substantial branches of every liberal plan of education, and ought doubtless to be recollected when that active life commences, to which education can only be considered as preparatory.

It is time, however, to pay some attention to the qualities of the Preceptor with which we are furnished by Mr. Dougall. The work commences with an Introduction of 42 pages, in which are described the objects of education, the departments of knowledge which it ought to include, the relative advantages of public and private education, the modifications of practice necessary in educating males and females, &c. This disquisition is sensible, and moderately correct in point of moral sentiment. We were pleased, in particular, to find the author speaking of novels in the following terms:

Were it possible that any advice could have so much influence, we would strive to persuade our countrywomen and countrymen too, to banish from among them the modern tribe of Novelists, the propagators of false taste, false feeling, and false morality, with no less determined severity than that with which Plato excluded the poets from his ideal republic, or that with which the converts to Christianity, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, condemned their magical volumes to the flames. Unhappily, novels and plays are almost the only species of reading, in which the young people of the present age take delight; and nothing has contributed more effectually to bring on that dissipation and dissoluteness of manners, which so much prevail among all classes of the community." Vol. I. p. 27.

The first chapter, in three divisions, relates to Language. The author's remarks on the origin and nature of different languages are very meagre and superficial: several of the old, vague, conjectures respecting the invention of alphabetic characters being faithfully recorded, while the hypothesis very plausibly maintained by Gilbert Wakefield, Dr. Adam Clarke, and some others,-that they were communicated by the Divine Being to Moses at Mount Horeb-is passed over without notice. The treatise on English Grammar, however, we readily acknowledge, is one of the best we ever read; and it is with peculiar pleasure that we assign to Mr. Dougall the full measure of merit due to him on this point. It is not every one who could compose so excellent a treatise; nor is it every one, who, like Mr. Dougall, would transcribe it verbatim, with the omission of some of the notes, from Bishop Lowth's Grammar, and this without the faintest shadow of an acknowledgement!

We know not whether our author has been equally scrupulous with regard to the arithmetic and book-keeping, or whether they are bona fide of his own production. We incline towards the latter supposition; and are therefore sorry we can

not commend this part so highly as the treatise on grammar. Many of the rules of arithmetic are entirely omitted; and those which are retained are very clumsily taught. Thus, the division of 3231. 7s. 94d. by 9, which every school-boy would effect in a single line, is made by Mr. Dougall to fill a page; and most of the other arithmetical operations are performed with equal brevity. The book-keeping contains short systems according to single and double entry, succeeded by brief remarks on bills of exchange.

The introduction to Algebra is compiled, we presume, by one who knows very little of the subject; on which accouut we find the less reason to regret that it does not embrace rules for the management of algebraic fractions, or surds, or progressions, or series, or proceed higher than quadratic equations. It contains, notwithstanding, several discoveries that are highly splendid and ingenious :--such as that 6x9x3x; 4 X 4 16 +8 = 6 × 4; % = % - 9, &c. &c.; (see pp. 334, 345, &c.)-and in consideration of these valuable improvements in the doctrine of proportion, our author may be safely indulged in the hope that his instructions will be found of considerable utility.'

Under the head of Geometry, we are told that A is the square root of A, and a+m3 means the cube root of the sum of the quantities a and m.' The propositions in this treatise amount only to 41, of which rather more than half are theorems, the rest problems. Such a limited number cannot possibly comprize half that are useful.

The Trigonometry is dilated as unnaturally as the Geometry is compressed; yet the treatise is confined to plane trigonometry. The cases are divided into eight; four being appropriated to right angled triangles, and four to oblique ones. Has Mr. Dougall yet to learn, that the whole of plane trigonometry and indeed of rectilineal polygonometry, so far as it is determinable, may be comprized distinctly in three cases only? After all, notwithstanding the minuteness of his subdivision, Mr. D. takes no notice of the ambiguity in the case when two sides and an angle opposite to one of them are the given parts.

'Practical Geometry,' (by which our author means the mensuration' of heights and distances by plane trigonometry') and the mensuration of superficies and solids, we find despatched in a manner very imperfect and unsatisfactory. Some of the most useful rules and tables are omitted; as, the short rules for ellipses and for the area of a triangle when the sides are given; the compendious rules for the solidity of pyramidal frustums, the tables for the areas of regular polygons, &c. The treatise on land-surveying, is equally defective, and

equally distant from the most approved practices of modern surveyors. Some instruments of great utility are not described, or even mentioned; and nothing but the grossest operations are adverted to yet the author must treat his readers with a description of the chain employed by the late General Rov, in ascertaining the distances between the meridians of Greenwich and Paris! This description we had intended to transcribe; but on a close inspection we find it is nearly unintelligible.

