4i6 Reply to Sir David Brewster's " Observations 



of Ihb Philosophical Magazine, while the "riiretitldtt'bf.gfcp 



eritiflc men is directed to this subj^dttiAdtUial pi-ddfe' t*AW' 



alone test their efficacy. ' '-'' ' ■ • ■ ■•■■ ■ ul; / > 



I remain, d^ar Sir, yours truly, "^ 



W. R. Grovi^P 



LXXII. Repli/ to Sir David Brewster's " Observations oil tfik^ 

 Discovery of the CompositiOii djf W^h/^H;'*,'jBt/ A British 

 Quarterly Reviewer. <!.!.,,, i < ' 



Jo Richard Taylor, Esq. 

 Sir, 

 ^TTILL you allow us space enough in your excellent Jour- 

 ^^ nal to reply to a strongly-worded complaint by Sir 

 David Brewster, which appeared in your Number for Sep- 

 tember last, against a passage concerning himself in the British 

 Quarterly Review for August 1845? The passage offensive 

 to Sir David is quoted below. It occurs in a brief discussion 

 of the relative merits of Watt and Cavendish as discoverers of 

 the composition of water, in an article on "Lord Brougham's 

 Lives of Men of Letters and Science who flourished in the 

 reign of George in." ^ 4 



" Sir David Brewster afterwards tobk 'up the subject (Edin*'^ 

 burgh Review, No. 142), and endeavoured to mediate between 

 the contending parties, but to little purpose. For he chose 

 to consider it a question of national honour, involving the rival 

 claims of Cavendish the Englishman and Watt the Scotch- 

 man; and whilst he was willing to divide the merit between^ 

 them, assigned to his countryman the lion's share." - UiiB 



Sir David declares, in reference to the paragraph we haV«P 

 quoted, that it contains "very unfounded and unjust asser-* 

 tions;" that our object was to injure his character and wound 

 his feelings ; that it manifestly was " the reviewer's desire to 

 infuse into his statements a bitter personality;" and he further 

 speaks of our having occasioned him " the annoyance of re- 

 butting the calumnies of the British Quarterly reviewer." 



The special charges which Sii' David Brewster brings 

 agairist us we shall allude to immediately. In reference to 

 the general one, of our remarks having been pervaded by an 

 animus against him, we beg to assure Sir David that we had 

 not, in the passage he complains of, the remotest intention of 

 injuring his character or wounding his feelings: that we were 

 actuated by no animosity tosVards him, and were guiltless of 

 the slightest desire to vex or annoy him by aspersion, calumny, 

 or insinuation. Sir David Brewster we know only as the 



