,6 Mr. Rennfxl on the Rate of 
is Hagla. And, reckoning from thence, we have in the firft 
table (p. 134.) the numbers 193J, 194 t« and l8 7 *> for ^ ie 
time between Hagla and Mesjid All, in the three jouruies 
refpedively : and the fame table affords alfo the following com- 
parifons between different places on the route : 
In one inftance, 804, and 781; 
In a fecond, • 119*’ al1 ^ ’ 
In a third, • 53 ** 54 ?> aild 5 lif 
And in a fourth, 171I, I 74 i. aud 1681 
Again, between Aleppo and Annah on the Euphrates, the> 
inumbers in the fecond table ftand thus : 
128, and 1261. 
I think I need not produce any more examples to prove the 
equal rate of motion of a camel that is in any degree loaded ; or 
rather of a number of camels together, where the rate will be 
determined by the flow -going ones : and whatfoever rate, in actual 
diftance, may be deduced from thefe examples, muff be applied to 
loaded camels travelling in a body together, and not to light 
camels, or thofe chofen for fpeed, whofe rate appears to be at 
leaft 4th greater. By a light camel is meant one that has 
only 5 a man, or a very fmall quantity of baggage, on it; 
whereas a camel’s load is 500 to 600 pounds ; and camels fo 
loaded, form what is termed the heavy caravan. Light cara- 
van. on the contrary, is applied to camels under a moderate 
load, or perhaps little more than half loaded. And with 
refpedt to camels, either moderately or fully loaded, I can per- 
ceive no difference in their hourly rate of motion : the differ- 
ence alone appears in the length of their day’s journey ; as we 
fhall perceive hereafter. A camel, it is faid, will not permit 
fiimfelf to be over-laden ; and this may be the reafon why the 
load does not affed his rate of motion. 
It 
