Chapter IX: Part 9

The great doctrine of gravitation and attraction, the _substratum_ of
the Newtonian philosophy, is amply verified by numerous observations
and experiments. Whether that which constitutes the principle of
gravity be, in itself, an incorporeal or spiritual substance, or a
_materia subtilis_, some very subtile kind of ethereal fluid, is a
question which does not at all affect the actual existence of such a
power. “We know,” as is observed by a great astronomer[180b] of our
own time, “that all the bodies in our system are retained in their
courses by such a power” (the power of attraction.) “And,” he adds,
“it is a very singular instance of the unerring wisdom of the CREATOR,
that the law which this power observes is such, that notwithstanding
the mutual attractions of the bodies, the system will never fall into
ruin, but is capable of preserving itself to all eternity. “Moreover,”
continues the same profound writer, “the mutual attraction which takes
place between distant bodies could not, of itself, either produce
their motion about the sun, or the rotation about their axes: it
required an external impulse to operate in conjunction with it, to
produce these effects; an act, which nothing but the arm of
OMNIPOTENCE could accomplish.” “An invisible power pervades the whole
system, and preserves it. In the effects produced by man, we see the
operation of the cause; but “the ways of the ALMIGHTY are past finding
out.” “Hence,” says our author, “in whatever point of view we take a
survey of our system, we trace the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of the
CREATOR: his Power, in its formation; his Wisdom, in the simplicity of
the means to produce the ends; and his Goodness, in making those ends
subservient to our use and enjoyment. Thus we are led by our enquiries
into the structure of the universe, to the proofs of the existence and
attributes of a SUPREME BEING, who formed and directs the whole.
Arguments of this kind produce conviction which no sophistry can
confound. “Every man may see it; man may behold it afar off.” Let not
therefore the ignorant declaim against those pursuits which direct us
to a knowledge of our CREATOR, and furnish us with unanswerable
arguments against the infidel and the atheist.”

But, to return more immediately to the doctrine of gravitation: Some
experiments had been made by M. Boguer and M. de la Condamine, so long
since as the year 1738, upon the Chimboraso in South-America, in order
to test the Newtonian theory of gravity, by examining the attraction
of mountains; and the result accorded with that theory. With a view,
however, to establish the principle more completely, the experiments
of Messrs. Boguer and Condamine having been made under so many
disadvantages, as rendered the result not sufficiently accurate to be
entirely depended on, similar experiments were made upon the Mountain
Schehallien in Scotland, by Dr. Maskelyne, at the request of the Royal
Society, and under the patronage of his sovereign, the present king,
who liberally undertook to defray the expenses. From observations of
ten stars near the zenith, he found the difference of latitudes of the
two stations on the opposite sides of the mountain to be 54″, 6; and
by a measurement of triangles, he ascertained the distance of the
parallels to be 4364, 4 feet, corresponding, in that latitude, to an
arc of the meridian of 42″, 94, which is 11″, 6 less than by
observation: its half therefore, 5″, 8, is the effect of the
attraction of the mountain; and from its magnitude, compared with the
bulk of the whole earth, Dr. Maskelyne computed the mean density of
the latter to be about double that of the mountain. “Thus,” to use the
words of Mr. Vince, “the doctrine of _Universal Gravitation_ is firmly
established.” The reader will find Dr. Maskelyne’s deductions from
this experiment, in Vince’s _Complete System of Astronomy_, vol. ii.
p. 100 and seq.

Footnote 180a:

This extraordinary man, who was the first Plumian professor of
astronomy and experimental philosophy at Cambridge, was born July 10,
1682, and died prematurely June 5, 1716.

Footnote 180b:

The Rev. Mr. Vince, A. M. F. R. S. Plumian Professor of Astronomy and
Experimental Philosophy, in the University of Cambridge. See his
_Complete System of Astronomy_, vol. ii. p. 291.

Footnote 181:

The essay signed M. W. is dated from that place.

-----

Much as Mr. Rittenhouse was averse to controversy of any kind, he could not content himself without publicly pointing out one palpable fallacy, among the many mistakes which the last mentioned writer had fallen into: for he did not notice the preceding production of ‘M. W.’ not deeming it, probably, worthy of his attention. Accordingly, having been shewn ‘J. W.’s’ essay, with some remarks on it by his ingenious friend Mr. Ellicott (then quite a young man,) Mr. Rittenhouse drew up some observations, very concisely, on the errors of this Anti-Newtonian essayist. This piece will be found in the same periodical work, for June 1776. Being addressed to Mr. Aitken, the publisher of the Magazine, our Philosopher concludes his strictures thus: “I wish the gentleman would be more cautious, for the future; as well on your own account as for the sake of your readers, some of whom may be misled by the weakest reasoning, on a subject which they do not understand[182] and I will venture to assure him, that the whole doctrine of Infinites, which he is pleased to call a sophism, will not produce one contradiction in a mathematical head. Those of another cast[183] need not meddle with it, since there is a sufficient variety of literary subjects to engage every man, according to the bent of his genius.”

-----

Footnote 182:

In the beginning of these observations of Mr. Rittenhouse, on “J.
W.’s” piece, he says—“I am one of those who are ready to subscribe to
the general maxim, That perfection is not to be found in any thing
human; and therefore do not suppose the Newtonian philosophy to be so
perfect as not to admit of amendment: But I must confess, that almost
all the attempts to controvert that philosophy, which I have met with,
amount to nothing more than so many proofs, that those who made them
did not understand it. Of this kind, are the objections started by
your correspondent, J. W.”

Footnote 183:

Alluding, probably, to Metaphysicians; for, neither Mr. M. W. nor Dr.
J. W. was distinguished as a Mathematician.

