but never was the merit of any discovery more decidedly due to one man than in the case of Dr. Black on the subject of heat. M. Cuvier, however, does not omit to pay a just tribute to the claims of our countryman, Mr. Dalton.-When treating on Galvanism, he selects the names of Galvani himself, of Volta, Ritter, Nicholson, and Davy, as those who have been the greatest promoters of the science. It is not a little remarkable that, in this branch of philosophy, no very capital discovery has proceeded from France, although it would appear that it has been assiduously cultivated in that country.-In the notes of the editor, which are very copious, and contain much valuable matter, we have a tolerably full account of Mr. Davy's discoveries on the composition of the alkalies and earths.

M. Cuvier then proceeds to the consideration of what he calls proper chemistry; which, like some of the preceding branches of science, may be regarded as almost entirely of modern date, so much has it been modified by the discoveries of the last 30 or 40 years. He particularly notices the experiments of Black, Bayen, Cavendish, and Monge, as having led this great revolution: but, he adds, it is the good fortune of having united into one focus all these insulated rays, which constitutes' the unrivalled glory of Lavoisier.' The combination of the French chemists to form the new nomenclature, thus laying aside all their individual feelings of emulation and envy, and contributing to promote the doctrine of Lavoisier, the author calls a touching spectacle, of which the history of the sciences offers few examples.'-In general, the remarks on the new nomenclature are just; and we think that the framers of it are intitled to all the commendation which has been bestowed on them. It was certainly a noble effort of genius, and one of those which probably could not have been effectually made in any country except France.

Part II. of the report contains an account of the progress of natural history; a division of science which is defined to be the application of the general laws of natural philosophy and chemistry to the different phænomena which are manifested by the several bodies of nature.' Meteorology, mineralogy, and animal and vegetable physiology, form the most interesting departments of the science, and those to which the author principally confines his detail. With respect to the first, he particularly notices the curious investigations that have lately been made on the subject of stones that are supposed to have fallen from the atmosphere, in which the name of Mr. Howard holds a conspicuous rank. Physiology is subdivided into three branches; chemistry, which determines the composition of the body; anatomy, which describes its form; and dynamics, by which

we

we ascertain its moving forces. The first of these, it is re marked, belongs entirely to the present epoch; and Priestley, Ingenhousz, Lavoisier, Fourcroy, Sennebier, Spallanzani, and the younger Saussure, are selected as those philosophers whose labours have more especially led to its developement. We admit that all the authors here named deserve a greater or less share of commendation: but we cannot avoid remarking that the name of Black ought to have been placed very high in this list, since to him we unquestionably owe the discovery of the generation of carbonic acid in the process of respiration: a discovery which, together with those of Dr. Priestley on the same subject, in point both of time and of importance, have a decided priority in the history of chemical physiology.-Mr. Home is the only Englishman who has the honour of being enumerated among the modern anatomists; and we do not meet with a single one of our countrymen among those who are said to have contributed to the improvement of vegetable physiology. Is it to be believed that M. Cuvier was ignorant of the writings of Mr. A. Knight, or of the Phytologia of Dr. Darwin?

We next find, very properly introduced, some account of the travellers who have added so much to natural history by their researches into the productions of foreign countries. • The astonishing expedition into Egypt,' as M. Cuvier not unaptly styles it, takes the lead; yet this is a subject which we are almost surprised that he should venture to obtrude on the recollection of the Emperor. Among the botanists, properly so called, we meet with the name of Dr. Smith, but it is enumerated among a number of others, without any particular mark of distinction, although certainly intitled to appropriate notice; wirile, on the contrary, M. Jussieu is mentioned as one who has formed, in the sciences of observation, an epoch perhaps as important as that of the chemistry of Lavoisier in the sciences of experiment.' The reporter concludes the list by some remarks on comparative anatomy, and takes to himself a share of merit in this departinent to which he may very justly lay claim.

After having treated of the sciences individually, M. Cuvier offers some general observations on the very rapid advances which they have lately made, and on the probability that their progress will continue with equal or even greater celerity. Of course, in his opinion, France has led and will lead the van; and the age of Napolcon' is the consummation of all that is great and glorious, not less in arts than in arms. As we look at these things in a somewhat different point of view, we cannot admit these assumptions, but, on the contrary, boldly assert that many of the most important discoveries in chemistry, ana

tomy,

tomy, and general physics, have originated in England; though, we grant that, in some departments, our continental neighbours have outstript us, and in almost all have afforded very portant aid. On another point we dissent still more decidedly from M. Cuvier; we maintain that the age of Napoleon' has not been, and is not likely to be, the age of science. It is, indeed, very remarkable that the great discoveries, which have been made in France, were either accomplished before the revolution or during its progress; and that, since the establishment of the empire, and the foundation of the magnificent institutions which form a part of its costume, its great men (at least with very few exceptions) appear contented to live on their former fame, as if they fancied themselves raised to the highest pinnacle of celebrity, and beyond the reach of rivalship.

We must not omit to notice the conclusion of this address. It seems that His Imperial Majesty had signified to the class of the Institute, that he was willing to grant any request which they might offer; and we cannot but confess that they have exhibited in their reply not less moderation than judgment. They beg to submit to him some ideas for the regulation of the method of giving instruction in the rudiments of natural philosophy, and for the more wide diffusion of the knowlege of the mechanical arts and of agriculture. They also suggest to the Emperor, that he should issue directions for the formation of a new system of natural history; which might, in the present age, be made as much superior to that of Aristotle, as their Sovereign is superior to Alexander the Great!

