we must own that we cannot account for his giving us, fo often, a chronological hiftory of the times when the books in which they are contained were written and publifhed; namely, twice in the paper before us, and once in the Preface to his Meditationes Analytice. If it be really the cafe, we think the Profeffor might have spoken more plainly without any breach of modefly or decorum.

MECHANICAL.

Art. XII. Tentamen continens Theoriam Machine fublicarum An Effay containing the Theory of the Machine for driving Piles. By Thomas Bugge, Aftronomer Royal, and Profeffor of Aftronomy and Mathematics in the Academy of Copenhagen, and Member of the Societies of Sciences at Copenhagen and Drontheim. Communicated by Sir John Pringle, Bart.

Our Author fets out with obferving, that among the numerous advantages which civil fociety have derived from the knowledge of mechanics, the art of driving piles, that is, large oblong beams, into the earth, by repeated blows, is not the leaft. This art was not unknown to the ancients, as may be proved from many paffages in Vitruvius: for although this celebrated author does not defcribe the machine by which they did it, yet their knowledge, in this refpect, is placed beyond all doubt, feeing that without it, it would have been impoffible for them to have built bridges, moles, dams, bulwarks, pyramids, columns, and other edifices, the fize, majefty, firmness and durability of which we admire, but can fcarcely imitate; and all thefe things require the moft firm and folid foundations. If the foundation of a building is to be laid in a marshy place, large piles must be driven, by means of engines of this kind, to great depths, and the fpaces between them filled up with great ftones, gravel, fand, and mortar, before the foundation of that building can be laid.

The exact form of the machine by which the ancients drove thefe piles is not now fufficiently known. Several forts have been defcribed by Leopold, Defaguliers, and Belidor. But amongit all thofe, that which was invented by Vauloüe, defcribed by Dejaguliers, and brought into ufe while the foundation of Weftmintterbridge was laying, has greatly the pre-eminence over all others. Its peculiar advantages are, that the weight, ufually called the Ram, may be raised with the leaft force ;-that when it is raifed to a proper height, it readily difengages itfelf and falls with the utmoft freedom;-that the forceps are lowered down fpeedily, and inftantly, of themfelves, again lay hold of the Ram, and lift it up on which account this machine will drive the greatest number of piles, in the leaft time, and with the feweft 14bourers.

I

Mr.

Mr. Bugge next proceeds to fhew that Belidor has entirely miftaken the theory of this machine, and then goes on to lay down and explain the true theory of it; in doing which he delivers the following principles:

ift, If the refiftance of the ground, and the maffes of the piles, be equal, the depths to which they will be driven with a single blow will be as the product of the weight of the Ram into the height through which it falls.

2d, If the maffes of the Ram and heights through which it falls are both equal, the depths to which the piles will be driven will be in the inverfe ratios of the maffes of the piles into the fuperficies of that part of them which is already immersed in the earth.

3d, If all these things be unequal, the depths will be in a ratio compounded of the direct ratio of the heights through which the Ram falls into its mass, and the inverse ratio of the mafs of the pile into its immerfed fuperficies.

4th, If the weights of the Ram be equal, and alfo the weights of the piles; the depths to which they will be driven will be as the heights through which the Ram falls directly, and the immerfed fuperficies of the piles inverfely. Or, because the immerted fuperficies of the piles are as the depths which they are already driven into the earth, the depths they will be driven are fimply as the fquare roots of the heights through which the Ram falls.

From thefe principles, which are in a manner felf-evident, our ingenious Mechanician determines, that the distance which a pile will be driven by each fucceeding blow will be lefs and lefs, as the fuperficies of that part of the pile which is immerfed in the ground increases; contrary to what had been afferted by M. Belider: and, confequently, that there is a certain depth, beyond which a pile of a given mass and fcantling cannot be driven; the mafs of the Ram and the height through which it falls at first being affigned. He alfo refutes the notion which had been entertained by fome, that the driving of piles is facilitated by loading them with weights: for the depth to which a pile can be driven by any fingle blow (all other things remaining the fame) being inverfely as its mafs, it is manifeft that thus loading the pile, and thereby increafing its mafs, will be so far from accelerating its defcent, that it will abfolutely retard it. He concludes his paper with fome very useful practical hints, and obfervations, relative to proportioning the feveral parts of the machine to one another, the number of men which ought to be employed, examining the ground, and the part of it where the firft pile ought to be driven, fo that the others may drive with the greatest eafe poffible.

