son whom they employ to prepare the astronomical part, not wishing to give himself the additional trouble of applying the equation of time to the conclusions of his calculations, the wished for alteration cannot be expected. In ascertaining the sun's rising and setting, the calculator enters the table of semi-diurnal arcs with the latitude of the place, and sun's declination, by which he finds at one view the apparent time of its setting, which being subtracted from 12, leaves the apparent time of ri sing, without any further application; but were he to reduce them to true time, his labour would be considerably in creased without receiving any recompence for his additional trouble. I should think not only the sun's rising and setting, but every other article in our common almanacks, relative to time, should be given in true time. And I would also recommend the discarding of the moon's signs, and substituting in their places the true or clock time, of the sun's passing the meridian. In my letter on the solar eclipse of 1820, in your Magazine for January 1813, page 4, there is an oversight in the latitude and longitude of the place where the sun will be centrally eclipsed on the meridian. Instead of the num bers there printed, read central latitude 75°, 33', 25", 8 N. or apparent spheroidical latitude 75, 38, 57'5 N. and lon gitude 17°, 2′, 0" W. The error in the latitude arose from an inaccuracy in the concluding part of the calculation, and that in the longitude in the copying. As Jupiter is now, and will be for a considerable time, a striking object in the Heavens, I could wish those of your correspondents who are in possession of good telescopes, to pay some attention in observing the transits of the satellites and their shadows over his disc, whilst near the opposition, as some striking appearances may probably be discovered on this planet, if attentively observed about that time. p. m. On September 4, 1808, at about 10 on directing Dollond's two feet and a half achromatic telescope, with a power of 80 to this planet, I immedi ately perceived a round and well defined black spot, a little to the south of the centre of its disc. There were only three of the satellites visible at the time, the fourth to the east, and the first and second to the west of the planet. watched the progress of this spot to the planet's south-west limb, which happened about 38m. after 11 p. m. when I the satellite was leaving the disc of, exactly at the point where the spot disappeared. An astronomical friend informed me in a letter, some time after, that he had remarked the like appearance a few nights before, but I do not now recollect the day, nor the position of the sa tellites at the time he noticed this phe nomenon. I have frequently observed at the time the different satellites have been in inferior ♂ with him, and also when they have been in such a position as to cast their shadows upon his disc, yet I never remember to have seen the above appearance before. Query: was this the shadow or the body of the satellite that appeared so dark and well defined? If the former, how could the spot appear larger than the satellite itself, which was the case? Nor could it be the body of the satellite, for its illuminated disc was turned towards the earth. T. SQUIRE. Epping, Feb. 10, 1814. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. I SIR, HAVE observed with much pleasure in your most valuable Magazine of the last month, the translation of one of our most venerable historians-William of Malmsbury. I trust, Sir, the example will be followed by others, viz. Bede the Venerable, the father of our historiaps-the Saxon Chronicle-Ingulphus the Decem Scriptores-Mathew Paris -Floregius. It is much to be wished, for they are seldom or ever to be seen, except in scraps of Latin, that rather insult and perplex, than edify and illustrate. I sincerely hope that the rev. gentleman, who has been so kind to his countrymen as to open to the generality of the nation, the early history of his country, will be most amply rewarded for his la bour; and that it may be a stimulus to some of his brother clergymen, who, instead of loitering away their time in idleness, may apply the education they have received at our universities for the benefit of their country. It is, Sir, with great pleasure that I subscribe myself, with every sentiment of respect to the editor of the Monthly Maga zine, because I feel myself, and the coun try at large, indebted to him for the introduction of many of its most valuable improvements, not only in architecture, but in mechanics, &c. G. SONANDER. Newcastle upon Tyne, February 1, 1814. To 1814.] Mr. B. H. Smart on Shall and Will. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SIR, HE great difficulty which foreigners Tandren find in making, a just application of our auxiliary verbs shall and will, has induced a well-meaning person to write a whole treatise of fifty pages on the subject. It contains a great variety of sentences, by way of example, collected, with laudable industry, from different authors, and will so far, no doubt, be materially useful toward the intended purpose; but I cannot yield the same suffrage to the matter accompany ing the examples; for if this part of our language really cannot be taught by fewer than five and thirty rules, all chance of learning it by rule must, I think, be given up. Much accustomed as I am to the tuition of those classes of learners, not only in the pronunciation, but in the grammar and idioms of our language, I have been used to think it possible to remove the difficulty by tracing its origin; and submit the following explanation in place of the thirty-five rules alluded to. The verb WILL is derived from the Anglo-Saxon pillan or pyllan, velle, vouloir; nor