Page images

be repeated for ever!! And he concludes the long memoir (96, well filled, large 4to pages) with these words: The refult, therefore, of our prefent enquiry is, that we find no veftige of a beginning-no profpect of an end.'

The Orbit and Motion of the Georgium Sidus determined directly from Obfervations, after a very easy and fimple Method. By John Robifon, M.A. F. R. S. Edin. and Profeffor of Natural Philofophy at Edinburgh.

The appearance of this planet has ferved to exercise the ingenuity of aftronomers in moft parts of Europe. The French were, we believe, the firft who gave the elements of its orbit. The Ruffians and Swedes were not lefs active in their labours to ascertain the true theory of this new phenomenon. We are now prefented with a fet of tables for computing the places of the planet by the ingenious Profeffor Robifon, who has deduced its elements from five obferved places of the planet, at its five fucceffive oppofitions to the fun; in 1781, Dec. 21a 17h 20′ 17′′. 1782, Dec. 26 9h 9′ 45′′ 1783, Dec. 314 oh 59′ 13′′ 1785, Jan. 3d 16h 48′ 41′′; and 1786, Jan. 8 8h 38′ 9′′. The theorem which he gives for conftructing the ellipfe is fimple and obvious, and at the fame time poffeffes a confiderable degree of accuracy. Of this no abridgment would be intelligible. The refult gives the following elements:

Mean diftance,


Longitude of the Aphelion, of Dec. 1783, 2 12 46 14

4° 0° 32′ 51 11 23 9 51

Period, in years,

Mean Anomaly, 1786, Jan. Sd 8h 38′ 9′′

for Epoch

of the Node, Inclination of the Orbit,

O 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, N° 964, and 1" to the northward of it. So
fmall a difference renders it almoft a certainty that this ftar, 964
of Mayer's catalogue, was the planet: on this fuppofition, the
Profeffor corrects the elements before found, making,

Mean diftance,



Mean Longitude, Jan. 1, 1786, M. T. Greenw. 3 23 41 13
Longitude of Aphelion,

11 23 10 38

2 12 48 45

of Node, Inclination of the Orbit,


0 46 26

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]


304561 40′ 48′′

These elements give places of the planet which agree with all


[ocr errors][ocr errors]

the obfervations made on it fince its difcovery; and it is from these that the Profeffor has calculated his tables for computing its motions. He concludes with faying, I have published them [the Tables] not in the perfuafion that they are perfect, but because none have as yet been publifhed in Britain; and I have feen only thofe of De la Place and Oriani, both of which are lefs confiftent with obfervations than mine.'

To examine the truth of these tables would be a task of great labour. We have, however, computed feveral places of the planet by them, and find that thefe places agree very nearly with thofe in the Connoiffance des Temps. Out of eleven, that for February 15, 1789, is the most incongruous; we make the geocentric longitude on that day 4' 1° 50′ 29′′ and G. latitude c° 17′ 29′′ N. In the Connoiffance des Temps they are 4° 1° 49′ and o° 37′ N. The other ten are all within the minute. The tables may without doubt be depended on for a few years at leaft, or until farther obfervations on the planet, as it advances in its orbit, can be made.

Abstract of a Register of the Weather kept at Hawkhill. By Mr. Macgowan.

This abftract 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 Clafs, in a future article.

ART. VIII. Difcours fur la Divifion des Terres, &c. A Differtation on the Divifion of Land in Agriculture. By M. Herrenschwand. 8vo. 35. Robinfons. 1788.

have fo mentioned the name of this

WEwriter, that few of our Readers, we prefume, require

to be informed, that he has been engaged for fome time paft in publishing a feries of treatises on different branches of the important fcience of political economy; of which the work before us is a continuation. We have likewife had occafion to beftow on him our juft tribute of applaufe for his ingenuity, and the beautiful order and perfpicuity of his arrangement, of which the prefent performance exhibits a very agreeable fpecimen. Indeed, when the Author abftains from that figure of fpeech commonly called egotifm, and from perfonalities respecting those who have preceded him in the route he purfues, he writes in a manner fufficiently engaging to intereft his readers very ftrongly in favour of the fyftem which he developes and we are happy in being able to say that the prefent eflay is, in thefe refpects, far lefs reprehenfible than thofe which have preceded it.

D 4


The mind of man is fo formed as to be greatly delighted with order, and whatever tends to remove difficulties, and to explain, in an easy and fatisfactory manner, without much trouble to him, the caufes of interefting phenomena, proves on all occafions highly grateful. Our ingenious Author poffeffes the talent of putting perplexing difficulties fo much out of fight, of writing on a knotty and intricate subject 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 fo fatisfactory to us on a near examination, as it did on a flight view. We are afraid that the degree of human knowlege is not yet fufficient to admit of a developement of the principles of this fcience, with all the perfpicuity at which the Author fo laudably aims; or, at leaft, our own knowlege on this branch of fcience is too limited to admit of our being able to do it, notwithstanding the labours of this ingenious writer to effect it.

The queftion that M. Herrenschwand wishes to decide, in the prefent effay, is, whether large or fmall divifions of land tend moft to augment the profperity of a nation, under that system of political economy which he calls a fyftem of relative agriculture founded on a fyftem of manufactures; for a definition of which fyftem, fee Review, vol. Ixxvi. p. 103.