-----

A further proof of Mr. Rittenhouse’s unremitting attachment to the interests of science, even “amidst the calamities of an unhappy war,” will be found in the following circumstances; a written memorial of which, is preserved in the family of his friend, the late Dr. W. Smith.

On the 2d day of November, 1776, Mr. Rittenhouse was engaged, in the city of Philadelphia, jointly with Dr. Smith and Mr. John Lukens, in observing the transit of Mercury over the Sun, which appeared that day. On the 9th of January, following, the Doctor and Mr. Rittenhouse employed themselves at the same place, in like Observations on an eclipse of the Sun, which then occurred. And, on the 24th of June, 1778, just one week after the evacuation of that city by the British army, the three gentlemen here named, together with Mr. Owen Biddle, were busied in making observations, there, on another eclipse of the Sun. The results of these several Observations, in the hand-writing of Dr. Smith, having been bound up by him with a copy of T. Mayer’s Lunar Tables, the writer of these Memoirs was obligingly permitted by Mr. Charles Smith, the Doctor’s son, to transcribe them, for publication in this work. A true copy of them is accordingly given in the Appendix.

But, to return to some political events of the year 1776: In the month of September of that year, Mr. Rittenhouse was one of twenty-four persons who were appointed justices of the peace, for the whole State of Pennsylvania; in their capacity of members of the then existing council of safety.

This appointment was made by virtue of an ordinance of the convention of Pennsylvania, which passed the first constitution of the state, on the 28th of September, 1776, of which he was also a member, for the city of Philadelphia. That convention could boast of possessing, among their members, two distinguished philosophers, Franklin[184] and Rittenhouse: but it cannot be ascertained, whether the opinions of these two eminent men, on the subject of government, had any decided influence on the deliberations of that assembly. Certain it is, however, that the Constitution framed and promulgated by the convention, was predicated on too many new and untried principles of civil polity; that it contained too many aberrations from maxims founded on a knowledge of human nature, to have warranted a reasonable expectation, that it could long prove practically beneficial. Hence, after an experiment of fourteen years continuance, it was succeeded by the present constitution of the state; one admirably well suited to secure the rights and liberties of its citizens, individually, and to promote the prosperity of the whole community, so long as it shall be faithfully and wisely administered.[185]

-----

Footnote 184:

Dr. Franklin was president of that convention.

Footnote 185:

Dr. Ramsay, who published his History of the American Revolution at
the close of the year 1789, after observing that the policy of
Great-Britain, in throwing the inhabitants of her ancient colonies on
the American continent out of her protection, induced a necessity of
establishing independent constitutions for themselves, makes these
judicious remarks:—“The many errors that were at first committed by
unexperienced statesmen, have been a practical comment on the folly of
unbalanced constitutions and injudicious laws.”

-----

The thirteen British Colonies, which, on the memorable fourth day of July, 1776, had declared themselves free and independent States, assumed at the same time a national character, under the denomination of “The United States of America,” in the articles of confederation and perpetual union between the states, then published:[186] and by these articles it was agreed, that each state should retain its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, not expressly delegated to congress by the confederation. As soon, therefore, as Pennsylvania had adopted her state-constitution, measures were pursued for organizing her government, in conformity to its provisions. The right of appointing the treasurer of the state by annual election, was vested in the immediate representatives of the people, when assembled in their legislative capacity. This policy had been invariably pursued in the proprietary government of Pennsylvania, while she continued to be a British province: after the abrogation of the first constitution of the state, the same mode of appointing that important officer, the state-treasurer, was continued, and will probably long remain a constitutional provision.

-----

Footnote 186:

The articles of confederation were not finally ratified by congress
until the 9th of July, 1778. “After eleven years experience,” as Dr.
Morse has observed, “being found inadequate to the purposes of a
federal government,” the present constitution of the United States was
formed at Philadelphia, in the summer of 1787, by that wise, liberal
and patriotic assembly, in which the illustrious Washington presided.

-----

The person first appointed to that high trust, under the republican government of Pennsylvania, was David Rittenhouse: a man whose stern integrity, numerous public services, and uniform adherence to those principles which gave rise to the American revolution, were well calculated to inspire a general confidence in his character; more especially, in times when virtue and talents were considered as meritorious qualities in public men, by those who elevated them to office. The first legislative body of the State, after the declaration of independence, assembled at Philadelphia in October, 1776; and, on the 14th day of January, in the following year, they chose Mr. Rittenhouse to be the state-treasurer, without a dissenting voice. In like manner, he was unanimously continued in that station, during twelve succeeding years; in the last of which, he sent to the legislature his resignation of that office: this event shall be more particularly noticed in its proper place in the order of time.

In consequence of the possession of the city of Philadelphia by the British army, from the latter end of September, 1777, until the beginning of the ensuing summer, the session of the state-legislature which intervened, was held at Lancaster. The compulsory removal from the capital, not only of the government of Pennsylvania but of congress also, and all the offices attached to the seat of the national government, produced an high degree of agitation and resentment in the public mind; more especially in Pennsylvania, where the evils occasioned by the occupancy of their capital by an hostile army, were more keenly felt by the citizens.

