most part unconnected with chemical research; a circumstance, which, though it may invalidate my deductions, cannot render the facts less certain, or the object of my inquiry less interesting. These remarks, which I must leave to the chemist to corroborate, are as follows: 1. The common flint is never found, as far as I can learn, but in the vicinity of chalk, in which it lies bedded. 2. I have always observed it running in dark horizontal veins along a deep bed of chalk, as if introduced by water and above and below it, is a tinge of a rusty red, ficquently seen, as though produced by an oxidation of iron. 3. I have now in my possession a number of hollow spherical flints, more or less filled with chalk in the inside, and with a calcareous incrustation more or less hard, on the outside, but always increasing in hardness, as it approaches the coat of flint. Some of them are solid flint, but with the same incrustation. 4. Flints are never found with angular surfaces, but have their prominences all eircular, or approaching to it. There appears an irregular crystallization in them, as if effected by a portion of water, confined in a bed of chalk, and producing, like water thrown in small quan tities amongst flour, a variety of forms more or less round. 5. I have a number of white opaque flints, in which the colour of chalk is retamed, and in which there are cavities containing chalk, but the -formation of flint is in other respects completed. 6. In some specimens may be traced the several gradations from a state of pulverulent calcareous earth, to the dark transparent substance of which gunfints are made, proceeding in distinct coatings, progressively harder, as they advance to the state of black flint. 7. I have a fossil echinus, found in a chalk-pit, which upon breaking, proved to be a complete flint, with a very slight edge of white incrustation. From the above observations, I am led to believe, that flints of this class are formed, merely by the accession of water to a bed of chalk, Whether the union of the carbouic acid gas with the constituent gases of the water, or whether any adventitious matter may have been introduced by the water in the state of solution, or attenuation, I have not time or means to inquire. I must leave it likewise to others to ascertain the accurate results, after a volatilization of the water, and compare them with the usual state of the calcareous strata in which flint is found. Your's, &c. A. B. R. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SIR, A Correspondent in your last number manifests a considerable degree of curiosity with respect to the comparative merits of Mr. Malthus's, and Dr. Jarrold's the cries on population. I cannot pretend to decide this question, not having seen Dr. Jarrold's work: but having lately read a reply to the Essay on Population, in a series of letters, and thinking it a matter of some interest to the publie to have the subject of Mr. Malthus's reputation fully canvassed, I have brought together in one view the chief objections insisted on by this anonymous writer, and leave it to some friend or admirer of Mr. Malthus to answer them.— The whole controversy reduces itself to the following considerations. 1. Whether the Extract from Wallace's "Prospects of Mankind," &c. quoted by the author in second letter, is a fabrication of his own, or whether it is not to be found in the work from which it professes to be taken? 2. Whether that extract does not completely overturn every pretension in Mr. Malthus to the discovery of a new pri ciple in human nature, incompatible with any great degree of improvement in government or morals? Or whether Wal lace has not both stated the principle of the disproportion, between the power of increase in population, and the power of increase in the means of subsistence, which is the basis of Mr. M.'s system, and whether he has not drawn the very samic inference from it that Mr. Maithus has done, viz. that vice and misery are necessary to keep population down to the level of the means of subsistence? 3. Whether the idea of a geometrical and arithmetical series, by which Mr. M. is supposed to have furnished the precise rule, or calculus, of the disproportion between food and population, is not strictly inapplicable to the subject; inas much as in all new and unpeopled coun tries cultivation may go on increasing in a geometrical ratio, while there is an opportunity of occupying fresh tracts of soil, according to the increased demands of population; and, on the other hand, in all old and fully peopled countries must be stationary, or nearly so, as it is impossible that the same spot of ground should produce more and more every year, by additions of the same equal quantity? Whether the finding out a rate of increase for a thing, by which it never does increase, but always in a ra tio either greater or less, is to be considered as philosophical discovery; and whether the laying down an arbitrary and fituciful illustration, as a fundamental theorem, must not rather tend to perplex and confound, than to explain the subject? 4. Whether the citing of parish registers and bills of mortality, merely to ilLustrate a general principle, without adding any thing to it, even though a man abould fill a folio volume with them, entitles him to the character of an original discoverer in philosophy? 5. Whether, if Mr. Malthus has not arrogated to himself more originality than he possessed, his admirers have not done so for him, and rendered it necessary that his pretensions in this respect should be strictly inquired into? 6. Whether the whole tenor and scope of Mr. Malthus's first edition, which was to overturn all schemes of human perfectibility from the sole principle of population, does not involve a direct con Food, as well as population, that is to say, all vegetables and all animals, as well as man, increase in a geometrical ratio, and most of them in one much higher than man. It is not the want of power in the principle of production, but the want of room that confines the means of subsistence within such narrow limi's. As long as it has room to increase and multiply, a seed of corn will propagate its species much faster than man.