19 on either topic will be found to be in like manner to conclude, That there was once a time when the globe supported no other animals but alligators, &c.; and that these tribes long enjoyed the sole and undisturbed possession of it, in order that they might have time to propagate and increase their numbers for the formation of the said stratum? Investigating the globe thus, 2. My second remark is not so propitious to your author's system. Not and proceeding from below upwards, that I object to the principle, That the suppose I then were to meet with some earth's structure is the grand source of marine animals and fresh-water fish, geological investigation. But I ques-forming a stratum exterior to the prea superficial ceding; am I to infer that these marine tion the assertion, that' view;" nay, I will venture to say, even animals succeeded the alligators, and the profoundest views of geological enjoyed for a period the whole globe facts it is possible to obtain, will lead for their portion, that they might liketo unerring and satisfactory conclu- wise have time to increase their species sions respecting the formation of the in sufficient numbers for the formation globe. They will furnish, I allow, of another stratum? And suppose I abundance of materials for specula- were to find oviparous quadrupeds in tion; but as to their leading to correct the same stratum; am I to say, that If I find and infallible conclusions respecting oviparous quadrupeds therefore began the times, and the causes, and the cir- to exist along with the fish? cumstances, and the manner of the mammiferous sea-animals occupying formation, in my opinion there can be another stratum, but wherein are no nothing more fallacious than such a mammiferous land animals; am I to I grant, when I see ex- conclude that the former existed in the supposition. manner described above, and were detraneous substances, such as the remains of vegetables and animals in posited in their situation, before the the heart of a rock, and these remains others began to exist? Further, if I themselves converted into stone simi- compare those fossil animals with the lar to that in which they are imbedded, animals which still exist alive on the I conclude that such formations must earth, and perceive, as I think, a difbe of recent production; that is to say, ference in their structure; am I to say, they must have taken place subsequent that the former races of animals had to the period when these vegetables no relation to the present; that they and animals existed upon the earth's were quite of different species and surface; as without the smallest doubt genera, which have become extinct, we may presume they once did. This, and have been repeatedly swept from however, is no reason why I should the earth's surface, leaving only these conclude that other rocks, in which remains to testify their extraordinary are no traces of extraneous bodies, nature and antiquity? Am I to say, that a few of the species now known, were formed in the same manner. had not their existence till long after the others had been ingulfed by some convulsion of nature; and that by far the greater number are of a still later date, and probably contemporary with the present order of the earth's surface? And lastly, because I do not find the bones of men sepulchred and preserved among those venerable relics of antiquity, the brutes; am I to say, that Man, compared with these is but of yesterday ;-an upstart in the scale of being, and a usurper of a dominion over the animals to which none of their more highly favoured predecessors were subjected? 3. Again, when I am told that vast beds of carbonaceous matter, which is ascertained to be the base of vegetable substances, are situated beneath the rocks containing the fossil remains of animals, and above those termed primitive; am I to conclude that there was once a period in the annals of this globe when its only production was vegetables? and that these succeeded and flourished for countless ages subsequent to the formation of the primitive rocks, in order to form this carbonaceous stratum? When I am further told, That the remains of alligators and other amphibious and aquatic animals, occupy the undermost stratum containing fossil animals; am I These, unquestionably, would be bold conclusions, and such as might 21 Animadversions on Geology.—On Chemical Attraction. 22 well excite a suspicion whether any facts in Geology will really warrant.* The premises indeed would require to be well founded, ere such conclusions should be granted; as the least flaw in the one must create the greatest uncertainty in the other. But I strongly suspect that the premises are without sufficient foundation. It has never yet been demonstrated that the globe, in point of fact, is composed of strata in that regular and orderly manner which geologists point out in the fabrication of their systems. When we examine nature, we find it assuming the boldest appearances, forming mountains and precipices of the very rocks which are considered primitive, and which, to accord with the theories, at least with that of Werner, should be even and uniform all over the globe. Where we investigate the strata which are so much talked of, we do not find them piled one above another, containing various animals as we find them represented in books; but the same animals are found in different parts of the globe in different situations; and frequently so indiscriminately mixed as to afford no criterion of the order of their deposition. Yea, even M. Cuvier himself, the founder of this department of physical science, deplores the impossibility of arriving at clear and unequivocal satisfaction on this head. He ingenuously owns, that in most cases it was only from bones, sometimes only from insulated frag-without progenitors? This is the quesments of bones, or from drawings of them, that he derived his information; for that it was impossible for him personally to visit all the places where they were found; and that it frequently happened that the people, such as labourers, into whose hands they fell, did not understand the subject so as to afford any satisfactory information. Which concession is better than a thousand arguments against these theories. It shews exactly where their strength lies, that is to say, rather in the confident assertions