Under these impressions, the general assembly of that state passed a law on the 13th of October (only seventeen days after the British forces entered Philadelphia,) entitled “An act for constituting a council of safety, &c.” By this act, twelve persons therein named, of whom David Rittenhouse was one, were constituted that council: and to this body, jointly with the supreme executive council of the state, great and extraordinary powers were given, to punish (even capitally) offenders, “traitors or others, who from their general conduct, or conversation, should be deemed inimical to the common cause of liberty and the United States of North-America.” The irritation, that could have provoked such a measure, must have been extreme! for, surely, nothing less than an extremity of necessity could be urged as any sort of justification, in a free country, of a legislative act, whereby the constitution was grossly violated, laws were dispensed with, and a summary authority of the highest nature, vested in a tribunal unknown to the laws and unwarranted by the constitution.[187] It is believed, however, that no proceedings were had under this strange legislative act: and the writer is firmly persuaded, that neither Mr. Rittenhouse, nor some others of the gentlemen who constituted the tribunal erected by that act, would have undertaken to exercise some of the powers required of them, thereby.

-----

Footnote 187:

“War never fails,” as Dr. Ramsay has justly observed, “to injure the
morals of the people engaged in it. The American war in particular,”
continues that historian, “had an unhappy influence of this kind.
Being begun without funds or regular establishments, it could not be
carried on without violating private rights; and in its progress, it
involved a necessity for breaking solemn promises, and plighted public
faith. The failure of national justice, which was in some degree
unavoidable, increased the difficulties of performing private
engagements, and weakened that sensibility to the obligations of
public and private honour, which is a security for the punctual
performance of contracts.”

This is a melancholy but faithful representation of some of the
injurious impressions made on the moral sentiments and feelings of the
people of this country, by the revolutionary war: evils inseparable
from warfare; and such as necessarily spring from a state of things,
alike destructive of social order and the refinements of society, as
repugnant to the precepts of religion, the dictates of natural justice
and the mild suggestions of benevolence.

-----

Daring the occupancy of Philadelphia by the British forces under Sir William Howe, the commander in chief, from the 26th of September, 1777, until the evacuation of that city on the 18th of June, in the following year, Mr. Rittenhouse resided at Lancaster;[188] where he was busily employed in the duties of his office of treasurer of the state.[189] Before his removal from Philadelphia, he had placed his family at or in the vicinity of his farm in Norriton, distant about twenty miles in a north-westwardly direction from the capital; then conceiving that situation to be a place of safety from any hostile excursions. While he himself continued in the borough of Lancaster, he made his home at the house of the late William Henry, Esq. at that time treasurer of the rich and populous county of the same name; a situation which was very commodious for the business of his office, from its connexion with that of the county-treasurer, and one which was also rendered the more agreeable, by reason of Mr. Henry being a person of very considerable mechanical ingenuity.

-----

Footnote 188:

This large and thriving borough, said to be the greatest inland town
in the United States, was, for a short time, (though very short,
indeed,) the seat, or rather place of refuge, of the American
congress; the members of which, having separated on the near approach
of the British army, eight days before their occupation of the
capital, re-assembled at Lancaster the 27th day of the same month.
Lancaster, which is situated at the distance of sixty-four miles from
Philadelphia, in a direction nearly west, was at first conceived to be
a place of safety: but, for their more perfect security, congress
convened, three days afterwards, at York in Pennsylvania, a
considerable county-town about twenty-two miles westward from
Lancaster, and from each of which places, the intervening great river
Susquehanna is about equidistant.

Footnote 189:

His active mind derived much of its happiness from its continual
employment. It appears, that, while engaged in the duties of his
office, at Lancaster, in the latter part of the year 1777, he made the
calculations for an Ephemeris, called “Father Abraham’s
Pocket-Almanack, for the year M.DCC LXXVIII;” the late Mr. John
Dunlap, the publisher, (who was, during many years, an eminent printer
in Philadelphia,) having, in his advertisement of it, announced to the
public, that “The Astronomical Calculations of this Almanack were
composed by David Rittenhouse, A. M.” Mr. A. Ellicott made
calculations for Pennsylvania and Maryland Almanacks, several years
after Mr. Rittenhouse declined to continue them.

It is believed that our Astronomer made the calculations for “Father
Abraham’s Almanack,” and probably some others, for several years: but
mostly in the earlier part of his life. And, as it was no
disparagement to the talents of a Franklin to publish “Poor Richard’s
Almanack,”[189a] (which the Doctor long continued to print,) so it was
none to the genius and abilities of a Rittenhouse, that he employed
himself, occasionally, in making calculations of an useful nature for
these Ephemerides.

Footnote 189a:

Not only the astronomical calculations of this once well-known and
highly esteemed Ephemeris, but its poetry also, (which is said to have
possessed a considerable share of merit,) were the productions of
Jacob Taylor, Esq. an old English gentleman, who, for some time,
executed the office of Surveyor-General of Pennsylvania. Franklin was
the printer and publisher of this Ephemeris: but many of the
productions of his pen, which appeared in it, and, among the rest, his
“Way to Wealth,” contributed towards rendering it a very popular
publication, of its kind. Franklin commenced the publication of “Poor
Richard’s Almanack,” in the year 1732, when he was but twenty-six
years of age.

-----

This separation of Mr. Rittenhouse from his wife and children—attended too, as it was, by the most embarrassing circumstances, and great uncertainty with respect to the extent of its continuance—produced, in such a disposition as his, the most poignant feelings. His lot, it is true, was that of thousands of his fellow-citizens: nor were the opposite party exempt from similar evils; many of whom were obliged to abandon their homes, and, after making great sacrifices, to seek an asylum among strangers. These were a part of the miseries inseparable from a state of war; and some of them were of that nature which necessarily resulted from a war of so singular a character; considerations, however, which could not afford much alleviation to the anxious feelings of our Philosopher, in his exile: those sensations were in his mind, extremely acute; aggravated as they were, by the almost hopeless condition of his native country at that time.[190]

-----

Footnote 190:

“At no period of the war,” says chief-justice Marshall the historian,
“had the American army been reduced to a situation of greater peril,
than during the winter at Valley-Forge.” “More than once they were
absolutely without food. Even while their condition was less desperate
in this respect, their stock of provisions was so scanty, that there
was seldom at any time in the stores a quantity sufficient for the use
of the troops for one week. Consequently, had the enemy moved out in
force, the American army could not have continued in camp. The want of
provisions would have forced them out of it; and their deplorable
condition with respect to clothes, disabled them from keeping the
field in the winter. The returns of the first of February (1778)
exhibit the astonishing number of three thousand nine hundred and
eighty-nine men in camp unfit for duty, for want of clothes. Of this
number, scarcely a man had a pair of shoes. Even among those returned
capable of doing duty, very many were so badly clad, that exposure to
the colds of the season must have destroyed them. Although the total
of the army exceeded seventeen thousand men, the present effective
rank and file amounted to only five thousand and twelve. The returns
throughout the winter do not essentially vary from that which has just
been particularly stated.”

Such was the miserable condition of the American army, at the date of
the above returns! It was, indeed, sufficiently desperate in
appearance, to have appalled the stoutest heart; and it required the
magnanimity, as well as the virtue of a WASHINGTON, to conquer such
difficulties and rise superior to them.

-----

A letter which he wrote to his wife, from Lancaster, on the 26th of January, 1778, strongly bespeaks his inquietude and distress, at that alarming period; and is, besides, so very expressive of his purity of heart and the delicacy of his conjugal and parental affections, that the following extracts from it will, it is presumed, be strikingly indicative of his principles and temper.

“One of your last,” says Mr. Rittenhouse to his wife, “convinces me, that the fears I expressed in a former letter are well-founded; I mean, that you will write, when writing is painful to you: Indeed, my dear H. I am not so unreasonable as to desire it.”—“Your letters, my dearest H. give me mingled pleasure and pain. There is nothing in this world I value so much, as your esteem and affection: Your very kind expressions of regard, and concern for my health, would therefore make me happy, if it were not for our unfortunate situation. But we have long since talked of the necessity of reconciling ourselves to the prospect of a separation,—perhaps for years: this, I fear, you have still made little progress in doing, if I may judge from your letters. Nevertheless, the dismal prospect still continues. I cannot, indeed, boast of much more resolution myself. If providence has espoused the cause of our enemies, for wise reasons unknown to us,—Heaven, nevertheless, is my witness, with what integrity I have acted; and, that the virtue and happiness of my fellow-creatures has always been my principal object. I am, therefore, not at all distressed on my own account, confident of being happy, in whatever part of the world my lot may be thrown: but how to leave you exposed to the frowns of fortune; to leave you to the mercy of an unfeeling world, rendered more callous by general distress; to leave you thus, confiding only in the goodness of Providence, is what I have still to learn. May kind Heaven render it unnecessary!

“I shall perhaps, before I seal this, appoint a time to meet you. In my last, I partly promised to come and stay a fortnight with you: but I do not now think it so safe, as I did then. In our present situation, I should not think it prudent to stay above one night with you, as parties of horse are employed to pick up particular persons. For this reason, I would rather meet you at one of your brothers’, or at sister’s;[191] but I apprehend the Schuylkill is, at present, difficult—if not dangerous—to cross, on account of the ice.

-----

Footnote 191:

This sister of Mrs. Rittenhouse was the widow of Colonel Caleb Parry,
a gallant officer in the American service, who was killed at the
battle of Long-Island in July, 1776.

“Tuesday morning.—I am now nearly determined to appoint next Saturday week, in the evening, to meet you at brother John’s;[192] and yet I fear it may expose one or both of us to a very uncomfortable ride. I will, however, be there, if the weather be tolerable and health permit; but do not come, my dear H. if the weather should be bad; because if I do not find you there, I shall proceed to brother Israel’s,[193] where I shall be glad to find you on Sunday, in order to accompany you home. If you can find any opportunity to write before then, I shall be glad to receive a line.”

Footnote 192:

John Jacobs, Esq.—This gentleman was a brother of Mrs. Rittenhouse.

Footnote 193:

Israel Jacobs, Esq.—Another brother of Mrs. Rittenhouse.

-----

After experiencing the numerous and distressing privations incident to a nine months banishment from his home and separation from his family—during a period, too, of great calamity and suffering among his countrymen, Mr. Rittenhouse most joyfully returned to Philadelphia, soon after its abandonment by the hostile army; and there, once more, enjoyed the solace of a reunion with his wife and children; amidst whose tender embraces, and the mutual congratulations of his friends and fellow-citizens, especially of the returning exiles, he participated largely in those delightful sensations with which such an occasion, and such scenes, must have inspired a virtuous heart.

In Philadelphia, Mr. Rittenhouse resumed the discharge of his official functions, as treasurer of the state; an office, in the execution of which there were very numerous and complicated duties, arising out of the novel system of finance and paper-credit, pursued by both the general and state governments during the war: consequently, his attention to this business engrossed so much of his time, as to leave him little leisure for pursuits more congenial to his mind.

In a very short time after Mr. Rittenhouse’s return to Philadelphia he received a letter from Mr. Jefferson, congratulating him on that happy event: and expressing, in very forcible terms, the exalted sense that gentleman entertained of our Philosopher’s genius, talents, and usefulness. It indicates, also, the solicitude felt by its writer, lest the Orrery of Mr. Rittenhouse’s invention and construction, belonging to the College of Philadelphia, had been either removed or injured by the British forces, while they occupied that city. On this head, however, the apprehensions conceived by Mr. Jefferson proved to be groundless: for, not only was the Orrery not removed from its proper station; but, at the instance of the Rev. Dr. Smith, the provost of the College, the apartment in the College edifice which contained the invaluable machine, was closed up by order of Sir William Howe, to prevent its being injured; and no person was permitted to enter that apartment to view the Orrery, without the Provost’s consent; on which occasions he uniformly attended in person, with the keys kept in his possession. The means thus used, to secure from any injury property so inestimable to the friends of science, is a circumstance that certainly reflects much honour upon the parties by whom they were effected,—even though one of them was, at that time, necessarily viewed in the character of an “enemy.”

