and the principle of inflammation. The word hydrogen ought, then, to be changed.-M. Berthollet accorded with this opinion. The Professor being interrogated concerning his assertion that the existence of caloric was not demonstrated, he replied; Heat follows laws which have been submitted to observation, and leave no uncertainty on the mind: but the existence of a material principle of heat, although it seems to be proved, must not be placed in the same rank of truths with that of oxygen, for instance, which may be weighed and contained within a space.'

The mathematical Lectures of M. M. La Grange, La Place, and Monge, although they fully merit an equal rank with those of M. Berthollet on account of arrangement, clearness, and precision, yet deviate more from the purpose for which they were specially designed, and descend into the minutiae of operations and methods. They abound, however, with many just reflections and enlarged views. Yet, great and celebrated, as the authors of these Lectures are, we wish not to include in one sweeping clause of commendation all that they have done because some of their reasonings and demonstrations are not, to use a French phrase, "hors de toute atteinte;" as we could shew, were the opportunity convenient.

In the mathematical conferences between the professors and pupils, not much new truth seems to be elicited. The reply of M. La Place to a question concerning the series I− 1 + 1 — &c. is not satisfactory to our minds. The pupils of the Normal schools, who are destined to become teachers in the intesior, are above the race of pupils in ordinary seminaries, as their questions and observations sufficiently indicate. One of them, named Geruzzez, remarks (after Condillac) that geometricians in their methods have abandoned the true generation of ideas after the definition of a point, they cause the point to move and generate a line; the line to generate surfaces; and the surfaces to generate solids. In the first place, the geometers erred in defining a point; the point being a thing so simple, that it does not need definition; and next they followed not the true genesis of things and ideas. Take a solid, consider its boundary without thinking of its depth, and an idea of surface presents itself: take the surface, think of its length without considering its breadth, and an idea of a line will be formed: reflect, finally, on the extremity of a line without attending to its length, and a point becomes manifest to the imagination.-Professor Monge, in his answer, grants that it would be proper, in the commencement of a treatise on Elementary Geometry, to begin with a solid; and to shew by what successive abstractions of the mind, the notion,

of

of a surface, a line, and a point, are formed: but this order, he says, is requisite only for the definitions; and when they are once settled, it is not only not contrary to the severest method to conceive surfaces generated by lines, &c. but it is absolutely necessary. It is our sole mode of considering the families of surfaces, (familles des surfaces,) the knowlege of which, so essential to the arts and so useful to the sciences, has contributed to the perfection of analysis itself, by putting it in a condition to overcome new difficulties. For example, (M. Monge adds, and this is a curious and important observation,) we have seen that cylindrical surfaces have the property of developing, and applying themselves to a plane without rent or fold; a thing impracticable in most other surfaces, and principally in that of the sphere: but these surfaces do not solely possess this property conical surfaces of any base whatever, of which the former cylindrical surfaces are only a particular case, possess it likewise; and conical surfaces themselves are only a particular case of those which have the property of developing themselves on a plane surface. In the arts, the knowlege of these surfaces is important, since they are the only ones that can be constructed with flexible substances, such as card-paper, iron, tin, and copper-plates, &c. without beating these plates by the hammer on a stamp or model; thus locksmiths, tinmen, coppersmiths, goldsmiths, &c. are interested in knowing these surfaces.'

At the time of the sittings of the Normal Schools, freedom' of discussion on subjects both philosophical and religious was allowed. It will be supposed, therefore, that the question of miracles could not pass unnoticed by such a professor as Volney, and such pupils as the Revolution must have given to him. One of these élèves states the case imagined by Diderot, of Cieero and Quintus disputing concerning the fact of the stone cut by the razor, as related by Livy; and which is said to have been witnessed by all the people of Rome: but it is improbable: how, then, are we to decide? By this rule of Rousseau, says the pupil; "Human testimony is sufficient for deciding on things that are agreeable to the order of nature, but not on those which are contrary to that order." Another pupil then cited Hume's authority and decision on the subject of miracles: but the Professor made some objection to the known statement of the English philosopher, viz. that, in the case of an attested miracle, the mind has to decide between two miracles; and he concluded the conference with two reflections:-first, that' every proposition has the alternative either of its being useful to an individual or to society, or of its being purely speculative and useless. If Herschell relates what passes in the moon, APP. RAY. VOL. XXXVII.

Hh

and

and no practical nor useful knowlege thence results, it is perfectly indifferent to us whether that astronomer speaks truth or not; but, if, from the facts which he reports, there may be derived an immediate and sensible utility or detriment, then it is our duty to examine his statement with a care which is proportional to its importance. 2dly, The error or truth of a fact being proved, or even not being proved, it is necessary to limit ourselves to the direct consequences, and not to extend them beyond the sphere of activity; thus, suppose that a man asserts and even proves that he can raise up the dead; 'I say we ought to beseech that man to raise up more, and those the most honest men, since such a resurrection would be useful: but I add that this does not prove either that 2 and 2 make 4, or that they do not make 4; that it is needful or not needful to do this or that action: it only proves a resurrection, and nothing more; and it would not prove more resurrections, only inasmuch as they are repeated, and repeated with circumStances proper to attest them. Had nations but followed this principle, they would long ago have disconcerted the jugglers who have played off their tricks of cups and eggs before them, and would have avoided numerous calamities.'