has it changed its original meaning, but on most occasions still sig nifies the exertion of the mental faculty, substantively called the will, as, "I will go," that is, I have the will to go, je veux aller; "thou wilt go, though I request thee not,” tu veux aller; "he will go, though I request him not," il veut aller; and so in the plural number. The verb SHALL, on the other hand, is derived from the Anglo-Saxon rcealan, debere, necesse habere, devoir; from which signification the transition to that of mere futurity is extremely easy; as in French, je dois aller, is often synonymous with j'irai, 1 shall go; and shall is therefore the proper sign of simple futurity. Grammarians and lexicographers, with Dr. Johnson in the number, seem to me to have erred in attributing several significations to the latter of these auxiliaries. Shall, they tell us, besides being a mark of futurity, sometimes expresses a command, sometimes a threat, sometimes a promise, &c. and the author of the treatise asserts, that it is sometimes a future with power, and sometimes without, But in my opinion the import of this word is always the same. It is true its effect is different, according to the con text with which it is associated; but this ought carefully to be distinguished from any supposed alteration in the meaning of the word itself; for I think I shall be able to prove that it is only by observing how, in various sentences, this sameness of import will have a different effect, that we can come at the reason of the puzzling, and apparently arbitrary, interchanges of the two words in question. It may be useful previously to remark, that a difference of emphasis does not necessarily make a difference in the sense of either of these verbs; for whether I say, "I'll go and see him," or, "I WILL go and see him," with much stress in the last instance ou will, I alike express an exercise of volition; and all the difference is, that in the former I express it without, and in the latter with, emphasis. So also in pronouncing the phrase, "You shall go and see him;" and, "You SHALL go and see him," with emphasis on shall in the latter; I express in both my deter mination with respect to an action to be performed by the person addressed, and the only difference is, that I express it in different degrees. I have observed that will expresses an exertion of the mental faculty, and that the proper sign of simple futurity is there fore shall. For to speak of a thing merely as future is to speak of it as taking place in the course of natural or ordinary events, and not as the consequence of the will of an immediate agent. Hence the phrase, I shall go, is a simple future for the speaker, by avoiding will and using shall, neglects to signify that his own will is concerned, and no other party is mentioned, or necessarily understood, to whom the will can be referred. But (let it be well remarked,) if another party be introduced or understood, and the speaker neglect to signify that his own will is concerned, we shall be ready to attribute what is to happen to the will of that other party; and this is the reason that the phrase, he says that I shall €o, is very readily, though not necessarily, interpreted, it is his will that I shull go. Thus does the word shall, without any change in its own signification, produce a different effect, according to the nature of the sentence in which it occurs; for if the context be such that we cannot at tribute that will to another which is neg lected to be signified of the person of the verb, then is the idea of simple futurity conveyed; but if we can and do attribute that will to another, then the sense is no longer a simple future. This the author of the treatise imperfectly explains by saying, as already remarked, that shall is sometimes a future without power, and sometimes with it. Let the reasoning here offered be tried on two of his own examples: "It is proposed that we shall 2 GA bo be repaid:" "It is reported that we shall be repaid:" the introductory phrase in the former of these sentences alludes to the persons by whose will we shall be repaid, but the introductory phrase in the latter alludes only to persons in general, and this sufficiently explains why the latter alone conveys simple futurity, without supposing any change in the import of the word shall. But while I assert there is never any change in the meaning of this word, I do not say the same of the other auxiliary: I allow, on the contrary, that the verb will frequently drops its proper sense, and stands in lieu of shall, as the sign of simple event. The reason of this I am enabled to shew from what has been already advanced. For compare the following sentences with some lately given :-You say that you shall go: he affirms that he shall go: they deny that they shall go:here it is evident that throughout each sentence only one party is alluded to, and therefore, in using shall, nothing more than simple futurity is conveyed. But change the sentences thus: I say that you shall go; you affirm that he shall go; he declares that they shall go;-here, as the party speaking, affirming, or decla. ring, and the person of the verb, are no longer the same, so the negative import of shall causes that to be attributed to the other party, which it seems to deny of its immediate subject; and the sentences may be interpreted,--It is my will that you shall go; you affirm it is your will that he, &c. Now the second and third persons of a tense always originate from a party distinct from the person of the verb, (except, as in the examples preceding the last, where an express quotation testifies the contrary,) and therefore in the declarative form of these persons the will, if neglected to be signified of the person of the verb, is