l8o'4. Riph to the Letter of A. G. on ThraJJjing Machines. 419 



would be required. Cut pr.iy wbat has the conllrucl:ion and erec- 

 tion either ot his machine or mine to do with the history ot the 

 invention ? Machines may differ in fizc, may have long or (liort 

 cylinders, fmall or large wheels and pinions, be worked by one 

 liorfe or fix, by wind or by water, be furnifhed with the appen- 

 dages of r.ikes or (bakers, and with one or even two pair of fan- 

 ners, or with none at all ; dill, aiter all, notwithftanding thefe dif- 

 ferences In (hape and fize, the original principle may be retained. 

 The old Northumberland machine which I mentioned, is alto- 

 gether laid afide. Mr Stirliug's, in Perthfhire, miybe preferr- 

 ed, for all that 1 knov/ ; but no perfon can with truth make fo 

 much as a comparifon betwixt it and the one afterwards invent- 

 ed by Mr Meikle. That Mr Meikle invented the firlt machine 

 which could be profitably ufed, is unqueftionably true. I admit 

 that Mr Ilderton, Mr Oxley and Mr Stirling, had previoufly 

 made attempts to conftru^l machines, and am ri;:cerely difpofed 

 to beftow every manner of praife upon their laudable endeavours, 

 though I cannot allow them to have fucceeded. I well remem- 

 ber the (late of the public mind when Mr Meiklc's invention 

 was advertifed in 1788, by his friend Mr Walter Rofs. In fact, 

 many people viewed the whole as a fiction, while others confi- 

 dered it as a well-meant endeavour, that could not be realiied ; 

 and I muft place myfelf among^this clafs, having long remained, 

 fceptical concerning the promifed advantages. Here I may clear 

 up a miilake fallen into by Mr A. G. I am not a pra<iHcal me- 

 chanic, and know little of theory either. I am what my figna- 

 ture fpeaks me to be 5 and any little knowledge which I have 

 about thradiing machines has been gathered by feduloufly at- 

 tending to their operations. 



As you have already elucidated what took place betwixt Mr 

 Meikle and Mr Raftrick, it is umieceffary for me to fay one word 

 upon that fubje£i: ; except that, in making fuch loofe and un- 

 founded allegations, even though borrowed from a printed work, 

 your correfpondent did not add much to his own reputation. 

 Something of the like nature may be faid refpecting that part 

 of his communication, wherein he declares, that I have taken 

 the trouble of inventing a machine for him. To what part of 

 my letrers this relates, I am at a lofs to difcover ; for every paf- 

 fage, quoted as his, feems to be corre£tly given. I faid, in my 

 firft letter, that his data were infufFicient to calculate the effeds 

 of any machine ; and proved by figures, the accuracy of which 

 I prefume he will not call in quellion, that his fecond machine 

 behoved to thrafii a left> quantity than the one firll conftruded, 

 becaufe it was endowed with lefs velocity. In my fecond letter, 

 I animadverted upon an improvement fuggefted by him, which 



VOL. Y. NO. 20. E e I. 



