916 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1805. 



tnetal being so elastic ; that over the 

 face of the watch there is placed a 

 glass, a material employed in no 

 other part of the work, but in the 

 room of which, if there had been 

 any other than a transparent sub* 

 stance, the houp could not be seen 

 without opening the case. This 

 Mechanism being observed, (it re- 

 quires indeed an examination of the 

 instrument, and perhaps some pre- 

 rious knowledge of the subject, to 

 perceive and understand it; but 

 being once, as we have said, ob- 

 served and understood,) the in- 

 ference we think is inevitable ; thai 

 the watch must have had a maker ; 

 that th€;re must have existed, at 

 some time and at some place or 

 other, an artificer or artificers, who 

 formed it for the purpose which we 

 find it actually to answer ; who com- 

 prehended its construction, and 

 designed its use. 



1. Nor would it, I apprehend, 

 •weaken the conclusion, that we had 

 never seen a watch made; that we 

 had never known an artist capable 

 of making one; that we were alto- 

 gether incapable of executing such a 

 piece of workmanship ourselves, or 

 of understanding in what manner it 

 was performed : all this being no 

 more than what is true of some 

 exquisite remains of ancient art, of 

 •©me lost arts, and, to the generality 

 of mankind, of the more curious 

 productions of modern manufac- 

 ture. Does one man in a million 

 know how oval frames arc turned ? 

 Ignorance of this kind exalts our 

 opinion of the unseen and unknown 

 artist's skill, if he be unseen and 

 nnknown, but raises no doubt in 

 our minds of the existence and 

 agency of such an artist, at some 

 former time, and in some place or 



other. Nor can I perceive that tt 

 varies at all the inference, whether 

 the question arise concerning z 

 human agent, or concerning an 

 agent of a ditFtrent species, or au 

 agent possessing, in some respects, a 

 different nature. 



2. Neither, secondly, would it 

 invalidate our conclusion, that tha 

 watch sometimes went wrong, or 

 that it seldom went exactly right. 

 The purpose of the machinery, the 

 design, and the designer, might b« 

 evident, and in the case supposed 

 would be evident, in whatever way 

 we accounted for the irregularity of 

 the movement, or whether we could 

 account for it or not. It is not 

 necessary that a machine be perfect, 

 in order to shew with what desiga 

 it was made: still less necessary, 

 where the only question is, whether 

 it were made with any design at all. 



3. Nor, thirdly, would it bring 

 any uncertainty into the argument, 

 if there were a few parts of the 

 watch, concerning which wc could 

 not discover, or had not yet dis- 

 covered, in what manner they con. 

 diiced to the general effect ; or even 

 some parts, concerning which w« 

 could not ascertain, whether they 

 conduced to that efiect in any man- 

 ner whatever. For, .is to the first 

 branch of the case, if, by the loss, 

 or disorder, or dccny of the parts 

 in question, the movement of the 

 Match were found in fact to be 

 stopped, or disturbed, or retard- 

 ed, no doubt would remain in our 

 minds as to the utility or intention 

 of these parts, although we should 

 be unable to investigate the manner 

 according to which, or the connec- 

 tion by which, the ultimate effect 

 depended upon their action orassis. 

 tance : and the more complex is th« 



machine, 



I 