But, in order that the reader may be enabled to form his own judgment, on Mr. Jefferson’s estimate of genius, and concerning the rank and privileges to which the distinguished writer conceives men of great philosophical talents are entitled, the letter, just referred to, is now presented to him: it is as follows.

“_Monticello in Albemarle, Virginia, July 19, 1778._

“Dear sir,

“I sincerely congratulate you on the recovery of Philadelphia, and
wish it may be found uninjured by the enemy. How far the interests of
literature may have suffered by the injury or removal of the Orrery
(as it is miscalled), the public libraries, and your papers and
implements, are doubts which still excite anxiety. We were much
disappointed in Virginia generally, on the day of the great
eclipse,[194] which proved to be cloudy in Williamsburg, where it was
total. I understand, only the beginning was seen at this place, which
is in Latitude 38° 8′ and Longitude West from Williamsburg, about 1°
45′ as is conjectured; eleven digits only were supposed to be covered.
It was not seen at all till the moon had advanced nearly one-third
over the sun’s disc. Afterwards, it was seen at intervals through the
whole. The egress particularly was visible. It proved, however, of
little use to me, for want of a time-piece that could be depended on;
which circumstance together with the subsequent restoration of
Philadelphia to you, has induced me to trouble you with this letter,
to remind you of your kind promise of making me an accurate clock,
which being intended for astronomical purposes only, I would have
divested of all apparatus for striking, or for any other purpose,
which by increasing its complication might disturb its accuracy. A
companion to it, for keeping seconds, and which might be moved easily,
would greatly add to its value. The theodolite, for which I spoke to
you also, I can now dispense with, having since purchased a most
excellent one.

-----

Footnote 194:

This eclipse, which happened on the 24th day of June, 1778, was
observed in Philadelphia, by Dr. Rittenhouse, the Rev. Dr. W. Smith,
John Lukens, Esq. and Mr. Owen Biddle, at the College in that city.
The result of the joint observations made by those gentlemen on that
occasion, as drawn up by Dr. Smith, but never before published, will
be found in the Appendix. W. B.

-----

“Writing to a Philosopher, I may hope to be pardoned for intruding
some thoughts of my own, though they relate to him personally. Your
time for two years past has, I believe, been principally employed in
the civil government of your country. Though I have been aware of the
authority our cause would acquire with the world from its being known
that Yourself and Doctor Franklin were zealous friends to it, and am
myself duly impressed with a sense of the arduousness of government,
and the obligation those are under who are able to conduct it; yet I
am also satisfied there is an order of geniuses above that obligation,
and therefore exempted from it. Nobody can conceive that nature ever
intended to throw away a Newton upon the occupations of a crown. It
would have been a prodigality for which even the conduct of Providence
might have been arraigned, had he been by birth annexed to what was so
far below him. Co-operating with nature in her ordinary economy, we
should dispose of and employ the geniuses of men according to their
several orders and degrees. I doubt not there are in your country many
persons equal to the task of conducting government: but you should
consider that the world has but one Rittenhouse, and that it never had
one before. The amazing mechanical representation of the solar system
which you conceived and executed, has never been surpassed by any but
the work of which it is a copy. Are those powers then, which, being
intended for the erudition of the world, are, like air and light, the
world’s common property, to be taken from their proper pursuit to do
the common-place drudgery of governing a single state, a work which
may be executed by men of an ordinary stature, such as are always and
every where to be found? Without having ascended Mount Sinai for
inspiration, I can pronounce that the precept, in the decalogue of the
vulgar, that they shall not make to themselves the ‘likeness of any
thing that is in the heavens above,’ is reversed for you, and that you
will fulfil the highest purposes of your creation by employing
yourself in the perpetual breach of that inhibition. For my own
country in particular, you must remember something like a promise that
it should be adorned with one of them. The taking of your city by the
enemy has hitherto prevented the proposition from being made and
approved by our legislature. The zeal of a true whig in science must
excuse the hazarding these free thoughts, which flow from a desire of
promoting the diffusion of knowledge and of your fame, and of one who
can assure you truly that he is with much sincerity and esteem your
most obedient and most humble servant.

TH. JEFFERSON.

“P. S. If you can spare as much time as to give me notice of the
receipt of this, and what hope I may form of my Clock, it will oblige
me. If sent to Fredericksburg, it will come safe to hand.”

