270 Mr. Rigaud on Harriot's Papers. 



quested to make a report on those papers which were connected 

 with abstract mathematics ; and the astronomical part was put, 

 for the same purpose, into the hands of the late Mr. Powell, 

 of Balliol. This took place in July 1794. I mention the 

 specific dates to show that I am not writing from vague tra- 

 ditionary accounts, but from precise documents which are still 

 in existence. In the following October, Dr. Robertson reported 

 that what had been submitted to him was not calculated for 

 publication ; and here the matter rested for some time. Mr. 

 Powell had been prevented from attending to the business, and 

 the delegates, therefore, at length referred his part of the papers 

 also to Dr. Robertson. His opinion, which he gave with the 

 reasons for it in 1798, was in this case likewise against the 

 publication ; and in the following year the whole was restored 

 to the Earl of Egremont. 



In spite of the fear of being tedious, I have thought it right 

 to enter into all these particulars, because they prove that no 

 blame, in the slightest degree, attaches to the university. None, 

 indeed, could have been brought forward if these facts had 

 been generally understood. But unfortunately they were not. 

 Dr. Hutton inserted Zach's account of the papers in his Dic- 

 tionary (Art. Harriot), and, without sufficient inquiry, added, 

 6 It is with pleasure I can announce that they (Harriot's 

 papers) are in a fair train to be published j they have been 

 presented to the University of Oxford, on condition of their 

 printing them ; with a view to which they have been lately put 

 into the hands of an ingenious member of that learned body 

 to arrange and prepare them for the press.' The first edition 

 of the Dictionary was printed in 1796, and some allowance 

 might then be made for misapprehension ; but Dr. Hutton was 

 the old personal friend of Dr. Robertson, and might have ob- 

 tained any information that he desired from him on the sub- 

 ject ; some correction ought, therefore, to have been introduced 

 in the second edition of 1815. Zach's erroneous statement, 

 however, was reprinted in that and many other books both 

 here and abroad : in some cases the substance of Dr. Hutton's 

 inaccurate addition was annexed, and the story was repeated 

 till the whole of it was received as authentic. In this manner 

 obloquy has been brought upon Oxford, because Zach had 