In the debates on Literature, the Professor (La Harpe) asserts that the line of demarcation, which separates the republican eloquence of the moderns from that of the antients, ought to be extended to the period between the death of Augustus and the French Revolution. You will mention the English as an objection, (he observed); and, in fact, we often discern, in the British Parliament, great force of argumentation, perspicuity, profound logic, and every thing which characterises that naturally deliberative and reflecting people: but such are not the distinguishing characters of true eloquence, of that eloquence which, with the lever of speech, elevates assemblies of men,' &c. &c.

To this sedateness and sobriety of character, thus ascribed to this nation, will perhaps be attributed our disapprobation of Professor Garat's tedious digressions and chimerical speculations. His reasoning about perfecting and aiding our senses appears to us trifling; and certain disciples of Locke, (we sup pose that Hume and Berkeley are meant), who maintained the doctrine of an immaterial world, are mentioned too slightingly. If they have erred, they have yet done much, and are too big to be slain in puny battle." The Professor, we think, is not well acquainted with their writings.-Speaking of abstraction, M. Garat says that there are as many abstractions in the verses of Homer and Virgil, as in the works of Newton and Leibnitz. Now, although this paradox may be explained into a justifiable opinion, yet it has too much the air of a futile re

finement;

finement; it reminds us of Mons. Jourdain, who would not admit that Nicole had said u when she really had pronounced it, but insisted that she had merely protruded her lips, and brought the upper jaw to the lower*. What we have said, however, in animadversion, must not be conceived to apply generally to all that M. Garat has here written: he frequently distinguishes and analyses with great precision; and in the following passage he is at once brilliant and philosophic: We will treat thought (says he) as Lavoisier, Berthollet, and La Place, have treated the air which we breathe; which was deemed simple and uniform, but which has been decomposed into so many parts, differing in their forms and qualities. In the conferences, the question whether language or signs be essential to thought is considered; and M. Garat, with great clearness and precision, states his oconviction that, without the mediation of language, we could not think. We are rather surprised that the Professor takes no notice of the opinions of Reid and Dugald Stewart on this subject.

We must here conclude our account of these volumes, and dismiss much excellent matter, that is worthy of particular comment, with a general commendation. The work is too copious and comprehensive for our limits, and others urge their claim to notice and consideration.

ART. III.

Principes d'Economie Politique, &c. i. e. Principles of Political Economy; a Work which was crowned by the National Institute, at its Session in January 1801, and since revised, corrected, and enlarged, by the Author, N. F. CANARD, Professor of Mathematics in the Central School of Moulins. 8vo. pp. 236. Paris. 1801. Imported by De Boffe, London. Price 38.

EVERY one, who is conversant with the late history of France, must be well acquainted with the two financial sects which distracted the court and the country: which some writers have designated the Anglo-Genevese and the French; and which were at issue on these questions; What is the effect of taxation? What imposts are most eligible for a country like France? Do all taxes ultimately fall on agriculture, and ought they to be!

"Mons. Jourdain.-Dis un peu, u, pour voir. Nicole. Hé bien, Mons. J. Qu'est ce que tu fais? Nic. Jedis, u. Mons. J. Qui; mais quand tu dis, u; qu'est ce que tu fais? Nic. Je fais ce que vous me dites. Mons. J. Ob, étrange chose que d'avoir affaire à des bêtes! Tu allonges les levres en dehors, et approches la mâchoire d'en haut de celle d'embas, u, vois tu? Je fais la moue, u," &c.

Hh 2

Bourgeois Gent.

imposed

imposed directly and exclusively on that branch of industry; or is it expedient, agreeably to the practice of England, to call in the aid of credit, and adopt the system of loans?-It was this controversy, prosecuted as we have seen with such animosity, which had so great a share in producing the recent troubles of that country; which still continues to divide its inhabitants; and which no doubt led the National Institute to propose the question that occasioned the present work; namely, In an agricultural country, does every kind of tax fall on the proprietors of land?

M. CANARD appears to have well merited the distinction conferred on his essay by the Institute, and to possess all the qualifications requisite for the nice and intricate investigation which he volunteered. He fathoms the depths of political science, and deduces from its doctrines conclusions favourable to the system of the Anglo-Genevese party, viz. Necker, Clavière, and Johannot, (the latter, the present administrator of the French finances,) the respective opponents of Turget, Calonne, Montesquieu, and Cambon. Those who have studied Dr. Smith may have recourse, with advantage, to the preli minary pages of this work; and they will find the author to be a complete master of the principles of his science :-one who needs not blush in the presence of the most able of his predecessors. They will have occasion to admire his success in analysing, and will admit that he has no superior in this most essential part of every treatise on political economy. Beaten as the subject is, he has discovered and illustrated parts of it which had remained obscure; and he has exposed errors, with regard to it, which bear the sanction of the greatest names. Having said so much in his praise, however, we are bound to observe that we do not conceive that he has either rendered any service to his science, or added to the interest of his work, by translating its positions into algebraic language, and deducing its conclusions by means of the processes of that rigorous art for we own that our turn of mind is not sufficiently mathematical, to find our conceptions assisted by this new mode of illustration. We also cannot help thinking that he has extended to a length equally offensive to sense and taste, the comparison between the circulation of wealth in a state, and that of the blood in a human body.

In M. CANARD's analysis, wealth is the power of commanding labour; and this power proceeds from three sources, the possession of land, that of skill in some branch of valuable industry, and that of a floating capital. He contends that the produce of each of these sources is of precisely the same nature, has the same operation in promoting the welfare of society,