In the commencement of the year 1779, our benevolent Philosopher had an opportunity of testifying the friendly interest he took in the prosperity of his brother-in-law the Rev. Mr. Barton, and his family. This gentleman was then, with Mrs. Barton,[195] in the city of New-York; to which they went towards the close of the year 1778, in pursuance of a permission granted for that purpose by the government of Pennsylvania, under certain conditions. All Mr. Barton’s children excepting the eldest, (the writer of these Memoirs), who was then abroad, remained in Pennsylvania; those in their minority, being six of the seven so remaining, having been previously placed under the charge of suitable persons. After a long absence of the eldest son from his native country, he returned to Pennsylvania the beginning of the year 1779. Immediately after his arrival at Lancaster, he received a letter from Mr. Rittenhouse, dated in Philadelphia, January 24th 1779, in which he says—“I most sincerely congratulate you on your safe arrival, and impatiently expect the pleasure of seeing you here. I received yours from Baltimore, ten days after the date, and immediately wrote to your father,[196] supposing him to be still at New-York;[197] though we cannot be certain as to that matter.” The Rev. Mr. Barton, on the 15th of February, acknowledged the receipt of his brother-in-law’s letter to him, which, although dated the 16th of January, did not reach him until the 13th of the succeeding month. In this answer, Mr. Barton says;—“To see, and to be united with my children, is my most earnest wish; but how that happy event is to be obtained, I know not: If my son should choose to come to Elizabeth-Town, perhaps I might be indulged with a flag, to have an interview with him there.”[198]

-----

Footnote 195:

To this lady, who is yet living, Mr. Barton was married in the year
1776. She remains his widow, and enjoys the very affectionate respect
of Mr. Barton’s descendants and relatives, to which her great worth
and many virtues justly entitle her.

Footnote 196:

Colonel Samuel J. Atlee, formerly a parishioner of the Rev. Mr.
Barton, had written two letters to him, to inform him of his son’s
arrival. The second of these only had got to hand, and was
acknowledged at the same time as Mr. Rittenhouse’s. Col. Atlee, who
was a steady friend of Mr. Barton’s family, was a valuable officer in
the American army, in the earlier period of the war; and afterwards
served as a delegate in congress, for the state of Pennsylvania.

The difficulty of Mr. Barton’s returning to Pennsylvania, and which he
alludes to, in his letter to Mr. Rittenhouse, arose from the terms of
his passport to New-York, from the Supreme Executive Council of
Pennsylvania: it permits him to go to New-York, “not to return.” A
letter which Mr. Barton wrote to John De Hart, Esq. of Elizabeth-Town
in New-Jersey, on the 30th of January, 1779, will sufficiently explain
the conscientious scruples which actuated the writer’s conduct; and
they were such as, it is presumed, will have weight, when
dispassionately and liberally considered.

In addressing Mr. De Hart, Mr. Barton says:—“I received your favour of
the 22d instant, by Mr. Alexander. The papers with which you entrusted
me, gave me no trouble, except that of my not being able to serve you
in the manner which was first proposed. You may depend on their safety
in my hands; subject to such directions as you shall be pleased to
give me.” “I wish for an opportunity to oblige you, and if any should
offer, I beg you will employ me without any apology.

“I am just informed that my son has returned to his native country,
after an absence of between three and four years. How melancholy and
distressing is my situation! separated from eight children, and three
congregations, to whom I am bound by duty, gratitude, and every tie of
affection! ‘A parent only knows a parent’s woes;’ and such will feel
for me. You are kind enough to tell me, that my son requests me to
return to my parish. What he can mean by this request, I am totally at
a loss to understand: could the matter have been determined by my
option, I should never have left my parish, for any prospect of
preferment that could offer. But no choice was left me, but either to
take the oath, or to suffer a painful separation from my dearest
connexions; as well as from a country which always had, since I have
known it, my predilection and best wishes; a country to which, I can
declare (with an appeal to heaven for the truth of the declaration,) I
never did, or wished to do, ‘any act or thing prejudicial or
injurious:’ and though my heart assures me, that many conscientious
and good men have conformed to the test-act, yet my own conscience
always revolted at the abjuration part of it, and prevailed with me to
surrender every worldly consideration, that should come in
competition, or tempt me to a violation of it. This, sir, was the only
crime (if a crime it be) for which I now suffer banishment from all
that are most dear to me; with an interdict, “not to return again.” I
cannot therefore comprehend, how I can consistently return, before
this interdict is cancelled; or some assurance given me, that I may
again unite and live quietly with my family, without being subject to
an abjuration, which I cannot take. The proper duties and profession
of a minister of the gospel should, in my opinion, never lead him into
the field of politics. In conformity to this opinion, every man who
knows me can testify, that I never degraded my function by
intermeddling, directly or indirectly, in the present unhappy contest:
so that my own scruples would be a stricter tie upon me, than any that
could be made by oaths or tests. You will excuse my troubling you on
this subject, when I tell you, that the kind manner in which you
address me has drawn it upon you.”

Footnote 197:

It was Mr. Barton’s intention, when he left Pennsylvania, to embark at
New-York for England or Ireland: but his ill state of health, which
soon after ensued, prevented his leaving New-York.

Footnote 198:

This indulgence was obtained in April, 1780, from the Supreme
Executive Council of Pennsylvania, chiefly through the friendship of
the late general Joseph Reed, then president of that body; and, in
pursuance of this passport, sanctioned by general Washington, the
desired interview was had with Mr. and Mrs. Barton, at Elizabeth-Town,
a very short time before the death of Mr. Barton.

-----

In the autumn of the same year, Mr. Rittenhouse again manifested his friendly attachment to Mr. Barton’s family, on an occasion which offered, relating to the writer of these Memoirs personally. Soon after the appointment of the late Henry Laurens, Esq. to be envoy to Holland, Mr. Rittenhouse applied to that gentleman for the purpose of obtaining for the writer, who was well known to him, the secretaryship to that mission: but Mr. Laurens had determined to appoint no secretary; at least before he should arrive in Holland. In a letter to the writer of this, communicating the result of his application, Mr. Rittenhouse says—“I wish you could obtain some handsome thing of this kind; but there are such numbers of humble suitors to, and dependants on, members of congress, that every thing is snapped up, before you or I know any thing of the matter.”

In consequence of a territorial dispute which had arisen between Pennsylvania and Virginia, Mr. Rittenhouse was appointed by the legislature of the former, in the year 1779, one of the commissioners for settling that controversy: his colleagues, on that occasion, were George Bryan, Esq. and the reverend Dr. Ewing.

