the caloric of the adjacent air tends to pour into the thermonieter. Obs. 24th.-The second position of these philosophers seems to be, that the caloric, which they suppose to have escaped from the thermometer on becoming radiant, impinges on A, afterwards on B, and lastly, after having travelled eighteen feet, penetrates the frigorific mixture. To corrobate and confirm this position, some have maintained, that, when a piece of burning charcoal, instead of the thermometer, is placed at a, it yields caloric, which becomes radiant, and follows the rout just mentioned. But, though this is true, yet the fact does not corroborate or confirm the position in question. The burning charcoal has a temperature that exceeds the temperature of the atmospheric air by which it is surrounded; therefore caloric may escape from the burning charcoal into the terrestrial atmosphere, and become radiant as supposed. But the thermometer has a temperature lower than the temperature of that air by which it is surrounded; therefore, as has been shewn in Obs. 23d, caloric cannot so readily escape from the thermometer. Obs. 25th. There are yet other objections to this position. Concede, first, thus much, that caloric escapes from the thermometer and becomes radiant. The temperature of the atmospheric air in. creases as the distance from the frigorific mixture increases; therefore the thermometer would yield its caloric at the side towards b, because in that direction the temperature decreases; and not by any means at the side towards A, since in that direction the temperature increases: the rays that escape from the thermometer then would never impinge on A as supposed. It will be said, perhaps, that the atmospheric air yields its caloric very readily, so that its temperature sinks faster than the temperature of the thermometer, and afterwards caloric escapes from the thermometer at every side. But this is contrary to fact: the temperature of the thermometer sinks faster than the temperature of the atmos pheric air. Concede, secondly, that caloric emanates from the thermometer at every side. The general motion of caloric is from A to 6; therefore, the radiant caloric emanating from a, before it can arrive at A, must oppose this general stream. Make a third concession, that the rays of caloric have been re. flected at A. The general motion of caloric must be from every direction to b; therefore, the rays that have now been once reflected, before they can impinge on B, must contend, first, with a stream of caloric that will tend to inflect them towards the frigorific mixture as they pass by its sides; and, secondly, with a rapid current of caloric moving from B to b. To invalidate this objection it will, perhaps, be said, that two streams of radiant light often decussate, and directly oppose each other, and neither is thereby des troyed; therefore two streams of radiant caloric may possibly decussate, and yet continue their course. Be it remembered, however, that the stars become invisible in the presence of the sun: the fecble rays from the stars are over-ruled by the powerful rays from the sun. faint rays of caloric disengaged from the thermometer at the distance of twelve feet from the frigorific mixture, ought surely to be over-ruled by the powerful rays at a short distance from the sides of that mixture. The Obs. 26th.-The third position of these philosophers seems to be, that the rays supposed to escape from the thermometer, and to converge, after two reflections, to a focus at b, are very readily absorbed by the frigorific mixture; and that the readiness of this absorption facilitates the extrication of caloric from the thermometer, and thereby causes the depression of temperature that has been noticed. This position, enveloped in, and fortified by, its own obscurity, is nearly impregnable. That the frigorific mixture solicits the caloric of the thermometer at the distance of twelve feet, by means of rays that are eighteen feet in length, and twice reflected; that it solicits this caloric whilst the atmospheric air between a and b has a temperature higher than the temperature of the thermometer; that it solicits this caloric whilst surrounded by a medium that yields its caloric with the utmost facility, are notions quite inadmissible: these notions, however, must be admitted whilst the third position is maintained. In short, the third position implies the existence of some occult law, some mode of solicitation or repulsion, concerning which philosophers have no conception. Obs. 27th.We must suspect that the frigorific mixture at b, since it decreases in volume at its formation, absorbs of caloric a quantity insufficient to produce a sensible effect on the thermometer at the distance of twelve feet. Obs. 28th. Supposing that frigoric exists, the frigorific mixture may, consis tently with all the collateral circum. stances, affect the thermometer accor ding to observation through the medium of radiant frigoric. On the whole then it appears, that the before-mentioned phenomena can be satisfactorily explained by admitting that cold is a self-existent effluvium, but not by any other means. This communication being designed to induce the philosophical reader to think, or to inquire, whether cold, as well as heat, is a self-existent effluvium, rather than to display ability as a penman, the writer hopes any little errors will be pardoned, especially as this is his first attempt at authorship. K. July 10th, 1812. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SIR, T is the advantage of sciences, from I the prosecution of which no immediate interest is derived by individuals or communities, that they may be discussed without imputation of sinister motive, the certain result of meddling with other subjects. I therefore venture to suggest a very bold affirmation, in the very face of Adam Smith; namely, that the base of the whole science of political œconomy is fundamentally erroneous. I maintain, that the state of the population and deduction from that basis, ought to be the main ground of the science in question; and that, in fact, the admirable work of this truly great man, really applies to branches only of the science. It appears to me, that the whole wealth of a nation, where interest is paid for money, is, in some form or other, expended upon the population. Either a man saves or spends, or does both. In the former case, if he obtains interest, he receives that interest, only because a want or expenditure occasions a demand for money; if he spends, it is needless to say that it is in an exchange, which profits some one or other. Simple and selfevident as is this proposition, what an extensive chain of deductions does it infer. Productive and unproductive labor are mere branches. We perpetually read, that, at the town of A. or B. twenty years ago, such and such a quantity of goods was manufactured; and that the increase of last year's is surprising. Now every body knows, that, whenever a manufacture finds a market, crowds throng to it; and it would be singular indeed, if, with such an additional number of hands, there was not an additional quantity wrought. So long as the market holds good, it is attended with this grand basis of national well-being the easy con version of industry into money. Stop the market, and what is the consequence, The buckle-makers, when shoe-strings came into vogue, became a class of very unfortunate persons. It does not appear to me, that any thing, otherwise than of collateral im portance, can be deduced from the present theories of political economy. I rather think, that the true data of this most important science, are these, viz. 1. Population; its increase or decrease. 2. Subsistence and produce, how far applicable to population. 3. Facility, or difficulty, of converting time or industry into money. It would be idle to attempt, within the compass of this paper, any thing like a copious entrance into such a subject; it will, however, be admitted perhas, that the several bearings of population, subsistence, and employ, do imply all the grand interests of a nation, so far as relate to the basis of accurate reasoning upon the subject of national wealth of public prosperity. Suppose so many human beings in a nation per acre-suppose such and such a produce per acre-calculate the increase of both-suppose such and such a demand for labor in a particular branch-suppose the population crouding into it suppose a government, at each annual session, receiving returns upon all these subjects-suppose, as the demand for hands becomes less, the recommendation to the employer to use caution in admitting apprentices, under penalty, if an alarming increase of poorrates ensues, in the parish, of a tax per head, for such an increase, after due warning-suppose a recommendation issued for instruction of the poor in a war-trade and a peace-trade. In short, many things present themselves, which it would be rash to affirm, or to present to view, in an imperfect collection of data. It may, however, be justly, I think, presumed, that a vigilant eye kept upon the population, the subsistence and the employ, implies a beneficial result, in the measures of internal legislation and governinent, hitherto unknown in the world. France is bent upon universal conquest; and the Emperor Napoleon knows very well, that men have little inclination for soldiering, when they can live comfortably at home, in peaceable employs. All the youth of Britain were drawn into Gaul by the Emperor Maximus, and to this cause has been attributed the suc cess cess of the Picts and Scots. Malthus is indisputably safe in his position, respect ing the evil of population: and it is equally certain, that too successful trade does enfeeble the powers of defence, and at the same time overstock itself. A ratio might certainly be taken from the increase of population, what numbers ought annually to be drawn for the purposes of defence,which would, in fact, be a benefit to trade: and especial relation ought to be had to the branches of trade. If florishing, it would injure the national wealth; if declining, otherwise. Nothing can be more irrational or unjust, than the indiscriminate modes of conscription all over Europe, because not the smallest attention is paid to the bearings of it, upon the wealth of the nations. I believe, and sincerely believe, that it is the population, in all its various results, which produces many of those important effects in society, which are eternally ascribed to erroneous causes; and that, without taking this into consideration, as the main actuating cause, it is vain to expect certainty in the reasoning, or redress from the discussion of the science of political economy. The consequence is, that, in legislation, the people suffer unnecessarily, often in a most oppressive form. B. C. D. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. I SIR, AM induced to solicit space for a few remarks upon the letter of a correspondent in your last Number, who styles himself, "An Archæologist," and proposes to discuss the following question: "On what authority does the longevity of the patriarchs repose?" How far his reading or candor warrants him to decide this point, is pretty evident from the first sentence of his disquisition, if it may be so called: "The children of Joseph (he tells us) headed the retreat of the Israelites from Egypt." Now, the fact is, when the Israelites left Egypt, no one family had the pre-eminence. They were, indeed, headed by Moses, but he was not a descendant of Joseph; he was of the tribe of Levi, which was not dig pified with the priesthood till they were in the Wilderness. Again, he says, "They employed Moses as their architist and recorder." No, they did not employ him-the Record says, God him self