On the whole, M. Cuvier's report is learned and interesting, though in some places disfigured by bombast and adulation. The notes are valuable, and prove M. Kesteloot to be well versed in modern science.

This volume forms only the first part of the work, and it is intimated that two more will follow.

ART. XIV. Supplément à la Théorie de l'Action Capillaire. &c. i. e. A Supplement to the Theory of Capillary Action. By M. LA PLACE. 4to. Paris. 1807. Imported by De Boffe. Price 78. 6d.

THIS

HIS is properly a second supplement, though the preceding similar addition on the same subject, which we mentioned in our 53d vol. p. 483. was called by its author a supplement to the 10th volume of his Mécanique Celeste. The scientific world is, undoubtedly, much indebted to M. LA PLACE for all his communications: but we should have been glad to have seen this theory of capillary action not appended, as it now is, to his

Physical

Physical Astronomy. No proper connection subsists, for mere differential expressions cannot make that connection, between the two investigations; and a cause of separation may be stated, in the different degrees of certainty appertaining to them. Most beautifully and satisfactorily has the author exhibited, traced, and developed, many of the causes of the heavenly phænomena: but to several of his discussions and results in the capil lary theory, assent will come, if it come at all, tardily and reluctantly. M. LA PLACE himself seems to think, by the very fact of this second supplement, which is superior in size to the original, that the subject is liable to some uncertainty and we cannot but suspect that the consideration of it has not been matured in his mind by frequent meditation. Most of the other parts of his astonishing work have been, in some sort or shape, presented to the world in previous papers inserted in the volumes of the Academy of Sciences: but, unless we are much deceived on the theory of capillary attraction he had published no prior essays; and although the discussion, from its nicety and perplexity, is well worthy of M. La PLACE'S genius, still we cannot forbear repeating our wish that it had not been fastened on the system of the sun and the planets.

Of the first part of this theory of capillary attraction, we have already given an account, and not a very scanty one; yet, for obvious reasons, we doubt whether it was satisfactory. While the learned would refer to the work itself, the superficial would esteem the account of it not sufficiently familiar and explicit ;-and what shall be done with this second part? It contains, at page 15, a new mode of considering the capillary action but the explanation of this new mode is not easily compressed, and it would occupy considerable space. M. Gay-Lussac has also furnished the author with many curious experiments: but these, it is plain, do not readily admit of abridgment. Some of M. LA PLACE'S inferences, however, as being of general concern and easily understood, may be stated.

He is of opinion that the law of attraction, decreasing with extreme rapidity, and being at the smallest distances imperceptible, will account for various phænomena: it may be considered as the source of chemical affinities; like gravity, it stops not at the surfaces of bodies, but penetrates beyond contact. Thence depends the influence of masses in chemical phænomena; or that capacity of saturation, of which M. Berthollet has explained the effects. Connected, then, with this law, is the philosophy of chemistry, which endeavours to account for the internal constitution of bodies.

M. LA

M. LA PLACE continues farther to argue, more pleasantly. indeed than satisfactorily, concerning this internal constitution of bodies. The molecules of a body are so placed, according to him, that their resistance to a change is the greatest. Disturb, a little, a molecule from its position, and it tends to recover that position; this constitutes elasticity: but, when the molecules undergo a considerable change, then they take other new states of stable equilibrium. The hardness and viscosity of bodies are nothing else than the resistances of molecules to changes of the state of equilibrium.-Why does heat render bodies less viscous? The expansive force of heat, acting in opposition to the attractive force of the molecules, diminishes their viscosity and adherence. If the molecules of a body offer but slight resistance to the displacing forces, the body becomes liquid. All this reads very smoothly and pleasantly: but what else is it than a mode of arranging and re-stating known facts? The existence of attractive and repulsive forces is purely hypothetical; and we shall be miserably deluded by words, if we fancy that, by phrases of philosophy like the preceding, we distinctly perceive the causes of the fluidity of bodies, and the mode of their operation.`

It is, however, undoubtedly true, as M. LA PLACE observes, that the consideration of the stability of the equilibrium of a system of molecules, re-acting the one on the other, is very useful in the explanation of several phænomena; and the late experiments of some of our own countrymen confirm the necessity of such consideration: but the inquiry is difficult and intricate. The form of the elementary molecules, the laws of their attractive force, the repulsive forces of heat, and other forces not yet ascertained, must be all admitted into the calculation, and, when admitted, will perplex it. Indeed, partly from our ignorance of the intensity and the laws of many causes, and partly from their extreme complication, phænomena cannot be easily submitted to a mathematical analysis:

At the surfaces of liquids, (says M. LA PLACE,) the molecular attraction, modified by the curvature of the surfaces and of the tubes which contain them, produces the capillary phænomena; thus these phænomena, and all those which chemistry presents, are attached to the same law, of which the existence cannot be doubted. Some natural philosophers have attributed the capillary phænomena to the adhesion of liquid molecules, either to each other or to the sides of the containing vessels: but this cause is insufficient. In fact, if we suppose the sur face of water contained in a glass tube to be horizon. tal, and level with the water of the vessel in which the other extremity of the tube is plunged, the viscousness of the liquid, and its adherence to the tube, ought not to curve that surface and render it concave. For this effect, it is necessary to admit the attraction of the