Page images

be repeated for ever !! And he concludes the long memoir (96, well filled, large 4to pages) with these words : « The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no veftige of beginning-no prospect of an end.' The Orbit and Motion of the Georgium Sidus determined directly

from Observations, after a very easy and fimple Method. By John Robison, M. A. F.R.S. Edin. and Professor of Natural Philosophy at Edinburgh.

The appearance of this planet has served to exercise the ingenuity of astronomers in most parts of Europe. The French were, we believe, the first who gave the elements of its orbit. The Ruflians and Swedes were not less active in their labours to ascertain the true theory of this new phenomenon. We are now presented with a set of tables for computing the places of the planet by the ingenious Profeffor Robison, who has deduced its elements from five observed places of the planet, at its five successive oppositions to the sun; in 1781, Dec. 214174 20 19". 1782, Dec. 264 gb 9 45": 1783, Dec. 314 of 59' 13" 1735, Jan. 3d 16h 48'41"; and 1786, Jan. 8d 8h 38' 9' The theorem which he gives for constructing the ellipfe is fimple and obvious, and at the same time poffeffes a considerable degree of accuracy.

Of this no abridgment would be intelligible. The result gives the following elements : Mean distance,

19.08247 Excentricity,

.9006 Period, in years, Mean Anomaly, 1786, Jan. 8d 8h 38' 9" 4° 0° 32' 51 Longitude of the Aphelion, for the Epoch 23 9 51

of the Node, of Dec. 1783,2 2 12 46 14 Inclination of the Orbit,

o 46 25 From these elements, the Profeffor calculated the place of the planet for Sept. 25, 1756, which was 3' 52" to the westward of Mayer's ftar, No 964, and 1" to the northward of it. So small a difference renders it almost a certainty that this star, 964 of Mayer's catalogue, was the planet : on this supposition, the Professor corrects the elements before found, making Mean diftance,

19.0858 Excentricity,

.90737 Mean Longitude, Jan. 1, 1786, M.T. Greenw. 3.23 41 13 Longitude of Aphelion,

11 23 10 38 of Node,

2 12 48 45 Inclination of the Orbit,

0 0 46 26 * Period,

304560 * 40 48" These elements give places of the planet which agree with all



[ocr errors]

the obfervations made on it fince its discovery; and it is from there that the Professor has calculated his tables for computing its motions. He concludes with saying, I have published them (the Tables] not in the persuasion that they are perfect, but because none have as yet been published in Britain ; and I have seen only those of De la Place and Oriani, both of which are less consistent with obfervations than mine.'

To examine the truth of these tables would be a task of great labour. We have, however, computed several places of the planet by them, and find that these places agree very nearly with those in the Connoisance des Temps. Out of eleven, that for February 15, 1789, is the most incongruous; we make the geocentric longitude on that day 4' 10 50 29" and G. latitude oo ay 29" N. In the Connoissance des Temps they are 4' 1° 49' and 0° 37' N. The other teñ are all within the minute. The tables

may without doubt be depended on for a few years at least, or until farther observations on the planet, as it advances in its orbit, can be made. Abirači of a Register of the Weather kept at Hawkhill. By Mr.

Macgowan. This abftra& gives the mean heat for every fortnight, and the quantity of rain and evaporation for every month, from 1771 to 1776 inclufive.

The Papers in the Literary Class, in a future article.

W ,

ART. VIII. Discours sur la Division des Terres, &c. A Differtation

on the Division of Land in Agriculture. By M. Herrenschwand. 8vo. 35. Robinsons. 1788. E have so repeatedly mentioned the name of this

writer, that few of our Readers, we presume, require to be informed, that he has been engaged for some time past in publiching a series of treatises on different branches of the important science of political economy; of which the work before us is a continuation. We have likewise had occasion to beftow on him our just tribute of applause for his ingenuity, and the beautiful order and perspicuity of his arrangement, of which the present performance exhibits a very agreeable specimen. Indeed, when the Author abftains from that figure of speech commonly called egotism, and from personalities respecting those who have preceded him in the route he pursues, he writes in a manner sufficiently engaging to intereft his readers very strongly in favour of the system which he developes : and we are happy in being able to say that the present efiay is, in these respect, far less reprehensible than those which have preceded it.

The mind of man is so formed as to be greatly delighted with order, and whatever tends to remove difficulties, and to explain, in an easy and satisfactory manner, without much trouble to him, the caufes of interesting phenomena, proves on all occafions bighly grateful. Our ingenious Author possesses the talent of putting perplexing difficulties so much out of fight, of writing on a knotiy and intricate subje& in an easy and familiar, manner, and of making every thing appear to be clear and diftinct, that we could not help frequently regretting that this work does not prove altogether to satisfactory to us on a near examination, as it did on a night view. We are afraid that the degree of human knowlege is not yet sufficient to admit of a developement of the principles of this science, with all the perspicuity at which the Author so laudably aims; or, at least, our own knowlege on this branch of science is too limited to admit of our being able to do it, notwithstanding the labours of this ingenious writer to effect it.

The question that M. Herrenschwand wishes to decide, in the present essay, is, whether large or small divisions of land tend most to augment the prosperity of a nation, under that system of political economy wbich he calls a system of relative agriculture founded on a Jystem of manufactures ; for a definition of which Syftein, fee Review, vol. Ixxvi. p. 103.