of men, than in any thing clearly demonstrated in Nature; and it tends to preserve the THE term attraction, signifies that mind of a Christian easy indeed, when power by which bodies have a tendenhe finds that an upstart system, ap-cy to approach each other, and to bepearing with such a menacing aspect as if it would entirely destroy the foundation of his hope, can be so easily stripped of its threatening appearances, and redued to a question yet to be investigated even by the learned. The position which has been thus gratuitously assumed, I cannot but consider asexceedingly preposterous. And I coneive it incumbent upon the abettors of it, before they harangue us any moe with this disjointed and piece-neal-like succession of animals, to suggest some feasible and probable metlod by which such a succession coud be effected. Certain we are there is nothing similar in nature going en now. But are not these men, who style themselves philosophers, professed observers of nature? Why then do they desert nature's guidance, and refuse to walk hand in hand with her as she uniformly goes; and without any expanation assume an hypothesis which inplies an impossibility? When did the world behold successions of animas produced, excepting from one another? Yes, says Cuvier and the abetors of his system, they have been produced. We have demonstrated many different races to have been again and again swept from the earth's surface. We have shewed that it has been continually changing its inhabitants, and undergoing prodigious revolutions. And we have made it appear, that the present race of animals is not at all like the former races; nor could the one be the progenitors of the other. Could they then be produced They are, however, the prevailing conclusions of Geologists in the present day. tion.-Into such a dilemma does their ON CHEMICAL ATTRACTION. come more or less intimately united. Various species of this power are known to exist, and these species are regulated by different laws, and produce very different phenomena. Some, however, have contended, that they are 2 modifications of one and the same force; whilst others are inclined to believe that there is an essential difference between them and that they are originally distinct from each other. It is almost unnecessar, to observe, that these opinions are Derely hypothetical, and that it is imposible (considering the present imperfee state of our knowledge upon this intrate and mysterious subject) to decide infavour either of the one or the other. 2. If we mix together a quantity of sulphuric acid and a solution of pure potash, a compound is formed, very different in its properties from either of the substances which enters into its composition: the sulphuric acid and pure potash are powerful corrosives, whilst the sulphate of potash, which is the result of the affinity, is a mild, saline substance, not possessing, in the least degree, the acrimony or the dele-· terious properties of its constituent ingredients. All the physical and chemical qualities of the compound differ more or less from the substances, between which the affinity is exerted: the form, colour, taste, smell, specific gravity, fusibility, volatility, and disposition to combine, are sometimes so much altered, as to bear no resemblance to these properties in the origi The attraction of gravitation is distinguished from the other species, by its operating upon large masses of matter at sensible distances: thi: power acts in a direct ratio to the quantity of matter, and inversely as the square of the distance. The magnetic and electric attractions act also upon masses of matter, placed at sensible distances, and in this respect they cor-nal bodies. respond with the attraction of gravitation. By the attraction of cohesion is meant that force, or power, by means of which, particles of the same kind of matter are brought into more or less intimate union, and are retained in that state with different degrees of force. Thus, for instance, the paricles of a piece of iron are united with greater force than the particles of a piece of wood; and the particles of the latter are far more closely united than those which constitute a fluid. It is obvious, therefore, that the density of any substance depends upon the degree of force which is exerted between its particles, and, in proportion to its density, will be the force required to overcome their cohesion. Chemical attraction, or affinity, denotes that power, by means of which particles of different bodies become intimately united, and form new combinations, differing more or less from the substances of which they are formed. After this affinity has been exerted between two or more substances, no spontaneous change takes place, nor can they be separated by any mechanical force; they may, however, be disunited by chemical agency. A few experiments will illustrate this species of attraction. 1. If we pour water upon any soluble salt, the particles of the salt will enter into combination with the water, and be diffused through it, and it will be found impossible to separate them by any other than chemical means. In the first experiment, we have an example of chemical solution: this term is made use of to denote that action which takes place between a solid and a fluid, the result of which is a liquid compound. It has been supposed, that in this case the liquid is the active principle, and that the solid is dissolved by it, as if the solid possessed no power of attraction. There is, however, a reciprocal affinity exerted in producing the combination. Berthollet has applied the term solution in a different sense, to denote that case of chemical action, in which there is the transition of a solid to the liquid state, in consequence of the action of a liquid upon it, without any important change of properties. He has even extended it so far as to apply it to all cases of chemical union, whether between a solid and a liquid, two liquids, two airs, or an aëriform substance, and one either in the solid or liquid form, which is not intimate, and where the attraction is not sufficiently powerful to produce a material change in the properties of the substances entering into combination. Although, however, the change of properties after chemical action is often remarkable and important, it will be premised, from what has been said, that it is not to be regarded as invariably so. In the combinations of saline and vegetable substances with water, and of animal and vegetable products with alcohol, in all the alloys that are formed by the union of different metals, some or other of the pro 25 On Chemical Attraction.