Mr. Dougall's second volume commences with an introduction to Geography, occupying 212 pages; of which, on the whole, we are inclined to speak more favourably than of any thing which precedes it. If the discovery we have made relative to the English grammar had not occasioned a little scepti cism, as to the originality of any portion of the publication before us, we should say that Mr. D. seems better qualified to write on the subject of geography, than on any other he has thought proper to discuss. In this system of geography, the descriptive part, which is as usual divided into four grand por tions, is preceded by observations on the shape and dimensions of the earth, definitions of the principal lines and cir cles referred to by geographers, definitions of geographical terms, such as isthmus, peninsula, &c., remarks on the na ture of tides, winds, &c., tables of the heights of mountains, and of the latitudes and longitudes of places. The table of the heights of mountains, seems, on the whole. pretty accurate. The highest mountains in England, are Whirnside, 4052 feet; Ingleborough, 3987; Pennygant, 5930; Crossfell, 3839; Skiddaw, 3380; Snowdon, 3450; Mount Battoch, 3465; Pendlehill, 3411; Helvellyn, 3324. In Scotland, the highest mountain is Ben Nevis, 4387 feet. In freland, the highest is Slieve Donard, 3150. In France, Puy de Sansy, 6300 feet. In the Pyrenees, Mont Perdu. 11000. In the Alps, Mont Blanc, 15662. In Italy, Monte Velino, 8397. In the Tyrol, Glochner, 12130. In Germany, Lomnitz, one of the Carpathian mountains, 8640. In Norway, Swukker, 9000. In Sicily, Etna, 10700. In Iceland, Hecla, 5000. In Rússia, Panda, 4512. In the Canary Islands, Peak of Teneriffe, 11424. In North America, White Mountains, 4000. In Jamaica, Blue Mountains, 7431. In South America, Chimboraço, 20608, the highest known; Cotopaxa, 18600; Tunguragar, 16170; Corazon, 15808; Pichinca, 15552.

Mr. Dougall states that the greatest depth of the sea, which has ever been measured is 5346 feet; and its mean depth has been calculated at about 13000 feet:' but he has neither noticed the remarkable and well authenticated circumstance, that the Caspian sea is.306 feet lower than the level of the surface of the main ocean; nor recorded the curious observations of Schroeter on the comparative heights of the mountains on the

earth, moon, and Venus. Instead of this, he has found that the moon which is about 39 times smaller than the earth, is oppressed with mountains more than 4000 toises high, (Caimboraço, by the way, is not much higher than 3000); and that Venus itself, the fairest of the planets, which is less than the earth by a ninth, is actually troubled with protuberances of 23000 toises!

The table of terrestrial longitudes and latitudes given in this work, is tolerably extensive; but we fear it is not very accurate. Amsterdam, for instance, is placed, by Mr. Dougall, in lat. 52° 21' 56" N., lon. 4° 50' 30" E; whereas in Dr. Maskelyne's Requisite Tables, the latitude is 52° 22′ 45′′ N., lon. 4° 45′ 30′′ E.-the difference in longitude between the two tables being 5 minutes. Thus also, Berlin in Mr. Dougall's tables is in lat. 52 31' 30" N., lon. 13° 23′ E.; in the R. T. the lat. is 52° 32' 30" N, and the lon. 13° 26/ 15" E. Cadiz, in the Modern Preceptor, lat. 36° 31′ N., lon 6° 17′ 35" W.; in R. T. lat. 36° 31'7" N. lon. 6° 11' 50" W. Eddystone Lighthouse, in Dougall, lat. 50° 10′ 55′′ N. lon. 4° 15/ 3" W.; in R. T. lat. 50° 8' N., lon. 4° 24′ W. Hague, in Dougall, lat. 52° 3' 13" N., lon. 4° 16' 25" E.; in R. T. lat. 52° 4' 10" N. lon. 4° 17' 30" E. Lizard, in Dougall, lat. 49° 57' 56" N., lon. 5° 11' 18" W. in R. T. lat. 49° 57' 30" N. lon. 5° 15 W. Assuming as we do the superior accuracy of the Requisite Tables, it will be found that the positions of the above-mentioned places, as given by Mr. Dougall, vary from 4 to 7 miles from the truth! and as these places were examined at random, we have no particular reason for supposing that the remainder of the table is more correct.

Our author has taken some pains to incorporate in their proper places, the results of the most careful estimates of the population of different countries and towns. Some of these, we doubt not, will prove interesting to many of our readers. We shall begin with England and Wales, the population of which jointly is stated at 8, 876, 980, and the acres of land on the surface at 37,909,455.