ART. XIII. Dedication to the collective Body of the People of England, in which the Source of our present political Distractions are pointed out, and a Plan proposed for their Remedy and Redrefs. By the Earl of Abingdon. 8vo. 1 s. 6d. Almon, &c. 1780.

IS Lordship opens this Epiftle Dedicatory with an ex

Hplanation of the reason why his Thoughts (fee Monthly

Rev. vol. lvii. p. 249) are dedicated to the collective body of the people of England at this period of their publication, and not at first.

The public good, fays he, was my object: but whether I had made ufe of the proper means to that end, or no, was not for me to determine. So far indeed as my intentions went, of their rectitude I was confcious: but how far I had fucceeded in ability rested upon the judgment of others.

To the judgment of others I appealed, and I called upon the Public, if I was wrong to fet me right. I declared that Truth being my only object herein, I should as readily look for it in others as feek it in my felf;' and I have waited impatiently for the event: but notwithstanding five editions of thefe Thoughts have been had, and much time has fince elapfed, to this very hour, not the colour of objection, nor the shadow of argument have been opposed to them.

These then are the circumstances under which this Dedication now makes its appearance to you. What diffidence had before with-held, acquired confidence hath fince produced; and as, on the one hand, if truth be with me, my reward will be in its ufe to you; fo, on the other, if error, my confolation is, that I have been ever ready to retract it.

But having faid, that not the colour of objection, nor the fhadow of argument have been oppofed to thefe Thoughts; I feel myself obliged to offer a few words in anfwer to one writer, who has been pleafed to honour me with his public correfpondence. This writer is a Mr. Cartwright, and who, in a Letter addreffed to me +, has, fuppofing me wrong in a pofition that I have laid down, called upon me, with great propriety, for my juftification. I rejoice to meet fuch inquiries. They are the avenues to truth. And I am no lefs pleafed with the inquirer. He has written like a gentleman, and what is more than this, like an honest man: for, unlike those anonymous writers, whofe fears are left the infamy of their names fhould increase the infamy of their writings, he has affixed his name to what he has written. It is therefore matter of concern to me to find myself mistaken by this writer: but my hopes are, that to remove his mistake will be equally fatisfactory to him, as to me.'

His Lordship then enters upon his vindication, and, as we think, fully proves that the error has arifen merely from a mifconception of his expreffion; and that, in fact, with respect to

+ Vid. A Letter to the Earl of Abingdon difcuffing a pofition relative to a fundamental right of the Conftitution, &c. By John Cartwright. See Review, vol. lviii. p. 237. Сс

REV. May 1780.

the

the matter in difpute he and Mr. Cartwright are both of the fame opinion. He then proceeds to the difcuffion of another point; namely, the nature of allegiance; on the due folution of which, as his Lordship obferves, the moft important conftitutional doctrine hangs. On this fubject his Lordship reasons with fingular acutenefs and ingenuity. In the course of his argument he examines the maxim that the King can do no wrong; in illuftration of which doctrine Sir William Blackstone lays it down, that the King is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: he can never mean to do an improper thing: in him is no folly or weakness.

But let us fee, fays this fpirited writer, how this Westminsterhall inference (for it is called a legal maxim) and its comment agree with the Conftitution, with nature, with reason, with common fenfe, with experience, with fact, with precedent, and with Sir William Blackfone himself; and whether, by the application of these rules of evidence thereto, it will not be found, that (from the want of attention, as I have taken notice of before, to that important line of distinction which the Conftitution has drawn between the King of England, and the Crown of England) what was attributed to the monarchy has not been given to the monarch, what meant for the kinghip conveyed to the King, what defigned for the thing transferred to the perfon, what intended for theory applied to practice; and so in confequence that whilst the premiffes (of the perfection of the monar chy) be true, the conclufion (that the King can do no wrong) be not falfe*.