alwaps liable to be attributed, if to no one else, at least to the speaker. Any correct English ear will feel the truth of this remark by attending to the import of the following phrases: Thou shalt go, he shall go; you shall go, they shall go. It is in order to avoid this interpretation that will has been employed to denote simple futurity in these cases; the ambiguity which might arise from thus creating a double meaning to this word, being found of less consequence than the ambiguity that would have attended the use of the other. The declarative form of our English simple future tense is therefore as follows: 1st person, I shall know. 2d, thou wilt know. 3d, he will know. 1st plural, we shall know. 2d, you will know. 3d, they will know. This use of will in the second or third person is always to be adopted, where different parties are expressly specified, even though the reason observable in most instances does not happen to obtain. We say for example, "I think that he will know;" "he imagines that you will know" though if shall had been used we could hardly, from the sense of the introductory phrases, have interpreted wrongly. For on this, as on other occasions, a rule or general custom, founded on a reason drawn from the greater number of instances, will equally affect other instances where the grammatical construc tion is similar, though the reason be not equally strong. But there are certain forms of sentences expressly contrived to convey a contingent future sense; such, for instance, as are introduced by the words, if, unless, till, except, when, whoever, whichever; in which, as there is no danger of imputing the will to an extrinsic party, the auxiliary shall retains its office. It may be observed too, that in sentences of this kind the idea of futurity is, according to our English idiom, more familiarly, if not better, expressed by the present tense. Examples: "If he (shall) come:" "unless you (shall) be there:" "till they (shall) repent:" "when he shall know, or knows;" "whoever shall speak, or speaks, first;" "let him that shall come, or comes, first, be received best." We also employ shall in the interrogative form of the second person, as, "Shall you know to-morrow?" because the partyquestioned, and the person of the verb, are one and the same. But this reason does not hold in the third person, and therefore the same sign must be used as in the declarative form: "Will he know to-morrow?" I am aware that many instances may be found in poetical and ancient prose composition, where shall, without any of the reasons alledged, is retained in the second and third persons; but as such use of shall would be improper in the prose composition of the present day, I think it needless to give examples; or if I did so it would only be to prove my as sertion, that shall, and not will, is naturally the proper mark of simple futurity. The author of the treatise justly remarks, that in some cases it is indifferent to use either shall or will. For to speak of an event simply as future very often regards only the mode of expression, and it may be evident that an act of volition does take place, although the speaker 1814.] List of Books for the does not choose to signify it. I shall go and see him, and I'll go and see him, may therefore be equivalent. Towards the end of the treatise he gives an instance from Blair,-" What part will you then wish to have acted?" And a similar one from Junius, of a wrong application of will. What has been said will show why it is wrong; for as simple futurity is intended to be signified, and there is no party expressed or implied. to whom the will can be referred, shall ought to have been used. As the rules on this subject, in every grammatical treatise that I have seen, are calculated to revolt learners, by appearing so arbitrary and contradictory, I hope this attempt to furnish reasons for them will not be unacceptable. B. H. SMART. 41, Lamb's Conduit-street, March 8th. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine, SIR, IN compliance with the request of your Birmingham correspondent, I here. with send you a list of books suitable for the servants' hall; I am glad that he has made such a request, for it shews the anxiety he has for the welfare of his domestics, and I doubt not but he will find religious characters to be the best servants. May your numerous readers put his benevolent design into practice, and promote piety in their families! If any of the ser vants cannot read, it would be necessary for one occasionally to read aloud for the instruction of the whole, and particularly on Sunday evenings, taking care to select those parts of Scripture which they have that day heard read, or preached from; by this means their attention will be ex. cited to the duties of the day, and prevent the sabbath evening from being closed with unprofitable conversation. By giving this a place in your valua- The Bible and Prayer Book.. your servant. Crossman's Introduction to the Christian Religion. Barrow's Young Christian's Library. Christianity. Gisborne's Sermons on Morality. To the above might be added for an hospital library, Orton's Discourses to the Aged. Stonehouse's Sick Man's Friend. SIR, NONFORMABLY to CON To the Editor of the Monthly Magaziną, the ancient usage of the Catholic church of Ireland, in the event of a vacancy on the episcopal bench, three names were transmitted by the surviving bishops to the see of Rome, from which one was invariably selected as successor to the deceased prelate; but the nominators being confessedly loyal, the nominees would doubtless be loyal also, and under such circumstances what could the power of the Pope avail, supposing him to act under a foreign and hostile controul? Or how can "the tranquillity of the coun try," be