These commissioners, thus nominated on behalf of their own state, were authorised “to meet and agree with other commissioners, on the part of Virginia, upon the western boundary.” They accordingly met Dr. James Madison, president of the college of William and Mary, (late bishop of the protestant episcopal church in Virginia), and Robert Andrews, professor of mathematics in that institution, the commissioners appointed by Virginia,—for the purposes of their respective appointments. This meeting was held on the 31st day of August, 1779. The propositions for an amicable adjustment of the boundary line in dispute, were first made by Pennsylvania: and, at the meeting thus held, in consequence of, Virginia having acceded to those propositions, the joint commissioners of the two states entered into the following agreement:

“We, George Bryan, John Ewing, and David Rittenhouse, commissioners from the state of Pennsylvania, and we, James Madison and Robert Andrews, commissioners for the state of Virginia, do hereby mutually, in behalf of our respective states, ratify and confirm the following agreement, viz. To extend Mason’s and Dixon’s line, due west, five degrees of longitude, to be computed from the river Delaware, for the southern boundary of Pennsylvania, and that a meridian, drawn from the western extremity thereof to the northern limit of the said state, be the western boundary of Pennsylvania for ever.”

This agreement, signed by the respective commissioners of the contending states, was, on the 19th of November ensuing, unanimously ratified and confirmed by the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, and its ratification duly transmitted to the government of Virginia.

But this agreement, thus solemnly concluded, did not quiet the pre-existing disputes. Divers persons, deriving authority, or pretending so to do, under the government of Virginia, proceeded to Fort Byrd in the county of Westmoreland, thirty miles at least within the line agreed on by the commissioners,—and upon lands originally settled under Pennsylvania, and long held as being within its unquestionable jurisdiction; and these intruders there exercised a summary and arbitrary authority, tending to the dispossession of the grantees under Pennsylvania; vexing and disturbing them, greatly, in the peaceable possession of lands which they had honestly purchased, and cultivated for a long course of years. Such injustice and outrages, on she part of the Virginia intruders, induced congress to interpose the little authority they possessed, for the purpose of tranquillizing the contending parties, at a period when the harmony of the citizens of the several states was highly important to the safety of the whole confederacy. Accordingly, in December, 1779, and nearly four months after the adjustment of the before disputed boundary by the persons duly empowered to settle the same, congress passed a resolution, attested by their secretary, in these words:

“_In Congress, December 27, 1779._

“Whereas it appears to congress, from the representation of the
delegates of the state of Pennsylvania, that disputes have arisen
between the states of Pennsylvania and Virginia, relative to the
extent of their boundaries, which may probably be productive of
serious evils to both states, and tend to lessen their exertions in
the common defence: Therefore,

“_Resolved_, That it be _recommended_ to the contending parties, not
to grant any part of the disputed land, or to disturb the possession
of any persons living thereon; and to avoid every appearance of force,
until the dispute can be amicably settled by both states, or brought
to a just decision by the intervention of congress; that possessions
forcibly taken be restored to the original possessors, and things be
placed in the situation in which they were at the commencement of the
present war, without prejudice to the claims of either party.”

It is evident from the face of this resolution, that congress were not disposed to notice this controversy, otherwise, than with extreme delicacy: and so cautious were they, under all existing circumstances, of interfering with the merits of this dispute between two great and powerful states, that they speak of the controversy as one then actually in existence, between those states; although, in regard to their respective governments, it had been settled long before. However, the day after the date of the resolution of Congress, the president and the supreme executive council of Pennsylvania issued a proclamation, requiring all officers, civil and military, and others, subjects of the state, to pay due obedience and respect to that resolution; and also encouraging the several grantees claiming under Pennsylvania to continue in the cultivation and improvement of their several estates and possessions, as well as in their allegiance and fidelity to the state,—notwithstanding any claims or pretences set up by the state of Virginia, or any other foreign jurisdiction; and assuring them of the protection and support of their own state, while so continuing in duty and obedience to its laws and government.

Notwithstanding all these proceedings, this extraordinary controversy was not terminated until long afterwards. In consequence of a resolution of the general assembly of Pennsylvania, of the 28th of August, 1783, the supreme executive council of that state passed, on the 11th day of the succeeding month, a resolution on their part, stating,—that, as many of the objections which had hitherto prevented the determination of the boundary-line, in question, were then removed, it became necessary to close that business with all possible accuracy and dispatch; and that, to this end, four commissioners should be immediately appointed, with directions to provide the necessary astronomical apparatus, and to correspond with those appointed by the state of Virginia for the same purpose: they therefore appointed the Rev. John Ewing, D. D., David Rittenhouse, Esq. treasurer of the state and Thomas Hutchins, Esq. to perform that duty.

The arduous service thus assigned to these gentlemen, all of them possessing great abilities, was accordingly executed; and a law was thereupon passed by the legislature of Pennsylvania, on the 1st of April, 1784; which, after reciting that the boundary-line agreed on by the former commissioners, on the 31st of August, 1779,—and which is therein stated to have been unanimously confirmed by Pennsylvania on the 23d of September, 1780, with the condition attached thereto by Virginia,[199]—was by this law finally confirmed.