gave him commission to conduct the Israelites out of Egypt; (see Exodus, c. i. passim.) Still, however, "to his Custody they delivered what family do MONTHLY MAG, No. 231. cuments they brought out of Egypt; and any new registers, or regulations, were progressively superadded by his pen." One would imagine this Archeologist had been private secretary to Moses, he is so minute and positive upon these points, did not the next sentence convince us how grossly ignorant he is of the Mosaic writings. These documents (he says) were carefully placed in an ark, or portable box of records, which the Levites carried." In proof of this he quotes Deut. c. xxxi. v. 9. What version he used in his investigations into this subject, I cannot guess; but of this I am certain, that neither the original Hebrew, nor yet the common translation of the Bible, gives the least countenance to the above assertion: the words are these, "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, who bear the ark of the covenant, and unto all the elders of Israel." It is necessary here to observe, that the term Law has an extensive signification in the sacred writings: sometimes it signifies the Ten Commandments only, (Exod. c. xxiv. v. 58;) sometimes it includes the whole economy, preceptive, judicial, and ceremonial, which God imposed upon the Israelites, (Deut. c. xxviii. v. 58;) at other times the term compre hends the whole of the Jewish scriptures extant at the particular period of writing; thus it is used by David, (Psul. i. v. 2;) by Ezra, (c. vii. v. 6;) and by Jesus, (John, c. xv. v. 25,) there quoting a passage in the book of Psalms. Now, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, writing on purpose to convince them that the Jewish was superseded by the Christian dispensation, would hardly have asserted, (Heb. ix. v. 4.) that there was nothing in the ark, except "the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the Tables of the Covenant," if it had been otherwise. Compare Exod. c. xxv. v. 16., c. xvi. v. 33.; Numb. c. xvii. v. 10. According to our author, "Pharoah's vizir," grown giddy, like most other prime ministers, with his elevation, “during his illustrious administration, endeavoured to collect memoirs of his aucestors; and that Moses transcribed, and used these memoirs of the house of Joseph for the fundamental document of the book of Genesis." The Archæologist is so dazzled with the splendor of "The house of Joseph," that he cannot see that the memoirs, which Moses wrote, are no more the memoirs of the R house house of Joseph, than they are memoirs of the house of Dan; they are strictly memoirs of the house of Jacob, their common father. However, he assumes his premises as granted, and then denies that the memoirs of the house of Joseph can be traced to Adam; or, as he expresses it, to "The beginning of Genesis. If he means, by this, that the descent of Jacob, the common father of the Israelites, cannot be traced to Adam, it stands contradicted on the face of the record; but, if, by a little sophistry, he substitutes the term memoirs for genealogy, and he means that there are no particular circumstances in the life connected with the name of many of Jacob's And is there ancestors, this is true. any thing strange in this? The importance of the events connected with their names, is reason sufficient why Moses has given us a memoir of the life of Adam, of Noah, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while he merely names the intervening patriarchs. He now proceeds to demonstrate, that the document of the creation is posterior to the retirement of the Israelites from Egypt. "During their migration, they first became acquainted with the seven day week, (Exod. c. xxxi. v. 19.) And this document was written by a person acquainted and already familiar with the seven-day week. But, as it is neither quoted by Moses, nor Joshua, nor the author of the Judges, nor Samuel, nor David-it was not one of the manuscripts brought out of Egypt in the ark." No, truly, for the ark was not made till the Israelites were some time in the Wilder ness. There are, however, many reasons against this supposed ignorance of the Israelites, concerning the seven-day week; Scaliger tells us, that the custom of reckoning by weeks is of very ancient date in all the East. Now Abraham was born and educated in the East; he came from Ur in Chaldea; the Israelites had resided some centuries in Egypt; and "Moses was learned in all the learning of the Egyptians." Under these circum stances, is it likely, that the posterity of Abraham were ignorant of the sabbath till they came into the Wilderness? The injunction they there received respecting it, is readily accounted for, when we consider that the people, while in Egypt, had been compelled to violate the seventhday, in order to accomplish their tasks; and this violation had grown into a habit, which they were disposed to indulge, after they left Egypt. It now became necessary that the Divine Legislator should sanction the religious observance of the day. "It shall be a sign between me and you, that I Jehovah do sanctify you." The Archeologist next discovers that, "The earliest allusion in Jewish lite rature to the (supposed) document concerning the creation, is contained in the book of Deuteronomy, (c. xxxii. v. 8.) where Adam is mentioned." We are also informed that, "The Deuteronomy is an abridgment of the previously existing Thora, or Law of Moses, executed by Shaphan, the scribe, for the use of the young king, Josiah." And he adds, "That it was a short time before the Captivity, that the document concerning the creation reached the Jews." The only difficulty he seems to have had was, to find a person sufficiently skilful to tack this document to the writings of Moses. This certainly required more than com mon talent and influence. He assigns it to two persons-"The document