Page images
PDF
EPUB

cally, that the same X and M, in the same circumstances, will always produce the same A. This law Mr. Hume expressed by saying, that the same causes and effects are constantly conjoined; and he applied this doctrine of constant conjunction to mind; maintaining that, in the same state of mind, the same evidence has always the same influence to regulate belief, and the same motives in determining volition. Dr. Gregory, in his Philosophical Essays*, combated this notion. In order to confute Mr. Hume's doctrine of necessity, he assumed it as true, and traced the necessary consequences of it to conclusions either false or absurd; hence inferring the falsehood and absurdity of the principle.

The ingenious author of this pamphlet undertakes the examination of Dr. Gregory's argument. He finds no ground of objection against the Doctor's method of reasoning: but he asserts that the principle which he has assumed is not the same with that maintained by Mr. Hume. His doctrine, expressed symbolically, is that X and M will in the same circumstances always produce the same effect A; and that Y and M, in the same circumstances, will always produce the same effect B: but he admits that if X and M, or Y and M, be in any respect altered, the effect, A or B, becomes uncertain, and can only be known by experience. These essential particulars in Mr. Hume's doctrine of causation, Dr. G. is here charged with having omitted in his account of it, and overlooked in all his reasoning against it. He has represented Mr. Hume as having maintained that M continuing always the same, the same X will always and inevitably produce the same A, and the same Y the same B: consequently, the effects A and B being supposed effects of the same kind, the simultaneous application of X and Y to M must be followed by an exact concurrence of A and B, when X and Y directly concur; by a direct opposi tion of A and B, when X and Y directly oppose each other, and by a certain combination of A and B neither exactly concurring nor opposing, when X and Y neither exactly concur nor are directly opposite. All these consequences are found true in physics, but false in the voluntary determinations of the mind; whence Dr. G. argues that the principle, from which they are deduced, is equally false when applied to the will. The conclusion is admitted: but it is denied that Mr. Hume's doctrine is affected by the admission: for though, according to that doctrine, the same X and M will always in the same circumstances produce the same A; and the same Y and M the same B, yet, change the circumstances by intro

* See Rev. vol. ix. December 1792, p. 361.

ducing X with Y, and, instead of B, the effect may be C or D, or there may be no effect whatever referable to Y; for the principle of constant conjunction ceases to be applicable when a new agent or circumstance is introduced. Dr. Gregory's demonstration is therefore inapplicable to his purpose, inasmuch as it depends on the suppression of part of Mr. Hume's doctrine, and on the consequent misrepresentation of the whole.

Such is the leading argument of this refutation of Dr. Gregory, which is unfolded at large, and very ingeniously supported and illustrated. We must add that the writer appears to us to have discovered the exact point on which the falsehood of Dr. Gregory's conclusion turns. That this may be the more easily perceived by our readers, we shall venture to apply the symbols given above to one of Dr. Gregory's illustrations. If one person offers a Porter a shilling to go a mile to the south, and another person at the same time should offer him a shilling to go a mile to the east; the first offer being called X, and the second Y; the south direction A, and the east B; Dr. G. would assert that, according to the doctrine of constant conjunction, the simultaneous action of X and Y on the mind of the Porter ought to oblige him to go neither to the south nor to the east, but in a certain direction between them; which would not happen; whence he infers that the doctrine is false-but, according to the argument of this pamphlet, though X would have produced A, and Y would have produced B separately, it cannot be inferred that X and Y acting together would produce an effect between A and B, nor that the Porter would go to the south east for new circumstances require a new experiment; and, in the simultaneous action of X and Y, no effect whatever may be referable to Y. This would, certainly, in fact be the case; for the Porter, knowing very well that going to the south-east would not answer the purpose of either of his employers, perceives that he must either go to the south or to the east, or must remain at rest. The idea of the shilling determines him to motion rather than rest; and he chooses the south direction rather than the cast, because the path is easier, or for some other collateral reason.-We hazard the above merely as an illustration of the argument of this ingenious pamphlet, which we recommend to the attention of our philosophical readers as a successful vindication of Mr. Hume and the Necessitarians, at least, from the disgraceful imputation of mala fides.

ART.

ART. III. Ancient and Modern History of Lewes and Brighthelmston: in which are compressed the most interesting Events of the County at large, under the Regnian, Roman, Saxon, and Norman Settlements. 8vo. pp. 555. 12s. 6d. Boards. Rivingtons.

D

URING the times of the Britons and the Romans, the inhabitants of Sussex and of the adjacent parts appear to have borne the appellation of Regni and Renci; and it is not wholly improbable that under the former, as well as the latter, Lewes might be a settlement of some note. When the impolicy and folly of Vortigern called the Saxons to his aid against the Pictish invaders, this part of the island was subjugated by them, and known at length by the name of South-Saxon, South-Sex, or Sussex; and from this time the history of Lewes begins to be, gradually, a little more clear and satisfactory.

In the year seven hundred and seventy-four, (our author tells us,) Lewes and the other parts of Sussex are said to be infested by serpents of an enormous size. For this I can cite but one authority and that not the least apocryphal among the quaint volumes of monkish history. But, in the course of the following century, Sussex, as well as the other counties of the kingdom, was infested by an enemy whose ravages were more bloody and extensive than she could have experienced from the united hostility of the reptile and bestial kinds: For the perverted reason of man stamps his violence with a versatility and atrociousness unknown to the tyger, scorpion, or crocodile of Africa; and such are the glories of every martial prince down from Nimrod to the sanguinary despots of the present day t.' The author here alludes to the invasions of the Danes, justly styled free-booters; a term which too often applies to invaders and warriors.