To prepare for an answer to this question, our Author, perhaps juftly enough, observes, that the great point to be aimed at is io to divide the land as to procure sustenance for as great a number of manufacturers as pollible, who are not employed in the cultivation of the soil ; or, in other words, that mode of dividing the lands will be productive of the greateft general prosperity, which leaves the greatest surplus produce, after maintaining those who cultivate the soil.

This being granted, he proceeds to enquire whether lands cultivated by the plow, or by the spade, generally leave the greatest surplus produce ; and on this head he decides at once, from what he takes to be experience, that lands cultivated by the plow leave a much greater surplus produce than those which are cultivated by the spade.

• There is not,' says he,' a nation in Europe which does not con. tain within itself families reduced to the necessity of cultivating the land by the spade only, and every where we observe this species of culture attended with the same circumstances ; that is to say, we universally fee small portions of land well cultivated, and on their product a great number of men nourished and maintained ; but ia the proportion only of what is necessary.

• These facts, which experience generally presents, seem to prove, that the culture of land without the use of machines [i. e. without the ose of the plow, as he elsewhere explains himself] is only capable of producing fubfiftence for the cultivators, seeing, according to this mode of culture, all who are in a condition to labour, do labour; and nobody lives in idleness on the produce of the labour of others.'

mode from

We have before remarked, that M Herrenschwand seems to take the above fact as the result of experience, but if he really believes this to be a fair state of what experience every day presents to the observation of any attentive man, we conceive that he will find himself to be very much mistaken; and that he has tbus affumed as a fundamental fact, on which he grounds a great deal of reasoning, a circumstance that is far from being proved.

Perhaps the fimplest way of coming at the proportion of fur. plus produce of any land in a free country, is the rent that is paid for land; for where a free competition among tenants is allowed, the proprietor will get, under the name of rent, nearly as much as can be afforded by the tacksmen, after subfifting all those who are employed in cultivating the soil, and giving himself a reasonable return for the stock employed on that culture. No rent, therefore, can be afforded for any land that yields no spare produce, but which ferves merely to fubfist those who are employed in cultivating it. But will M. Herrensch wand, or any other man, presume to say, that in Great Britain, or any other country where security to the cultivator is given, that none of the lands which are cultivated by the spade pay any rent to the proprietor ? Surely not. And if he admits that they pay a rent, we should be at a loss to know on what data he presumes to allert, that such lands produce nothing more than is necessary for the support of the cultivators only? It is with respect to this mode of assuming a fact as proved, and afterward reasoning upon it as an undoubted maxim, that we chiefly object to M. Herrenschwand's writings-as this mode of reasoning must lead to error, while it seems directly to point at truth.

So far is it from being true, that such lands pay no rent, that we believe it will not be denied that lands which are cultivated by the spade pay in general a higher rent, and consequently afford more surplus produce, in proportion to the extent of ground, Eban land which is cultivated by the plow. We Thould therefore have expe&ted, according to M. Herrenschwand's mode of reasoning, that the conclusion ought to have been directly the severse of what he has made ir.

Though he does not absolutely perfift in maintaining that such lands afford no surplus produce, he concludes universally that the culture by the spade affords lefs superfluous produce at least, than that by the plow; and the only appearance of a reason he gives for this, beside the supposed universal experience above alluded to, is another fa&, founded on a similar universality of experience, viz. that, in all countries, men have chosen to cultivate the land in general by the plow in preference to the spade,

from which he concludes that they have found greater profit by the one mode of culture than by the other. A man who has taken a sufficiently extensive view of this subjeći, would not find much difficulty in giving reasons that would appear to us fatisfa&tory, why this practice should have in general prevailed, especially in countries that can afford but little surplus produce. But to enter on this discussion would lead us too far; we must con, tent ourselves with barely observing here, that if our Author's reasoning had been just, it would have happened that men, as they advanced in knowlege, and in perfecting their practice by experience, should have invariably banished the spade culture more and more, and substituted the plow. But instead of this mode of procedure, the reverse of this practice has universally prevailed. In countries just coming into culture and civilization, where manufactures do not prevail, the plow-culture is universal. As the country improves, as manufactures increase, as rents augment, the plow gradually gives place to the spade-and the whole country becomes nearly one general garden. The plow alone cultivates the soil in Poland, where no manufactures ever were eftablished. In the Netherlands, where manufactures have flourished for many ages, the spade has in a great measure banished the plow.

By the above mode of reasoning, M. Herrenschwand concludes, that divisions of land too small for admitting the plow, are incompatible with the manufacturing system of economy. He then proceeds to enquire into the most proper kind of divisions of land, supposing the whole to be cultivated by the plow; and though we are not disposed, on this head, to dispute the juftness of the conclusion be draws, in certain circumfiances, at least, yet we think that it is drawn from premises as fallacious as the former.

He fupposes a country divided into a number of equal parts, according to fix different classes respecting the size of these divifions, which he distinguishes by the letters A, B, C, D, E, and F. In the class A, the divisions are the smallest ; B, larger; and so C, D, E, larger and larger ftill, till they arrive at F, which is the largest division of the whole. He then endeavours to compute in which of the classes the culture can be carried on with the least wađe of labour; and for that purpose he adopts a mode of reasoning the most convenient that could be, as it will infallibly, in all cases, with a little attention in the calculator, give precisely the result he would previously with it thould do. With this view, he supports that the lands, according to the divifions in the class F, could be properly cultivated by a given number of plows, without any fraction. Suppose fix plows could cultivate all the lands, according to that proportion, the divisions of the class E, he finds on calculation, would


« PreviousContinue »