-Answer to a Query. perties of the original ingredients are recognised in the compounds. The older chemists supposed that the properties of the compound were intermediate between those of its constituent parts, or were derived from their elements; and it was from this, that the acute philosopher, Newton, conjectured the existence of an inflammable substance in water, founded upon its great refractive power. This opinion, however, is now rejected; for although some examples of combinations appear to favour the conjecture, others are quite opposed to it. Besides a change of properties attending chemical combination, there occurs a change of temperature, that is, either heat or cold are produced. This is explained upon the principle, that different bodies possess different capacities for caloric: if, therefore, the compound resulting from chemical action possesses a capacity greater or less than the bodies which enter into its composition, there will be either an absorption or evolution of caloric. Artificial heat is produced by the combustion of different substances from the three kingdoms of nature, by fermentation, and by the mixture of different chemical agents, the true source of which is chemical combi nation. 26 from Wigan at the time T. Conceive then they would form an oblique plane triangle with Wigan. The angle at Wigan being given 60° for an equilateral triangle, whose nat. co-sine is to radius 1. -- Then by plane Trigonometry ✔ (18 4T+5T2 x 18-4T X Again; to find how long they have been on their journey, when they were the nearest possible together; change T into y, then the above equation becomes (18 — 4 y2 + 5 y2 y × 5y × 1) = a minifluxion of this being made equal to 0, mum, or 61 y2. 234 ya min.; the and the equation reduced gives y= - 2 x 18 4 1,918031 h. 55 min. 5 sec. the time when they were the nearest possible together. traveller's distance from Wigan on the Again, 18-4y=10,20788 miles, the the traveller's distance from Wigan on Warrington road; and 5 y = 9,59015, the Liverpool road. By the same case as before in Trigonometry, ✓(10,207882 + 9,590152 2 x 10,20788 × 9,59015 × 9,44864 9 miles, 789 yards, the nearest possible distance between them. Two additional answers, which we have received to the above question, are not uniformly correct. Wм. LAMB proposes the following question to be answered without the assistance of algebra. SIX Gamesters, A, B, C, D, E, and F, each man seized as much C Critical Remarks on Participles, &c. TO THE EDITOR OF THE IMPERIAL SIR, (Notes & Observations under Rule 10.) Why should the pronoun their in this sentence, Ye shall know them by their fruits,' be denied the honour of the same rank? Being of opinion with Gamma Delta, that there are several other points in which Murray is either erroneous or defective, I should be glad to draw the attention of some of your enlightened correspondents to the following in particular. "A substantive without any article to limit it, is generally taken in its widest sense: as, A candid temper is proper for man;' that is, for all mankind." The noun man seems to be the only word to which this observation will apply; for "The article is omitted before nouns that imply the different virtues, vices, passions, qua I am not a little surprised that a man of learning, as your correspondent M. S. appears to be, should not be aware of the imprudence of writing in haste on any science. But, I suppose, if he has allowed himself time to peruse your less hasty correspondent Gamma Delta, he will have discovered the error into which his haste has led him, respecting my observations on 66 The cause of my not receiving it." I shall not, therefore, waste your valuable time in pointing it out; but proceed to my next objection, which M. S. considers as unworthy of his notice. When I said that "Prudence pre-lities, sciences, arts, metals, herbs, &c." vents our speaking or acting improperly," was a sentence authorized by Mr. Murray himself, I only meant that Mr. M. had made use of this form of expression; not that it was authorized by any rule or observation in his Grammar: on the contrary, I believe I shall prove, by references to that grammarian, that it is not. M. S. allows that "the present participle, with the definite article the before it, becomes a substantive;" and, if he had read a little further, Mr. Murray would have told him, that "the same observations which have been made respecting the effect of the article and participle, appear to be applicable to Critical Observations on Participles, &c. the pronoun and participle when they are similarly associated." This being the case, the words speaking and acting are substantives, because they have the pronoun our immediately before them. What then shall we make of the word improperly? It ought not to be an adverb; for "An adverb is a part of speech joined to a verb, an adjective, and sometimes to another adverb, to express some quality or circumstance respecting it;" whereas improperly is here" added to a substantive, to express its quality," answering to the definition of the adjective; therefore, according to Murray, it ought to be "Prudence prevents our improper speaking or acting." Without combating M. S.'s last argument, I shall merely observe, that "Substantives govern pronouns as well as nouns, in the genitive case: as, 'Every tree is known by its fruit.'" and in all other cases this sense is ex- I intended to make a few observations on some other parts of this celebrated author, particularly Rule 7. Syntax; but I am afraid I have already been too prolix; so, for the present, I remain, Sir. Painshaw, Nov. 17, 1819. Yours, A. B. TO THE EDITOR OF THE IMPERIAL SIR, Mr. Murray says, 66 participles are sometimes governed by the articles, for the present participle (ending in ing,) with the definite article before it, becomes a noun; and must have of after it." But I think the following rules prove, that the participle is not governed by the article the, but by the prepositions, which are often written before participles ending in ing: as, |