In the fourth chapter of this work, which commences with the time of the Norman Conquest, the author gains more light, and writes with greater confidence. Here we have a detail, considered as authentic, from that period to the present, of the Lords of Lewes. It begins with William de Warren, nephew of the Duchess Gunnora, great grandmother of William the Conqueror, and passes with some regularity to Thomas Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel and Surrey. On his death, in 1439, a partition of his possessions took place between his three surviving sisters. We can easily admit the justice of what is here added: To trace this tripartite possession has been considerably more toilsome to the historian than it can be entertaining to the reader.' This narration is, however, pursued to the present Dukes of Norfolk and Dorset, who, with the Earl of Abergavenny, appear as proprietors of the borough and barony of Lewes. The latter part of the list is

[blocks in formation]

little more than a dry enumeration of names, but the former is somewhat diversified by biographic anecdotes; from among which we may mention the spirited behaviour, known indeed to many readers, of John de Warren, seventh Earl of Surrey. In the year 1280, Edward I. issued writs of quo warranto, inquiring by what right the nobility and others held their lands. The design was insidious, and many were glad to compound by advancing considerable sums: but when this Earl of Surrey was questioned, he drew a rusty sword, declaring that this was his warrantry for all that he possessed; "by that old servant, (says he,) my ancestors won their lands, as well as the conqueror himself, and with the same, their undegenerate descendant is resolved to maintain them." Such a declaration, from so resolute a baron, it is observed, might have been the signal for civil war, had not the king prudently given up the scheme, though exceedingly productive. This no doubt was brave; yet still more noble was the conduct of one of the Earl's successors, Earl of Surrey and Lord of Lewes, beheaded in the reign of Richard II.; others, who were engaged with him in an opposition to that unworthy prince, saved themselves by meanness and falsehood; this nobleman, however, preserved his integrity while he lost his life.-The present writer's reflection on this event appears to us rather partial and defective: he says,- The martyr who bleeds for the truth of Christianity betrays a laudable firmness of opinion: but he, who, at the peril or forfeit of his life, has laboured to extend or secure the happiness of his native land, or of mankind in general, approaches nearest to the active beneficence of Heaven.' Surely it must be allowed that the martyrs, of whom he speaks rather lightly, were actuated by principles of the most estimable kind, a love of truth, united with piety towards God, and a warm and active benevolence towards man!

The historian appears throughout this work adverse alike to slavery and to war, and a warm advocate for liberty, equity, and peace. The account of villenage, in its rise, degrees, and abolition, is worthy of perusal. The battle of Lewes in the reign of Henry III., in its connections and consequences, forms several pages of the volume: the relation is pursued to the event of the contest at Evesham: the whole is interesting, though, perhaps, rather too much is said of the carnage so desperately prosecuted by prince Edward, who was notwithstanding made prisoner; and of the mean and cowardly manner with which the dead body of Simon Montfort Earl of Leicester, to the eternal disgrace of his adversaries, was treated by them. This earl, however, with his patriot-host,' obtains much applause in the narrative,

In the general chronology of Lewes, from the year 1542 to 1794,' we find such articles as these: 1542. Two couple of rabbits given the Duke of Norfolk's officers, 6d. A pottle of sack ditto, 6d.-1544. This year the wages of John Payne, one of the burgesses in parliament for this borough, were sixtythree shillings.-1548. A pair of sheets and a pair of blankets for a pauper, 3s. 4d.-1551. A banquet made and given Lord Abergavenny this year by the town, cost 4s. itd.-1564. A month's board for Lord Abergavenny's huntsmen, 20s. Wine for a present to the Lord Bishop of Chichester, 4s.'

6

Etymology, which has been carried to ridiculous absurdity by some writers of local history, but which has its use, is not here improperly regarded: Malling, the name of a parish near Lewes, seemed with some probability to be derived from Meal or Mealewe, corn, and Ing, a low place: but, a few pages farther, we are told of veins of marl, grey and red, a circumstance which might occasion the name of Marl-Ing, softened in time into Malling? Of Cliff, another neighbouring parish, it is observed, its name is generally written Cliffe, in the antiquated extravagance of Norman corruption,-tacking a duplicate to the final consonant of words, and an e after it; as in the instance before us, to the Saxor noun Clif were added the unnecessary letters fe.' The corruption is in great measure rectified, except in the names of places, and in surnames; 'there it seems to be cherished as a mark of antiquity, with the same absurd pride that a man whose distant ancestor had been a menial servant, may tack an old-fashioned livery collar to his coat, as a proof of his ancient descent.'

Several biographical anecdotes are interspersed in the volume, respecting the famous Thomas Becket, whose pride, turbulence, and violent death are well known ;'-it is here added that his father Gilbert Becket, on his pilgrimage to the holy land, was made prisoner by a Saracen or Syrian, whose daughter Matildis fell in love with the English captive, and accompanied him to his native land :-With the hereditary zeal of a pilgrim, and the impetuosity of a Syrian, their son, Thomas became conspicuous, though not estimable, as a lawyer, a divine, a warrior, and a saint.'--Thomas Saville, created, by Queen Eliza beth, Lord Buckhurst, was also lord of the manor of Southover, by which means he obtains a place in this volume.

'This nobleman was at first addicted to dissipation and extravagance, but afterwards repaired both fame and fortune by a more frugal and regular mode of living. His reformation is sometimes attributed to a mortifying money transaction with a certain alderman of London: Lord Buckhurst called one day on the purse-proud citizen, who was so elated by his accidental superiority as a creditor, that he deigned

not

« PreviousContinue »