-This circumstance, though noticed by Franklin, seems to have been overlooked by the author of the Essay. The principle which determines the quantity of the means of subsistence, therefore depends on the room they have to grow in, and thus keep pace with the progress of human life. And hence it follows, that the fundamental dif ference, between the power of increase in the principle of population and the meins of subsistence, cannot be expressed by a geometrical and arithmetical'series, unless we suppose the spice assigned for the production of food, and the spread of vegetation, that is, the size of the whole earth itself, to have been originally no larger than to supply the imme diate wants of the first inhabitants, and that this space had been gradually enlarging itself ever since, and would consinue to do so, by perpetual additions of a certain asthmetical quantity gently, tradiction? For was it not the object of Mr. M.'s Essay to shew, that if ever it should so happen, that mankind were to become superior to every gross and selfish duet by the dictates of wisdom and vir motive, and to regulate their whole contue, so that the checks to population would immediately lose all power of from vice and misery should cease, they control over this principle; and, from the most perfect order, virtue, and happinoss nothing but famine, confusion, and unexampled vice and inisery could ensue? Is not tinis to say, that, if mankind were governed entirely by rational motives, they would have no effect on them at all; that in proportion as we have more command over our passions, we shall come to pass, that the community shall have less; and that whenever it gard to the consequences of their actions, in general are actuated solely by a rethat then they will immediately and infallibly rush headlong to destruction? such a want of logic as to have composed 7. Whether a writer, who can betray implicitly relied on in other matters, para work on this confusion of ideas, can be nature? Or whether Mr. Malthus may ticularly of an abstruse and metaphysical plead in his own defence, that he was led hastily to adopt this error by his too great admiration of the speculations of Wallace, being but the dupe of another man's sophistry? 8. Whether the two following points though in a loose and desultory manner, are not fully and repeatedly established, and some digressions, in the reply to the and mixed up with a good deal of levity Essay on Population, and whether they do not go to the foundation of Mr. M.'s system-namely, thus formerly contended), that vice First, That if we admit (as Mr. Maland misery are the only checks to population, that then very new and important consequences will undoubtedly follow from his theory, but that the posi consequences are to follow, viz. that tion, from which these extraordinary vice and misery are the only checks Malthus's own acknowledgement) utterly false, unfounded, and paradoxical-Seto population, is in itself (by Mr. condly, that if we adopt the improved that not vice and misery alone, but vice, doctrine of the later editions, and say, misery, and moral restraint, or pruden checks to population, that this indeed is tial motives, taken together, are the only true, but that, with this qualification, none of those wonderful discoveries and ingenious paradoxes, which have excited the spleen of one half of the world, and the admiration of the other, will have any solid foundation to rest upon, but that we must return back (however reluc tantly) to the common sense and vulgar notions of mankind? Or, in other words, whether it does not strictly follow, from Mr. Malthus's first statement (that vice and misery are the only possible checks to excessive population), that a certain quantity of them is absolutely necessary for this purpose, that if they could, they ought not to be removed, and that the total absence of them would be the greatest mischief that could happen; and, on the other hand, whether it does not as strictly follow from admitting that moral restraint, i. e. reason, prudence, manners, &c. may and do operate as checks to population, that vice and misery are no longer either necessary or desirable, that the more moral restraint, or the more wisdom and virtue, and the less vice and misery there is in the world, the better; and that if the influence of moral restraint could be substituted wholly for that of vice and misery, it would not be the greatest evil, but the greatest good that could possibly take place? This latter view of the subject indeed is nearer the truth, but it wants that air of originality which recommended Mr. M.'s first performance to the notice of the public. by positive vice and misery, being in proportion to its powers of increase, and this naturally becoming greater according to its actual progress, the farther the principle of population had been allowed to proceed, the more dangerous it would become, and the more mischiefs would be required to carry off, or prevent it's excesses. It seemed, therefore (on the old maxim of Morbo venienti occurrite) to be the chief duty of the state-first, to thin or keep population down as low as possible, to prevent this germ and root of all evil, population, from spreading its baneful influence beyond the reach of controu]: secondly, to keep the popula tion that remained, sufficiently vicious and miserable. 