212 Scientific Intelligence.— Natural Philosophy. 
attempt to explain its operation on philosophical principles. We 
have been anxious, therefore, more particularly on the latter 
ground, to examine it, having hitherto looked in vain for any 
rational account of Mr Perkins's plans, or of those advantages 
arising from them which have been so confidently asserted as a 
matter of fact, but which we confess we have been from the be- 
ginning doubtful of, from what is already known of the nature 
and principles of heat and of steam. Having read the paper, 
however, we really see nothing advanced in it which tends in the 
least to alter the opinions we had previously formed ; and those 
who expect in it any reasons to satisfy their curiosity or belief, wilt 
undoubtedly be disappointed. In plaice of that clear and philoso- 
phical exposition of causes and effects which such a subject de- 
mands, and certainly admits of, if any real discovery has been; 
made, we are here presented with such a mass of mere theories 
and assumptions, together with such fanciful paradoxes, and 
downright absurdities, as we believe have seldom been brought 
forward in the shape of philosophy. Instead of proceeding 
with a plain statement of experiments, and of consequences 
deducible from them, or advancing clearly and boldly forward 
from principles already known, to some great and striking 
conclusion, the author is continually halting in his career, and 
bewilders himself in a maze of obscure and unintelligible spe- 
culation, ingeniously contrived, one would think, to puzzle him- 
self and his readers. He appears to entertain, in some re- 
spects very correct views on the nature of heat, and its expan- 
sive force; but he has taken up some strange notion regarding 
its power of compressing a confined liquid, such as the water in 
the generator, and of forcing or squeezing out of it, “ as from a 
sponge," the heat which it contains. This, and several other no- 
tions of a similar kind, seem to have confused his whole ideas of 
the subject he attempts to explain ; so that, though his remarks 
on other points are, in many respects, sensible and judicious, yet 
on these topics he appears incapable of reasoning with his accus- 
tomed accuracy and vigour of judgment. We are often at a loss 
to know what he would be at ; and all his endeavours to prove 
what he wishes to demonstrate, are vain. He occasionally proceeds 
so clearly and methodically with his principles, that you are pre- 
pared for some important consequences ; instead of which you are 
landed in some ingenious paradox,— some palpable inconsistency, 