concerning the creation may first have joined the canon of scripture, when Jes remiah and Ezra compiled it afresh at Babylon." He has his reasons also for inferring, that the book of Genesis has been patched with accounts of the deluge, and tower of Babel, which were found at Babylon. He finds neither the document of the creation, the deluge, nor tower of Babel, alluded to in any writing of the Jews prior to the Captivity. But, in order to caution this Archæologist, before he make his next attack upon the antiquity of the sacred writings, he ought to know them better; he might have found the following allusions to the creation and deluge, which at present occur to me Isaiah, who florished many years before the Captivity, mentions Noah by name, (c. liv. v. 9.) Most authors are agreed, that Moses wrote the book of Job, in which (c. xxxi. v. 33.) mention is made of a very remarkable circumstance in the life of Adam. The deluge also is expressly referred to, (c. xv. v. 15. 16.) The XC. Psalm is entitled, "A Prayer of Moses, the Man of God," in which he evidently refers both to the creation and deluge. Ilaving helped himself along, with the crutches generally used in a lame hy pothesis; such as, "analogy of reason. ing obliges also to presumption;"" it is pretty clear," he says, we have, perhaps, a band of union made in the 46 Wycombe, July 23, 1812. time of Ezra; we have, at most, the receive, from the pen of Moses, a history authority of some Babylonian legendary, the most ancient, and most important of some Parthian priest, whose cosmogony any. A. H. appeared to Ezra worthy of wider diffusion." He now ascertains the ZendAvesta to be the document concerning the creation tacked to Moses' book of Genesis Ezra. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. enesis by eat as the authority of Ezra I Co Nivervily the propositions will was, even if a man of his high moral character had been tempted to it, he would not have dared to connect a no. torious fiction with the true history of the house of Jacob. Besides, so tenacious have the Jews been of preventing any corruption of their sacred writings, that they never have suffered a pointed copy of them to be used in their public worship; though the invention of pointing has been attributed to Ezra. Let us now see how the Archæologist's reasoning, as he would call it, will apply in other cases; "neither the creation, nor deluge, nor tower of Babel, is quoted by Moses, nor Joshua, &c. therefore the account was not written by Moses;" There is no mention made in the Liturgy of the changes made in religion by Edward VI.; therefore, Bishop Burnet's Document of the Reformation, must have been some romance. The invasion of Britain, by Julius Cæsar, is neither quoted by Fox in his History, nor by Hume in his Essays; therefore, it is a fiction, tacked to the History of England by Rapin! The conclusion of the Archeologist is, "That the patriarchal registers are altogether improbable, even supposing that their age was taken before they became adult; and that their ages, after they come to maturity, was computed by lunar years." Now the question, "On what authority does the longevity of the Patriarchs repose?" may be thus a swered; even if Moses did not record the events prior to his own time, by immediate revelation from God, yet, in relating them from oral testimony, both the narrator and recorder were under divine influence. The reason why the lives of the Patriarchs were so prolonged by the Supreme Governor, is evident; Pascal observes, that it is not the namber of years that renders things obscure, but generations: Lamech, had a sight of Adam, to whom God probably commu nicated the story of his own creation, and that of the world; Shem conversed with Lamech; Abraham with Shem; Jacob with Abraham; and Moses with those who had seen Jacob. Thus we stract, that every country is the natural property of its inhabitants; and that the inhabitants of every country are the natural lords of the soil, and masters of the produce. In other words, I con-. ceive it will be felt that, when emigrants take possession of any new-found and uninhabited country, the soil and its produce, as far as is practicable and de-* sirable, are understood to be their equal common property, to be seized for their common benefit, and to be substan tially or virtually divided among them. I do not, however, require the recog nition of these truisms for the purpose of disturbing those unequal relations of property, which would necessarily be created by subsequent social events and arrangements; nor of impeaching the justice of those varied distributions which would result from exertions of wisdom, prudence, and valour, in the organization and progression of society; but I desire that these truths should, at all times, be understood, felt, and admitted, because they serve as the immovable bases of justice and philanthropy, and teach the duties of the great to the small, and of the affluent to the wretched. It is true that the Holy Scriptures, which are recognised as authority among all Christians, state, in many places, that riches are only a loan from Heaven-that, compared with the rich, the poor are blessed,-and that, to have treasure in heaven, it is necessary to give all we have to the poor; yet, as these passages address themselves to the mind as autho rities to be obeyed, rather than as truths to be felt, a good purpose will be effected by asserting their just and universal foundation, as results of rational conviction, as well as points of religious faith. There are, besides, no errors so numerous, compounded, and radical, as those which are generated by social inequalities; or by the various powers possessed by different men of appropri ating luxuries and enjoyments. How numerous are our prejudices arising from the use of colors in apparel, from the glitter of metals and polished R2 stones, |