem. de l'Acad. R. des Sc. 1716.

related

related in his "New Principles of Gunnery," published in 1742. From these experiments it inconteftably appeared that the refiftance made by the air to projectiles, which have a rapid motion, is much greater than had been fuppofed even by Newton and Huygens themselves; and that it is indeed fo great that the path defcribed by any fhot whatever is very different from the curve of a parabola; and, confequently, that all applications of that conic fection to gunnery are falfe, and totally useless.

But Mr. Robins's experiments being made with thot of an ounce weight only, it was much to be wifhed that fuch perfons as had opportunity, might repeat the fame experiments with balls of a larger fize, and alfo with balls of different fizes. This was undertaken by Mr. Hutton: and in the course of his experiments he ufed balls from 20 to 50 ounces weight; the refult of which confirmed Mr. Robins's principles in the most ample manner, as may be feen at large in his paper; fome account of which was given in vol. lx. p. 417 of our Review.

Some perfons having objected to the fubject of Mr. Hutton's paper, as being not fo immediately an object of the Society's inftitution as others of a different nature; we fhall transcribe the concluding paragraph of this fenfible and well-written difcourfe, to fhew that the queftion did not escape the confideration of this learned body, before they conferred the greatest mark of honour which they have to bestow, on the Author of it. Some,' fays this humane and benevolent man, 6 may think, that the object of this Society are the arts of peace alone, not those of war, and that confidering how numerous and how keen the inftruments of death already are, it would better become us to discourage than to countenance their farther improvement. Thefe naturally will be the first thoughts of the beft difpofed minds. But when upon a closer examination we find, that fince the invention of arms of the quickest execution, neither battles nor fieges have been more frequent nor more deftructive, indeed apparently other wife; may we not thence infer, that such means as have been employed to sharpen the fword, have tended more to diminish than to increase the number of its victims, by fhortening contefts, and making them more decifive. I fhall not however infift on maintaining fo great a paradox; but only furmife that whatever ftate would adopt the Utopian maxims, and profcribe the ftudy of arms, would foon, I fear, become a prey to those who beft knew how to use them. For yet, alas! far feem we to be removed from thofe promifed times, when nation fhall not lift up sword against nation, neither fhall they learn war any more.'

ART.

« ElőzőTovább »