Page:Madras Journal of Literature and Science, series 1, volume 6 (1837).djvu/252

230 ing in their nature and most obscure in their laws, in a manner that shall not only give greater precision to the observations, but at the same time render all the results strictly comparative.

There are, however, other grounds on which such a proposition as that made by M. de Humboldt should be most cordially received by the Royal Society. This society is here called upon, as a member of a great confederation, to co-operate with several other members, already in active co-operation, for the attainment of an object which ought to be common to all; and to such a call the Royal Society can never be deaf. Those who know best what has been done by co-operation on a well-digested system, and what remains undone in many departments of science for the want of it, can best appreciate the benefits that would accrue to science by the adoption of the extensive plan of co-operation, advocated by M. de Humboldt. Independently of our acquiring a knowledge of the laws which govern the phenomena here proposed to be observed, we ought to look to the effect which the adoption of such a plan may have on other branches of science. The example being thus once set of extensive co-operation in a single department of science, we may anticipate that it would be eagerly adopted in others, where, although our knowledge may be in a much more advanced state than it is regarding the phenomena of terrestrial magnetism, still much remains to be accomplished, which can scarcely be effected by any other means. We might thus hope to see the united efforts of all the scientific societies in Europe directed to the prosecution of inquiry, in each department of science, according to the plan of co-operation best adapted for its development.

We must now, after these remarks on the general bearing of M. de Humboldt's communication, go somewhat into detail on points connected with it. One point of view in which we consider the proposed plan of great importance, and to which M. de Humboldt has not expressly referred, is this: — However defective ordinary dipping instruments may be considered to be, there are few persons who have had opportunities either of making observations with the ordinary instruments for determining the variation of the needle, or of comparing those made by others by the usual methods with such instruments, who will not admit that these instruments and methods are fully as defective — possibly much more so. Thus, however we may multiply the points on the earth's surface at which such observations may be made, still great uncertainty must always rest upon such determinations of these two important elements; and in all comparisons of such observations with laws, whether empirical or deduced from theory, it will ever be doubtful whether the discordances which may be found are due to errors of observation, or are indicative of the fallacy of these laws. This source of uncertainty must, in a great measure, if not wholly, be