11. Whether the author of the Reply has not detected the fallacy of this reasoning, by shewing that the tendency of population, to increase in all cases whatever, is not in proportion to its power of increase; but to its power of increase, accompanied and checked by the prospect of not being able to provide for that increase, which is a totally different thing either from actual vice or misery? For in all stages of society, and of human intellect and virtue, so long as man retains the common faculties of his nature, the tendency of population to excess, or to produce mischief, must be repressed and counterbalanced by the prospect of the inconveniences to ensue; and this motive must operate more forcibly in proportion to the inconveniencies apprehended, that is, according to the degree in which it is likely to become excessive. So that the danger of excessive population is one that lessens in proportion as the excess becomes greater, that naturally corrects itself, and can never go beyond a certain point. Nor when the excess does become great, does this arise from the previous actual state of population, or from the absence of vice and misery to repress it, but from the degradation of morals, and an indifference to conse quences, on the consideration of which the true, natural, preventive check to population depends. Hence it follows, that the increase of population is not in itself an alarming circumstance, and that the best way of preventing its excess is by diffusing rational principles, and the 10. Whether Mr. M. did not contrive notions of decency and comfort, as wideto represent the tendency of population ly as possible; two positions not incul to increase beyond the means of sub-cated in the most unequivocal manner in sistence, as something of a very alarm. Mr. Malthus's writings. ing and dangerous nature? Its tendency 12. Whether, in a word, Mr. Mal to excess, except as this was repressed thus, by giving up the necessity of rice 9. Whether the author of the Essay need have taken so much pains to prove merely the existence, or actual operation of vice and misery, or the difficulty of bringing mankind to act from motives of pure reason? No one ever disputed this difficulty; but it was believed, that if they could be brought to act from such motives, it would be well for them; and Mr. Malthus, to the great joy of some persons, was supposed to have proved that this was a mistake, or that all the erils in society were absolutely necessary evils. He has retracted a great part of his theory; but it required a degree of fortitude, not to be expected even from a philosopher like Mr. Malthus, to do this in such a manner, as not to leave the general plan of his work full of inconsistencies and almost unintelligible. and and misery as exclusive checks to population, has not done away all the practical inferences to be drawn from his system, both with respect to the indifference, or rather horror, with which we should look upon the thing itself, and the methods we should take to prevent it? 13. Whether, what Mr. Malthus lays down as a law of nature, namely, SIR, HE following observations on the no one has a right to beget children after Tremarks made in the Edinburgh the world is fully stocked, or when the produce of the earth is not more than sufficient to maintain its inhabitants, and the limitation which he has given of this law, namely, that no one as a right to do this, but those who are rich enough to provide for them, do not directly contradict each other? Since, if there were no more food left, the rich man could not possibly provide for his children any more than the poor man; and if there is a surplus over which the rich man has a command, or if the produce of the earth is more than sufficient for the inhabitants, then it ceases to be a law of na ture, that the poor man should not be al lowed to bring children into the world, because" at nature's mighty feast there is no vacant cover for them!"-Whether there is one law of nature for the poor, and another for the rich? The provisions of different families inust depend on the different distribution of the wealth of the community, that is, on the laws of the land (which, however, in the present instance Mr. M. wishes to see altered, because they are more favourable to the poor than he could wish), but can have nothing to do with the laws of nature, or the inability of the earth to furnish subsistence for more than a certain number of inhabitants. 14. Whether, as a rule of common prudence, every man did not know, that he should have more difficulty in main taining a wife and family than in shifting for himself only, quite as well before as since the publication of Mr. Malthus's Essay? These questions, fairly answered, will, I suspect, go near to establish the three points which the letter-writer undertakes to prove. First, that Mr. M.'s reasoning, whatever its merit might be, was not his own. Secondly, that, as applied to the question of the perfectibility of mankind, it was an evident contradiction. Thirdly, that in a general and practical view of the subject, the position laid down by Mr. Malthus, of the disproportion between the possible increase of population and the possible increase in the means of MONTHLY MAC, No. 183. Review, vol. 25, on Professor Vince's Essay on Gravitation, may be thought of importance by many of your philosophical readers. According to Sir I. Newton's hypothe sis, the force with which a planet is urged towards the sun, is the difference between the pressures of the fluids on the sides next and opposite to the sun. The pressures on these half surfaces (as the density of the fluid continually varies) can only be found by a fluxional calculus; and upon examining the Professor's solution, it appears to be perfectly satis factory. Now the Reviewer makes the pressure towards the sun to be as the fluxion of the density: this is manifestly false. If a series of quantities increase according to any law, is the difference of the first and last terms, the same as the difference between the sums of the first half and the second half of the series ?