The following is a statement of some of the principal towns of England, arranged according to their population in 1800. London, $64,845 Inhabitants. Manchester, 84,000. Liverpool, 77, 653. Birmingham, 73,670.. Bristol, 63,645. Leeds, 53,162. Sheffield, 45,000, Plymouth, &c., 43,194. Norwich, 36,854. Portsmouth, &c. 32,166. Bath, 32,000. York, 30,032. Hull, 29,516. Nottingham, 28,861. Newcastle (Northd.), 28,366. Exeter, 17,398. Leicester, 16,958. Coventry, 16,034. Chester, 15,052. Dover, 14,845, Yarmouth (Norfolk), 14,845. Shrewsbury,, 14,739. Sunderland, 12,412. Oxford, 11,694. Colchester, 11,520. Worcester, 11,352, Ipswich, 11,277. Derby, 10,832, Carlisle, 10,221. Lynn, 10,096. Cambridge, 10,087. Rippon, 9,032. Lancaster, 9,030. Canterbury, 9,000. Southampton,

7,913. Salisbury, 7.668. Gloucester, 7,579. Durham, 7,530. Lincoln, 7,398. Northampton, 7,000. Hereford, 6,828. Winchester, 5,826. In the year 1700 the whole population of England and Wales was estimated at 5,512,900, and in 1750 at 6,523,000; the population of London in 1700 was 674,350, and in 1750 only 676,750; proofs, even after due allowance is made for the imperfection of former enumerations, of the great increase of the population of England and the capital.' Vol. II. pp. 55-6-7.

Since the census of 1800 was taken, the population of some of the larger towns is increased still farther: thus Manchester is now estimated to contain 90,000 inhabitants, and Liverpoolmore than 100,000. Norwich, on the contrary, has diminished; its present number of inhabitants being about 34,000, while in 1770 they exceeded 64,000.

Scotland contained 1,607,760 inhabitants at the beginning of the present century.

The following Table contains a statement of some of the principal towns in Scotland, arranged according to their population in 1801. Edinburgh, 82,560. Glasgow, 77,385. Paisley, 31,179. Dundee, 26,084. Aberdeen, 17,797. Greenock, 17,458. Perth, 14,878. Dunfermline, 9,980. Falkirk, 8,838. Inverness, 8,732. Kilmarnock, 8,079. Montrose, 7,974. Dumfries, 7,288. Campbeltown, 7,093 Hamilton, 5,908. Ayr, 5,492. Brechin, 5,466. Stirling, 5,256. Rothsay, 5,231. Alloa, 5,214. Forfar, 5,165. Aberbrothick, 4,943. Lanark, 4,692. Irvine, 4,584. Cupar (Fife) 4,463. Elgin, 4,345. St. Andrews, 4,203. Kelso, 4,196. Haddington, 4,049. Dunbar, 3,951. Jedburg, 3,834. Linlithgow, 3,594. Banff, 3,571 Kirkcaldy, 3,218. Dunse, 3,057. Kirkwall in Orkney isles, 2,621. Lerwick in Shetland isles, 1,706. The population of Scotland has been progressively increasing for many years past; thus the county of Fife already mentioned, which in 1801. possessed 93,743 inhabitants, in the year 1755, contained only 81,570, indicating an augmentation of 12, 73 persons In the same year, 1755, the inhabitants of Edinburgh were computed to be 57,195, but in 1801 they amounted to $2,560, and in this year (1808) they are estimated at upwards of 90,000. Glasgow, which in 1707, when the union took place between England and Scotland. contained only 14,000 people, "in 1791 contained 41,777; and in 1806 the inhabitants were computed to be 86,630, having more than doubled in fifteen years.' Vol II. 67-8.

• The population of Ireland has been very variously stated, some authors allowing only three millions and a half, whilst a late well-informed writer estimates the number of inhabitants in 1804, to be nearly five millions and a half. The following list contains an estimate of the population of some of the principal towns. Dublin, 170,000 Cork, 80,000. Limerick, 50,000. Waterford, 35,000. Belfast, 20,000. Kilkenny, 16,000. Dundalk, 15,000 Galway, 12,000. Wexford, 9,000. Kinsale, 8,000.' Vol. II. p. 80.

• Five-and-twenty years ago, in the best days of the royalty, Paris was reckoned to contain about 100,000 inhabitants, less than London ; but by an enumeration made in 1803, the population was found to be only 547,756.' Vol. II. p. 115.