86 mSTORr of the SOCIETK 



dable, not by the flrength of the arguments it employed, but 

 by the name of the author, the heavy charges which it brought 

 forward, and the grofs mifconceptions in which it abound- 

 ed *. 



Before this period, though Dr Hutton had been often ur- 

 ged by his friends to pubUfh his entire work on the Theory of 

 the Earth, he had continually put off the publication, and there 

 feemed to be fome danger that it would not take place in his 

 own life time. The very day, however, after Mr Kirwan's 

 paper was pvit into his hands, he began the revifal of his manu- 

 fcript, and refolved iinmediately to fend it to the prefs. The 

 reafon he gave was, that Mr Kirwan had in fo many inflances 

 completely miftaken, both the fadts, and the reafonings in his 

 Theory, that he faw the neceffity of laying before the world a 

 more ainple explanation of them. The work was according- 

 ly publiflied, in two volumes o(5lavo, in 1795 ; and contain- 

 ed, befides what was formerly given in the Edinburgh Tranfac- 

 tions, the proofs and reafonings much more in detail, and a 

 much fuller application of the principles to the explanation of 

 appearances. The two volumes, however, then publifhed, do 

 not complete the theory: a third, neceffary for that purpofe, re- 

 mained behind, and is ftill in manufcript. 



After 



of the fame Revie'Ji', who refufed to infert it. This, indeed, I do not flate with 

 perfeiEt confidence, as I fpeak only from recolleftion, and would not, on that au- 

 thority, bring a pofitive charge of partiality againft men who exercife a profefllon 

 in which impartiality is the firll requifite. Suppofing, however, the ftatement 

 here given to be correft, an excufe is ftill left for the Reviewers ; they may fay, 

 that in communicating original papers, as they do not aft in their judicial capaci- 

 ty, they are not bound to difpeflfe juftice with their ufual blindnefs and feverity, 

 but may be permitted to relax a little from the exercife of a virtue that is fo of- 

 ten left to be its own reward. 



* For a defence of Dr Hutton againft the charges here alluded to, I muft 

 take the liberty of referring to the lUuJIrations of the Huitonian "theory, p. 119. 

 and 115. 



