est hint of his obligation to any of the great men who flourished in that busy age of philosophy.-It may be proper to observe, in this place, that the celebrated Dr. Hooke first conceived the idea of a reflecting instrument for taking angles; and even made one with a single reflection; which, of course, did not answer the purpose. Hooke's Posthumous Works, p. 503. Newton considered Hooke's design; and accomplished it by means of two reflections. But, as has been said before, Newton did not construct an instrument of this kind; and the invention remained unknown till Hadley revived it in 1731.

We shall now examine and compare the data upon which the respective claims of Hadley and Godfrey are founded; and endeavour to ascertain the person to whom the priority of invention is due.-Mr. James Logan's letter to Dr. Halley concerning Godfrey's 'Improvement of Davis's Quadrant transferred to the Mariner's Board', is dated at Philadelphia, May 25, 1732; as appears from Miller's Retrospect of the 18th Century, Vol. I, p. 469; and the Phil. Trans. Vol. 38, anno 1734, p. 441. Mr. Godfrey's letter to the Royal Society concerning his 'Improvement of Davis's Quadrant,' is dated at Philadelphia, Nov. 9, 1734. Mr. Logan states, that Godfrey's letter was written in 1732,-but was not sent to the Royal Society till the close of the year 1734: when it was published in their Transactions for that year, Vol. 38. He says, further that, in the year 1730, Godfrey constructed a reflecting instrument by speculums,' for finding longitude; and that either this or another instrument was taken to sea in the winter of 1730, and was brought back to Philadelphia before the end of February 1731.' Miller's Retrospect, vol. I, p. 479. The preceding facts appear to exhibit all the evidence upon which Godfrey can found any claim to the invention of the Reflecting Quadrant. Godfrey and Logan describe the construction of the instrument,--but they do not demonstrate any thing respecting the principles of its mechanism.

Mr. Hadley's claim to the invention of the reflecting quadrant is founded upon the following facts:--In the Phil. Trans. No. 420, May 13, 1731, we find a paper entitled, 'The Description of a new Reflecting Instrument for taking Angles at Sea. By John Hadley, Esqr., Vice President of the Royal Society. See also the Abridgment of the Phil. Trans. by Hutton and others, Vol. 7, p. 486; and Smith's Optics, vol. II, p. 368. This paper contains at large, the description and use of the instrument, with the demonstration of the optical and geometrical principles of its mechanism. The paper was accompanied by the instrument made of wood.

The foregoing statement of facts brings so near together the times of the invention of the two instruments, in Europe and America, that we cannot suppose, as our writers allege, that the instruments are the same, and that one was, consequently, taken from the other. We must conclude, that both Godfrey and Hadley were original inventors of the Reflecting Quadrant, (if the instruments are similar); and that neither had heard of the invention of the other; although, as the account of Hadley's Quadrant was published a long time before the publication of that of Godfrey,-the priority of invention appears to be clearly due to the former.--We are farther confirmed in the belief, that the honour of the invention is due to Godfrey and Hadley independently,--from the two following circumstances:-In consequence of the strictures of some American authors upon Hadley's integrity, the writer of this paper was induced to address a note to the late Dr. David Rittenhouse of Philadelphia, about the end of November or the beginning of December 1794, desiring to know whether he possessed any particular information respecting the invention of the instrument under consideration. The doctor replied, in writing, that he knew Mr. Godfrey and his Quadrant, and had no doubt that both Godfrey and Hadley were original inventors (an event which had often happened upon other occasions); that both instruments depended upon the same principles; and that Hadley's was more convenient in practice.' Dr. Rittenhouse did not intimate that Godfrey ever accused Hadley of plagiarism; which he would probably have done if he had believed him to have been guilty of such ungenerous conduct.-It appears from the Life of Mr. Benjamin West, by Mr. Galt,--that Mr. Godfrey was one of West's early associates. Hence it is reasonable to suppose that Mr. West knew all the circumstances of Godfrey's invention of the reflecting quadrant, and that if Godfrey had entertained any suspicion of plagiarism on the part of Hadley, he would have expressed it to his friend and associate. But no intimation of this kind occurs in Galt's book which is compiled from materials furnished by Mr. West himself.

Godfrey and Logan do not appear to have known that a full and complete account of the construction, uses and rationale of Hadley's quadrant had been published in the Phil. Trans. (1731), for they do not refer to that volume in their letters to Dr. Halley, in 1732 and 1734.

John Werner, a native of Nuremberg in Germany, who flourished about the beginning of the 16th century, first proposed the method of finding the longitude at sea by observing the distance of the moon from some of the principal fixed stars. It is a remarkable circumstance, that this method of finding the

longitude, which is now so successfully practised by navigators, was not attempted for about 230 years after it was known, for want of a proper instrument (such as Hadley's quadrant) by which observations of the moon's distance from the fixed stars could be made with sufficient accuracy. Lalande's History of Astronomy, Edit. of 1764, p. 120.