And first in reference to the Conftitution: to which if this matter be applied (meaning what it expreffes, and if it do not it is unworthy of notice) it is fubverfive of a principle in the Conftitution, upon which the prefervation of the Conftitution depends; I mean the principle of refiftance: a principle which, whilst no man will now venture to gainfay, Sir William Blackstone himself admits, is juftifiable to the perfon of the Prince when the being of the State is endangered, and the public voice proclaims fuch refiftance neceffary;" and thus, by fuch admiffion, both difproves the maxim, and overfets bis own comment thereupon: for to say that " the King can do no wrong," and that "he is incapable even of thinking wrong," and then to admit that "refiftance to his person is justifiable," are fuch jarring contradictions in themselves, that until reconciled, the neceffity of argument is fufpended t.

With respect then, in the next place, to the agreement of this maxim and its comment with nature, with reason, and with common fenfe, I fhould have thought myself fufficiently juftified in appealing to every man's own reflection for decifion, if I had not been made to understand that nature, reason, and common fenfe had had nothing to do with either. Sir William Blackstone fays, That though a philofophical mind will confider the royal perfon merely as one man

.6

* How easily does the worship of the divinity degenerate into a worship of the idol ? Vid. Hume's Effays, p. 40.

+ Vid. Blackstone's Comm. v. 1. p. 251.

appointed

appointed by mutual confent to prefide over others, and will pay him that reverence and duty which the principles of fociety demand, yet the mafs of mankind will be apt to grow infolent and refractory if taught to confider their Prince as a man of no greater perfection than themselves; and therefore the law afcribes to the King, in his high political character, certain attributes of a great and tranfcendent nature, by which the people are led to confider him in the light of a Superior being, and to pay him that awful refpe&t which may enable him with greater eafe to carry on the bufinefs of Government." So that, in order to govern with greater ease. (which by the bye is mere affertion without any proof) it is neceffary to deceive the mafs of mankind, by making them believe, not only what a philofophical mind cannot believe, but what it is impoffible for any mind to believe; and therefore in the investigation of this fubject, according to Sir William, neither nature, reafon, nor common fenfe can have any

concern.

It remains to examine in how much this maxim and its comment agree with experience, with fact, with precedent, and with Sir William Blacktone himself. And here it is matter of most curious fpeculation, to obferve a maxim laid down, and which is intended for a rule of government, not only without a fingle cafe in fupport of it, but with a ftring of cafes that may be carried back to Egbert the first monarch of England, in direct oppofition to the doctrine. Who is the man, that reading the past history of this country, will fhew us any King that has done no wrong? Who is the Reader that will not find, that all the wrongs and injuries which the free Conftitution of this country has hitherto fuffered, have been folely derived from the arbitrary meafures of our Kings? And yet the mass of mankind are to look upon the King, as a fuperior being; and the maxim that "the King can do no wrong," is to remain as an article of belief. But without pushing this inquiry any further, let us fee what encouragement Sir William Blackflone himself has given us for our credulity. After ftating the maxim, and prefenting us with a most lively picture," of our fovereign Lord thus all perfect and immortal," what does he make this all-perfection and immortality in the end to come to? His words are thefe: "For when King Charles's deluded brother attempted to enflave the nation," (no wrong this, to be Jure)" he found it was beyond his power: the people both coULD, and did refift him and in confequence of fuch reuilance obliged him to quit his enterprize and his throne together +."

The fum of all is this: that the Crown of England and the King of England are diftinguishable, and not fynonimous terms: that allegiance is due to the Crown, and through the Crown to the King: that the attributes of the Crown are fovereignty, perfection, and perpetuity; but that it does not therefore follow, "that the King can do no wrong." It is indeed to be admitted, that in high respect for the Crown, high refpect is alfo due to the wearer of that Crown; that is, to the King: but the Crown is to be preferred to the King,