“C’est fort mal a-propos, qu’on a soutenu que cette repartition inegale ne sauroit exister, sous pretexte que le globe perdroit son equilibre, faute d’un contrepoids suffisant au pole meridionale.  Il est vrai qu’un pied cube d’eau salee ne pese pas autant qu’un pied cube de terre; mais on auroit du reflechir, qu’il peut y avoir sous l’ocean des lits & des couches de matieres, dont la pesanteur specifique varie a l’infini, & que le peu de profondeur d’une mer, versee sur une grande surface, contrebalance les endroits ou il y a moins de mer, mais ou elle est plus profonde.”—­Recherches Philosophiques, tom. ii, p. 375.—­D.

We offered some observations on this topic in the preceding volume, and need scarcely resume it, as it cannot be imagined that any of our readers still entertain the belief of the necessity for such an equilibrium.  The object in again alluding to it, is to call attention to some observations of another kind, which Mr Jones has hazarded in one of his Physiological Disquisitions.  According to him, no such thing as a southern counterpoise ought to have been expected, for it seems to be the constitution of our globe, that land and water are contrasted to each other on its opposite sides.  “If,” says he, “you bring the meridian of the Cape of Good Hope under the brazen circle, or universal meridian of a terrestrial globe, observing that this meridian passes through the heart of the continents of Europe and Africa, you will find that the opposite part of the meridian passes through the middle of the great, south sea.  When the middle of the northern continent of America, about the meridian of Mexico, is examined in the same way, the opposite part passes very exactly through the middle of the Indian ocean.  The southern continent of America is opposed by that eastern sea which contains the East India islands.  The southern continent of New Holland is opposite to the Atlantic ocean.  This alternation, if I may so call it, between the land and sea, is too regular to have been casual; and if the face of the earth was so laid out by design, it was for some good reason.  But what that reason may be, it will be difficult to shew.  Perhaps this disposition may be of service to keep up a proper balance; or, it may assist toward the diurnal rotation of the earth, the free motions of the tides, &c.; or the water on one side may give a freer passage to the rays of the sun, and being convex and transparent, may concentrate, or at least condense, the solar rays internally, for some benefit to the land that lies on the other side.”—­This sort of reasoning, from our ignorance, is no doubt liable to objection, and Mr Jones had good sense and candour enough to admit, that the questions were too abstruse for him to determine.  The proper part, indeed, for man to act; is to investigate what Nature has done, not to dogmatize as to the reasons for her conduct—­to ascertain facts, not to substitute conjectures in place of them.  But it is allowable for us, when we have done our best in collecting and examining phenomena, to arrange them together according to any plausible theory which our judgments can suggest.  Still, however, we ought to remember, that the most obviously imperative dictates of our reasoning faculties are only inferences from present appearances, and determine nothing as to the necessity of existing things.—­E.]