endangered? If disloyal names have never in times past been transmitted to Rome, if the see of Rome has never in the most critical junctures attempted to impose disloyal prelates on the Irish Catholic church, why should a species of security now be demanded thus novel and invidious? Why erect on the altar of friendship this standard of contention ? Has the loyalty of the Irish Catholic prelacy remained unimpeached during the long reign of intolerance, bigotry, and oppression; and does the danger of disloyalty commence with that of equity and beneficence? Can there exist a more chimerical apprehension? Why then conjure up in obscure vision this phantom of terror? It has been assumed, that the consci ences of the Catholics cannot be violated by the Veto, for that the schismatical sovereign of Russia, and the heretical monarch of Prussia, have always been consulted in the choice of Catholic prelates, in their respective dominions; and and that the King of England himself lation to Ireland, has long been merely enjoys the same privilege in Canada. formal. The appointing to the vacant But what wise statesman will regulate sees, is virtually in the hands of the prehis conduct by such remote analogies? lacy. And should any attempt be made Are not the Catholics of Ireland as com- to convert the sanction of the Holy See petent judges of their own religious prin- to a political purpose, the long tried loyciples, and of the obligations resulting alty of the Irish Catholic hierarchy from them, as those of any other nation? might surely be relied upon, in such posEven admitting the Catholics of Russia, sible emergency, to suggest the remedy: Prussia, or Canada, to have adopted, and only in case of negligence, far too from the hard necessity of the case, an improbable as well as culpable to be prehumiliating expedient adverse to, or at supposed, could the interference of gobest difficult to reconcile to the genuine vernment become expedient or necesconstitutions of the Roman church, is sary. The Catholic Prelates of Ireland, it reasonable to expect, is it politic to for the purpose of obviating this crude require, the Catholics of Ireland, who and impracticable project, came to a compose a vast majority of the popu- solemn resolution, February 26, 1810, lation, to acquiesce in the same indig- that the idea of making the elections of nity; and now for the first time, in the bishops entirely national, by confining lapse of ages, to incorporate it into their the said elections to chapters alone, or religious system? Can they, ought they, to chapters and metropolitans, is not to submit to this degradation? within their competence; and though it had been free of the guilt of schism, would, in the present circumstances of the Irish Catholics, subject the Catholie religion to the most serious disadvantages. . If, however, we advert to facts, we shall find that in the several cases of Russia, Prussia, and Canada, no such authority as that of the Veto is assumed; and whatever interference of a spiritual nature may appear to take place on the part of the temporal power, is regarded by the Catholic church as of no intrinsic validity; but from motives of political urgency, the see of Rome invariably confirms the previous arrangements. The regular faculties and instruments of institution, connected with the discipline of the Roman church, were obtained from Rome by authorized agents resident in Italy, on the part of the governments of Russia and Prussia. And in respect to Canada, a recently conquered province, though the nomination of the bishop of Quebec, and his co-adjutor, is doubtless to every political purpose vested in the crown, the measures consequent on such nomination have, by the liberal policy of the English government, been referred to the papal see, which thus yielding the substance, retains the shadow of its ancient prerogatives.* Some respectable persons have proposed the domestic appointment of the Irish Catholic prelates, without any intervention either of the papal or regal power, as a succedaneum for the Veto. But this is only adding perplexity to perplexity. The principles of the Roman Catholic religion require in some mode the intervention of the papal, as positively as they prohibit that of the regal, authority. But this intervention, in re * Vide the excellent speech of Sir J. C. Hippisley, May 18, 1810. No friend of the Catholic cause can, without regret, differ from such illustrious advocates of it as Lord Grenville, Mr. Grattan, and Mr. Ponsonby. It is consoling, however, to reflect, that in the celebrated speech of Mr. Fox, in the session of 1805, when the Catholic petition first came under parliamentary discussion, there is not the least trace of his deeming any such condition as that of the Veto, desirable or proper; and much less of his conceiving that cobweb security to be an indispensable requisite of Catholic emancipation. On the contrary, he treated the influence of the Pope as an instrument in the hands of our then potent enemy, with marked contempt. "All danger from the Pretender," said that great statesman, having vanished, another phantom has been conjured up, and we are threatened with the influence of the Pope. We are told, that the ruler of France has the Pope at his devotion, the Pope go verns the Catholic priests, and the priests the people. But if you grant the Ca tholic claims, if you admit them to an equal participation of the privileges of the constitution, how is the influence of the Pope to be exerted? Is it possible for the most credulous person in this case to believe, that the Pope would be able, if contrary to all probability willing, to make proselytes to Bonaparte? Upon what principle or theory is it maintained, that men may not act together in their |