To prepare for an answer to this question, our Author, perhaps juftly enough, obferves, that the great point to be aimed at is to to divide the land as to procure fuftenance for as great a number of manufacturers as poffible, who are not employed in the cultivation of the foil; or, in other words, that mode of dividing the lands will be productive of the greateft general profperity, which leaves the greateft furplus produce, after maintaining those who cultivate the foil.

This being granted, he proceeds to enquire whether lands cultivated by the plow, or by the fpade, generally leave the greatest furplus 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 furplus produce than those which are cultivated by the fpade.


There is not,' fays he, a nation in Europe which does not contain within itself families reduced to the neceffity of cultivating the land by the fpade only, and every where we obferve this species of culture attended with the fame circumftances; that is to fay, we univerfally see small portions of land well cultivated, and on their product a great number of men nourished and maintained; but in the proportion only of what is neceffary.


Thefe facts, which experience generally prefents, feem to prove, that the culture of land without the use of machines [i. e. without the ufe of the plow, as he elsewhere explains himself] is only capable of producing fubfiftence for the cultivators, feeing, 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.'

We have before remarked, that M Herrenfchwand feems to take the above fact as the refult of experience, but if he really believes this to be a fair ftate of what experience every day presents to the obfervation of any attentive man, we conceive that he will find himself to be very much mistaken; and that he has thus affumed as a fundamental fact, on which he grounds a great deal of reafoning, a circumftance that is far from being proved.

Perhaps the fimpleft way of coming at the proportion of furplus 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 fubfifting all those who are employed in cultivating the foil, and giving himself a reasonable return for the ftock employed on that culture. No rent, therefore, can be afforded for any land that yields no fpare produce, but which ferves merely to fubfift those who are employed in cultivating it. But will M. Herrenschwand, or any other man, prefume to fay, that in Great Britain, or any other country where fecurity to the cultivator is given, that none of the lands which are cultivated by the fpade pay any rent to the proprietor? Surely not. And if he admits that they pay a rent, we fhould be at a lofs to know on what data he prefumes to affert, that fuch lands produce nothing more than is neceffary for the fupport of the cultivators only? It is with respect to this mode of affuming a fact as proved, and afterward reasoning upon it as an undoubted maxim, that we chiefly object to M. Herrenfchwand's writings-as this mode of reafoning muft lead to error, while it seems directly to point at truth.

So far is it from being true, that fuch 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 confequently afford more furplus produce, in proportion to the extent of ground, than land which is cultivated by the plow. We should therefore have expected, according to M. Herrenschwand's mode of reasoning, that the conclufion ought to have been directly the reverse of what he has made it.

Though he does not abfolutely perfift in maintaining that fuch lands afford no furplus produce, he concludes univerfally that the culture by the fpade affords lefs fuperfluous produce at leaft, than that by the plow; and the only appearance of a reason he gives for this, befide the fuppofed univerfal experience above alluded to, is another fact, founded on a fimilar univerfality of experience, viz. that, in all countries, men have chofen 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 fufficiently extenfive view of this fubject, would not find much difficulty in giving reasons that would appear to us fatiffactory, why this practice fhould have in general prevailed, efpecially in countries that can afford but little furplus produce. But to enter on this difcuffion would lead us too far; we must content ourselves with barely obferving here, that if our Author's reasoning had been juft, it would have happened that men, as they advanced in knowlege, and in perfecting their practice by experience, fhould have invariably banished the spade culture more and more, and fubftituted the plow. But inftead of this mode of procedure, the reverfe of this practice has univerfally prevailed. In countries juft coming into culture and civilization, where manufactures do not prevail, the plow-culture is univerfal. As the country improves, as manufactures increase, as rents augment, the plow gradually gives place to the fpade-and the whole country becomes nearly one general garden. The plow alone cultivates the foil in Poland, where no manufactures ever were established. In the Netherlands, where manufactures have flourished for many ages, the fpade has in a great measure banished the plow.

By the above mode of reafoning, M. Herrenfchwand concludes, that divifions of land too fmall for admitting the plow, are incompatible with the manufacturing fyftem of economy. He then proceeds to enquire into the moft proper kind of divifions of land, fuppofing the whole to be cultivated by the plow; and though we are not difpofed, on this head, to difpute the juftnefs of the conclufion he draws, in certain circumflances, at least, yet we think that it is drawn from premises as fallacious as the former.

[ocr errors]

He fuppofes a country divided into a number of equal parts, according to fix different claffes refpecting the fize of thefe divifions, which he diftinguishes by the letters A, B, C, D, E, and F. In the clafs A, the divifions are the fmalleft; B, larger; and fo C, D, E, larger and larger ftill, till they arrive at F, which is the largest divifion of the whole. He then endeavours to compute in which of the claffes the culture can be carried on with the least waste of labour; and for that purpose he adopts a mode of reasoning the moft convenient that could be, as it will infallibly, in all cafes, with a little attention in the calculator, give precifely the refult he would previoufly with it fhould do. With this view, he fuppofes that the lands, according to the divifions in the clafs F, could be properly cultivated by a given number of plows, without any fraction. Suppofe fix plows could cultivate all the lands, according to that proportion, the divifions of the clafs E, he finds on calculation, would


« PreviousContinue »