In a letter dated at Philadelphia, June 28, 1734, Mr. Logan states that he had transmitted an account of Godfrey's quadrant to Dr. Halley in May 1732, and wonders that Halley had never acknowledged the receipt of his communication. Retrospect, p. 479. No doubt, there was at the time, some sufficient reason, for not acknowledging the receipt of Logan's account of the instrument which cannot now be explained. One reason might have been, that Logan's paper was not accepted by the Royal Society, because Hadley's account of his invention of the same instrument had been already published in the Phil. Trans. for 1731;-a conjecture which derives some weight from the fact that the account already published was more complete and satisfactory than the second. But whatever the cause might be, Mr. E. Hazard's conjecture, that justice had not been done to the original inventor' seems to be groundless; for the Royal Society, as a body, could have no interest in the admission or rejection of a paper; and their donation of 2001. sterling to Godfrey, for the purpose of relieving his necessities, precludes the suspicion that they were not inclined to act fairly toward him. Retrospect, p. 480. It appears that Mr. Hazard did not know, though many years had elapsed, that Hadley's account of his quadrant was communicated to the Royal Society in May 1731, and published in the Phil. Trans. for the same year; otherwise his censure of the conduct of the society in the case of Godfrey would be preposterous.

ART. III.-A Review of the Systems of elementary Education in the United States: with a brief Account of the American Colleges.

CONG

ONGRESS have been twice invited by Mr. Madison to deliberate upon the propriety of establishing a national seminary of learning;-and as such an establishment is somewhat likely to take place, it seems to be a fit occasion of reviewing cursorily the institutions of the same sort which are already founded in the United States. Without any further introduction, therefore, we shall first give a sketch of the systems adopted in the different states for the promotion of common school learning,--and then go on to detail as concisely as we can the history and present state of the American colleges. For some of the facts which we shall have occasion to state,

we are indebted to well known authors: but there are others again which, we think, have never before been published,—and for which we hold ourselves personally responsible.

Every one has heard of the enlightened system of common school education, which has been uniformly pursued by the inhabitants of New England. Every state is cantoned out into districts, embracing a sufficient population to supply a school; in each of which a committee is appointed to investigate the qualifications of the teachers,-to attend the periodical examinations of the pupils,---and to manage the funds and general concerns of the institution. Wherever the population is so sparse that the children from the various parts of a full district could not be daily collected in the same house, a due proportion of the school fund is assigned to the few families who are contiguous; and if they can hire a master at the common price for three or four months, they are content, in many instances, to employ a mistress at a low rate (for about one dollar a week) during the remainder of the year. In districts composed chiefly of the affluent, an annual contribution is frequently made; which, when added to the regular appropriation of the state, enables them to procure a teacher of more than ordinary accomplishments. By these means all the small towns in the northern states are well supplied with common English schools. In Massachusetts, every township containing fifty householders is compelled by law to have a school of this sort; and as the same system obtains, with some immaterial modifications, throughout the whole sisterhood (as our countrymen would have us say), our readers must hear for perhaps the five hundredth time,---that there is scarcely an adult individual in all New England who cannot read, and write, and keep accounts. All these operations must be performed almost every day of their lives; and, among the other sources of independence, we may even enumerate this, that they are not under the continual necessity of running to others for what reading and writing and cyphering they may wish to have done. By the same system, too, they acquire a thirst after knowledge (we do not allude particularly to their importunity in questioning strangers); and in almost every considerable neighbourhood there are circulating libraries of useful books, which have been purchased conjointly by the inhabitants. But, what is perhaps of more consequence than all the rest, the sober habits of industry which some children acquire by a spirit of rivalry, and which others have beat into them by a twig of beech, give them an early determination to labour, which never after forsakes them. And when we add to all these causes the absolute necessity of working, or of starving, we shall not be at a loss to account for the

intelligence and enterprise for which they are so deservedly celebrated.

We cannot say so much for the state of New York. Before the Revolution nothing of consequence had been done for the promotion of common school learning:-private munificence did all that was done; and since that period, though the different legislatures have been sufficiently liberal in their appropriations, their occasional and irregular efforts have not yet been able to get the thing a going in any systematic and effective way. Some time elapsed, after the restoration of peace, before the government adopted any measures at all for the formation of a school-fund; and then, as soon as the amount of supplies had become considerable, they were all appropriated to the support of Columbia and Union colleges. Not long afterwards, however, (we are sorry it is not in our power to give precise dates,) the original plan was again taken up. Unsettled lands were set apart for the establishment of the requisite funds; and it was enacted, that as soon as the appropriations yielded $100,000 per annum, the state should be divided into districts, which, when furnished with a house of prescribed dimensions, should receive enough of the revenue to support a teacher. The results of this system are already beginning to be developed; but they never can be fully and extensively unfolded, till the population of the state has become more compact, settled, and uniform.

The miscellaneous nature of the original population both of New York and of New Jersey, was utterly incompatible with that harmonious co-operation by which alone a uniform system of any kind can be established. In both, accordingly, each different sort of people had its own way of education; and, though the former has been so far weaned from its early disagreement on the subject, as to see the necessity of binding the different systems into one by the tie of legislative enactment, the latter still feels the effects of her original prejudices, and has taken no steps towards establishing any uniform plan of instruction. The legislature has done nothing at all; and the little that can be done by the counties and villages will never enable them to procure even ordinary instructors. The consequence is, that perhaps in few states of the Union, are the great mass of the people so misinformed, or so destitute of any information whatever.

The general observation which we made concerning New York and New Jersey is applicable, with still greater force, to the state of Pennsylvania. Its original founder had the best of all opportunities to establish funds for the promotion of common learning; but it was not to be expected that a person who