1042 
particles of fteel were really fufed, or only 
_abraded'?” To prove that light is material, 
he fays, (page 11), “© As the impulfe of 
a material body on the organ of vifion is 
effential to the generation of fenfation, 
light is. confequently smarter.” This is 
taking forgranted the very thing wanted 
tobe proved. In the defcription of the 
third experiment, which .is very inge- 
nioufly planned, there is fome inaccuracy 
of expreffion relative to the wax: we are 
not told where it was placed. The con- 
fequences deduced do not of neceffity fol- 
low. 
(he fays), the water on rhe top of it 
muft have been frozen.’” This is not a 
neceffary confequence:. water may be 
cooled below the freezing. point without 
freezing, in the fame manner as a fuper- 
faturated folution of fome falts in water 
will remain without cryftallifing, till agi- 
tation or fome other caufe determines the 
cryftallifation. We could mention fome 
other inaccuracies and obfcurities ; but it 
would take us far beyond thé limits of 
this compendium to treat thefe highly in- 
terefting papers as fully as they deferve. 
We hope Mr. Davy will republifh them 
in a feparate form. 
“Mr. RALPH WALKER, late of Ja- 
- maaica, has publithed a “ Treatife on the 
Magnet,” which he, -himfelf, feems to 
think of confiderable importance to the 
mariner. He very unteceflarily takes 
the trouble of telling the learned, that 
his work is not meant for them, and that 
it is therefore divefted of the sx/el and 
teconical terms of the profeffional philo- 
fopher. ‘The word chapter, we fuppofe, 
he includes-among thefe tinfel terms ; for 
he feduloufly avoids to ufe it, and fubfti- 
tutes cafe inits room. This work con- 
tains numerous tables which will be found 
ufeful. . : 
An anonymous author has pubiifhed 
' «© "The Obfervation of Newton concern- 
ing the Inflexions of Light, accompa- 
nied by other Obfervations, differing from 
his, and appearing to lead to a Change of 
his Theory of Light and Colours.” The 
very title difplays affectation; and, if we 
except this fault, which pervades the 
whole work, we cannot help: being much 
pleafed with it, as it contains many new 
and firiking experiments, fome of which 
corre Sir. I{aac Newton’s original obfer- 
vations. We have little donbt that his 
celebrated theory, part or which has 
been fo frequently attacked of late, will 
have toundergo very material alterations, 
if not total change. > 
All perfons concerned in linen and cot- 
ton-manufatories are.indebted to Dr. 
_ namely, 
‘‘Had this ice given “out caloric. 
Retrofpedt of Domeftic Literature...Phyfic. 
WILLIAM Hiccins, profeffor of che- 
mifiry tothe Dublin Soctety, for the pub- 
lication of a very important difcovery, 
that the fulphuret of lime may 
be ufed in bleaching as a fubftitute for 
pot-afh and barilha. It 1s calculated, 
thatin Ireland alone 215,307]. will bean- 
nually faved by this fubftitution. We 
cannot help recommending the conduct of 
Dr. Higgins, in publifhing his own difco- 
very forthe general good, to the imita- 
tion of thofe perfons who will not even 
fuifer the pubiic to be benefited by. the 
difcoveries of others, but obtain patents 
if they chance to become the firft ac- 
quainted with foreign difcoveries. Al- 
though the great Berthollet fet in fo re- 
markable a manner the example of difin- 
tereftednefs, how many patents have been 
obtained in this country for bleaching by 
his method, with fome trifling variation ! 
.Dr. Higgins has prefixed to his eflay, 
which is drawn up in the plain and expli- 
cit language neceffary for the mere artift, — 
a preface, calculated for the {cientitic ex- 
clufively, in which he proves, that fome 
difcoveries of Fourcroy and Vauguiliz 
(Vauquelin) had been - previoufly an- 
nounced to the public by himielf. 
‘* Critical Examination of the Firft 
Part.of Lavoifier’s Elements of Chemif- 
try.’ ‘This work we underftand to be 
the performance of Mr. DRuMMOND, 
a member of the Britifh parliament ; but 
we cannot vouch for the truth of this. 
The obje& of the work is not to attack 
the whole of Lavoifier’s admirable fyftem, 
but to notice feme of its defeéts and m- 
accuracies; and in this we think the 
author has in fome meafure fucceeded. 
Not that. his criticifms are all of them 
original; on the contrary, he is confi- 
derably indebtéd to many examiners, who 
have preceded him: it would, however, 
be unjuft-not to fay that moft of his ori- 
ginal remarks dif{play much philofophical 
ability. 
Mr. Henry STrutzer has publithed 
a tranflation of the “ Elements of Che-. 
miftry, by J. F. Jacquin, of Vienna.” . 
This work is already well known to the’ 
chemical world. We have to regret that — 
the tranflator, who in other refpeéts has 
performed his work ably and well, fhould 
not have enriched his tranflation with the 
many. improvements which have been 
made in chemiftry fince tae publication 
of the original work. ¥ 
The firft part of “« The Philofophical 
Tranfactions of the Royal Society for 
1799, has made its appearance. It is 
impoffible for us to give even a curfory 
account of its contents; fuffice it to fay, 
that 