→→→→ For something of this kind must have ene tered into the mind of the Reviewer, if he had any meaning at all in what he has stated. Further, the fluxion of the density of the fluid is independent of the density of the planet; and yet in estimating the force of the planet to the sun, the density of the planet necessarily en ters into the calculation, the accelerative force being as the moving force, divided by the quantity of matter in the planet, or by its magnitude and density conjointly. These palpable blunders, into which the reviewer has fallen, can be imputed only to his total ignorance of the subject. Besides the absurdity of Le Sage's hypothesis, it is not true as asserted by the Reviewer, that any two bodies will, upon that supposition, be urged towards each other by forces varying inversely as the squares of their distances. I have noticed two strong propensities in these Reviewers: one, that of endeavouring to discover errors where there are none, and to conceal merit where there is any; the other, to make their Review a vehicle for propagating their own opinions. LI Your's, &c. A. M. T 1 To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SIR, HERE is perhaps no subject con Tnected with the philosophy of the human mind, which has been less investigated, or which appears to promise less success than those powers of invention in music, that correspond with what is termed genius- in poetry. The great object of the present essay, is to promote a spirit of enquiry into so mysteri ous a faculty of our nature, without pretending to have discovered an adequate solution of the difficulty, or to contribute in any material degree to the stock of public information. For the success which has attended the examination of poetical genius, we are perhaps indebted to the certainty of those data upon which the disquisition depended. The imagination of the post, according to Plato, (who has been followed in his opinion by Aristotle, Longinus, and the whole host of subsequent philosophers,) is a general mirror, in which my lads of objects, whose original must be sought in the wide expanse of the universe, are represented in the most faithful and vivid manner. Considered in this view of a mimetic art, poetry exhibits no insurmountable difficulties to those who would trace it's origin in the mind; and it follows, that, if poetical genius is in this manner derivative, its powers will be in the direct ratio of the accuracy and retention of its perceptions. These may be afterwards summoned, like the supernatural ministers of sorcery, in an endless variety of shapes and combinations, to instruct, terrify, inflame, or embellish. These appear to the profane and uninitiated, widely removed from the round of possibilities, and the creation of a mind almost divine, since the page of true poetry is able to excite a constant surprise not only by an imitation of the many forms, actions, and outward habitudes of nature, but even by the representation of things the most remote, of sentiment, character, and spiritual existence. The combinations of external forms in painting are infinite. The whole world is no less the school of the painter, than of the poet; but with this distinction, that in the communication of thought and sentiment, the painter is confined to those which are connected with certain modes of form. Still its powers of exciting astonishment are wonderful. D: Repub. lib. x. Every object used by the painter, considered separately, may be perfectly familiar the while at the same sime the grouping attitudes, or concomi tant scenery, may render the whole a real novelty. But the great source of all its beauties is nature, and their merit consists in the fidelity of the resemblance; since the most remarkable imitations in this art, as well as in poetry, can aspire to nothing more than the character of accurate first copies. Thus then we have seen that the fountain-head of these two arts, is, the wide theatre of created forins. But where shall we discover the great archetypes of musical creation? To what original shall we trace the reflections in the mirror of a musical imagination? I answer, to nature likewise. To what extent, we shall perceive in the sequel. Music is a pleasing succession or combination of sounds. Its ultimate end, like that of poetry and every imitative art, must be pleasure. The production of that pleasure is proportioned to the faculties of the musician to unite or invert in an agreeable manner the customary succession of sounds in nature, without infringing upon the laws which she has established to render them delightful. Natural sounds may be considered as simple or compound, and are produced by animate or inanimate bodies. I. Animals are almost all endowed by nature with the power of expressing aloud, in a manner peculiar to themselves, their pleasure, anger, or distress. These vocal utterances have every one of them a distinct character and appellation; and in most instances the terms employed to express the sounds, are themselves descriptive of their effects on the auditory nerve. Το II. In the same manner the inanimate parts of nature furnish us with a vast variety of sounds, from the separate or combined operations of fire, air, water, and numberless artificial bodies. these we give the epithets cracking rattling, rustling, grating, creaking, dashing, rumbling, cluttering,' &c. &c. while the former are distinguished by the following: roaring, groaning, bellowing, whining, howling, wailing, chirping, shouting, &c. &c. The specific character of all these sounds will be found to range them under a general head without any difficulty. These heads or classes may be reduced to the following: |