126 Additional Objections to Redjield’s Theory of Storms. 
inconsistently with his own rule above stated, but I am astonish- 
ed that he should, without any new experiments or any demon- 
strations, by an ipse divit undertake to make a novel application 
of the powining power, and the forces arising from the earth’s 
; and to inform one of the most eminent astronomers of 
the age ‘that he had committed an error in overlooking their ane 
important meteorological influence.” 
48. Turning from an endless controversy with a writer with 
whom I differ respecting first principles, I shall address myself 
to that great school of meteorologists who concur with me in 
the ‘“ grand: error” of considering heat: and electricity as the 
principal agents of nature in the production of storms, and who 
do not concur with Mr. Redfield in considering gravitation and 
the earth’s annual and diurnal motion as the great destroyer of 
' my main object will be to show the inconsistency: of his theoretic 
inferences with the laws of nature, and the facts and observations 
on which those inferences are alleged to: be founded. ictal follow 
him in detail through all the mi aris 
enj and which would inevitably arise during a a continued ent 
versy, would be an Ixion task. SS geist ing ioe o 
» 49. Speaking of the trade winds and saineaiint our pon il 
states: “ It is to the operation and effect of these great and regular 
moving masses,” that we are disposed mainly to ascribe the more 
active and striking meteorological phenomena of every latitudes 
* * And again, ‘“At.these seasons the northern margin or par- 
allels of the trade winds sweeping towards the gulf, must -neces~ 
sarily come in collision with the great archipelago of islands 
which skirt the Carribean Sea,” * * * (this Journal,. Vol: xx, 
p- 31,) “the obstruction which they afford. produces a constant 
tendency to circular evolution.” * *-*.s tlhe taates af at mos- 