-----

Footnote 199:

The conditions proposed by the state of Virginia (and which
Pennsylvania considered as having a tendency to countenance
unwarrantable claims that might be made under the state of Virginia,
in consequence of pretended purchases or settlements, pending the
controversy,) were these; viz:—That the line, commonly called Mason
and Dixon’s line, be extended due west, 5° of long. to be computed
from the river Delaware, for the southern boundary of Pennsylvania,
and that a meridian, drawn from the western extremity thereof, to the
northern limits of the said states, respectively, be the western
boundary of Pennsylvania, for ever: on condition, that the private
property and rights of all persons, acquired under, founded on, or
recognized by the laws of either country, previous to the 31st of
August, 1779, should be saved and confirmed to them, although they
should be found to fall within the other; and that in the decision of
disputes thereon &c. (see act of 1st April, 1784.)

-----

Mr. Rittenhouse bore so conspicuous a part, in negociating and executing this long-depending and important business, that the writer of his life could not deem it improper to introduce into it, this historical detail of a transaction of so much moment, which originated in 1779 and was not completed until 1784; and, more particularly, as (to use the words of Dr. Rush,) “to his talents, moderation and firmness, were ascribed, in a great degree, the satisfactory termination of that once alarming controversy.”

The death of the Rev. Mr. Barton, which occurred in the spring of 1780,[200] put a period to the sincere and intimate friendship between that gentleman and Mr. Rittenhouse, which had subsisted almost thirty years. This friendship, which may be said to have commenced almost in the youth of both parties, continued without interruption until the year 1776; when the declaration of American independence produced, unhappily, some abatement of it on each side; at least, so far as related to that great political measure, respecting which they entertained different opinions: For, although Mr. Barton was, in truth, warmly attached to the principles of the English whigs; and had, on various occasions, manifested his zeal for the liberties of the American people and rights of the colonists;[201] his opinions were conscientiously opposed, and only these, to the expediency of that measure. Yet it is believed, that the personal friendship of these intimate relatives was far from having ever subsided: the ties that early united them, were of the strongest kind; that union was of long continuance; and they were mutually sensible of each other’s worth and talents.

-----

Footnote 200:

He died at New-York, the 25th of May, 1780, aged only fifty years; and
was interred in the chancel of St. George’s Chapel, in that city.

Footnote 201:

As Mr. Barton’s deportment and services, very early in life, evinced
his devotion to the happiness of his adopted country, the writer hopes
he may be permitted, without being chargeable with great impropriety,
to adduce the following evidences, among many which might be
exhibited, of the usefulness and public spirit of a person, who was,
during a long course of years, intimately connected with, and a
confidential friend of David Rittenhouse.

Annexed to a printed copy of “A letter, concerning the office and duty
of Protestant ministers, especially in times of public danger, written
to a clergyman on the frontiers of Pennsylvania, on general Braddock’s
defeat,”[201a] there is the following note:

“The gentleman to whom this was addressed,[201b] as well as some
ministers of other denominations, did, a few months after this, find
it necessary to appear at the head of their people, and were signally
instrumental in preventing some of the frontier counties from being
totally abandoned by their inhabitants.” See the Appendix to
“Discourses on public occasions in America: By William Smith, D. D.
Provost,” &c. who was the writer of the letter. It is dated,
“Philadelphia, August 21, 1755.”

Extract of a letter, dated London, January 10th, 1759, from the Hon.
Thomas Penn, Esq. to the Rev. Thomas Barton:—

“Since I received your last letter, I paid a visit to the present
Archbishop,[201c] and mentioned to him what you wished me to do. I
found he did not approve of your contemplated removal; but he
proposed, that twenty pounds sterling per annum should be added to
your salary: for, his grace observed, that a person so capable as you
are, to advise and assist the people in your neighbourhood,[201d]
could not be spared for any other mission: And, on that consideration,
the society[201e] had agreed to this augmentation of your salary.”

On the 17th of June, 1767, Mr. Penn again wrote to Mr. Barton, from
London; as follows:

“I am much concerned to find, that the missionaries have suffered so
much, and that you are so uneasy in your situation as to have asked
leave to move into Maryland. The society has offered, or intend to
offer, an addition to your salary, or some other encouragement, if you
stay in Pennsylvania: and I have desired Mr. Hamilton,[201f] who is
upon his return, to talk to you on this affair, before you take your
resolution; as I hope and intend to make you a present from me,[201g]
if you do not put that design into execution.”

Footnote 201a:

This letter is contained in a volume of Dr. Smith’s Sermons, &c.
published in England in two editions, in the years 1759 and 1762; and
is also comprehended in an elegant edition of the Doctor’s works,
republished in Philadelphia a few years since.

Footnote 201b:

The Rev. Mr. Barton.

Footnote 201c:

Dr. Thomas Secker, then lately translated from the diocese of Oxford
to the archi-episcopal see of Canterbury: “a name,” as the author of
the _Pursuits of Literature_ has justly observed, “never to be uttered
but with reverence, as the great exemplar of metropolitan strictness,
erudition, and dignity.” This excellent prelate, after most worthily
sustaining the highest station in the English church more than ten
years, died in the year 1768.

Footnote 201d:

Mr. Barton’s residence was, at that time, in Redding township, York
county, then a frontier settlement of Pennsylvania.

Footnote 201e:

The Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts.

Footnote 201f:

James Hamilton, Esquire.—This gentleman was lieutenant-governor of
Pennsylvania from the year 1748 to 1754—again, from 1759 to 1763—and
president of the proprietary and governor’s council, from the 6th of
May, 1771, to the 16th of October in the same year. He was a liberal
patron of learning and science.

“Est et Hamiltonus nomen venerabile, cujus
Intemerata fides.”——J. Beveridge, A.M.

Footnote 201g:

Mr. Penn actually gave to Mr. Barton, not long afterwards, the use of
a valuable farm, on which were three tenants, situated in the
neighbourhood of Lancaster. This farm, which was part of one of the
proprietary-manors, Mr. Barton held during his life.

-----