870 D^s Reply to C.'s Observations, [May, 



an attempt mathematically to refute Mr. H/s propositions, or to 

 show that his reasoning is erroneous or illogical ; for though Mr. 

 Herapath has dealt so largely in numerical facts, has developed 

 so many laws, has compared his theory with so many experi- 

 ments, and has predicted the phsenomena of so many new and 

 imtried cases, yet C. has not ventured to question a single fact, 

 to refute a single law, to invahdate a single experiment, or to 

 disprove one solitary pheenomenon either advanced or predicted. 

 We might in truth say, the whole of C.'s attack exhibits a man 

 strugghng with a subject to which he is unequal, or with which 

 he is unacquainted ; yet who would like to say something if he 

 could ; who is clearly in possession of the Will to refute, and as 

 clearly in want of the Power. Hence we see misrepresentations- 

 for arguments, unsupported assertions for proofs, errors for facts, 

 fmd ingenious quibbling for sound reasoning. To form an 

 opinion, however of Mr. H.'s labours, and of the probabihty of 

 his having succeeded in the great objects of his inquiry, let any. 

 one who is capable of judging examine the^ioincidences of his 

 investigations with facts, collected in the Annals for Jan. 1822 ; 

 let him look at the simphcity of the principles, attributing to 

 matter only two properties, hardness and inertia ; let him after- 

 wards consider the number, extent, variety, and apparent incon- 

 gruity, of the experimental testimonies adduced ; and then let 

 him say, not whether it is probable Mr. H. has succeeded, but 

 whether it is possible he can, with such corroborations, not have 

 succeeded. On any opinion thus formed, and given by minds 

 competent to judge, and liberal enough to acknowledge convic- 

 tion, Mr. Herapath may with safety rest his credit and his fame. 



On the subject of Mr. H.'s connexion with the Royal Society, 

 into which, 1 think, C. has imprudently entered, I shall at this 

 time say nothing. If Mr. Herapath's labours stand the test, the 

 Hoyal Society will find, even among those who now support 

 them, if they have acted improperly or illiberally, enough to 

 blame and to censure them ; and if their conduct has been cor- 

 rect, or marked with liberality and encouragement, Mr. Herapath 

 himself, I presume, will not be among the last to acknow- 

 ledge it, 



1 have now only to request that if C. answer this reply, he will 

 do it candidly, and not evade or avoid the absurdities I have 

 pointed out, both in his own arguments, and in the theory for 

 which he commenced the attack. An open and honourable 

 opponent, however sharp or severe, will always insure the respect, 

 and generally the approbation, of D. 



