Dr. HerscheVs io-feet Telescope. 34! 



The proof too of this defeat, as stated in the paragraph, 

 turns, it should seem, on the circumstance of Dr. Herschel 

 having made no reply to Mr.. LaUmde's letter. But this 

 surely must be considered as a very summary, if not a cava- 

 lier, vvav of establishing the conclusion. Admitting iMat 

 Mr. Lalande, when inviting himself to see the telescope, 

 meant to do so with that respect which was due, yet it must 

 be evident that he has been exceedingly unfortunate in the 

 manner of his communication. By his own account of the 

 matter, he prescribed the very singular condition which was 

 to determine his journey to the telescope : namely, when 

 Dr. Herschel should write him that he had no objections 

 against his coming. Now, certainly there was somethmg 

 very ungracious in so putting it,. and which warranted the 

 inference of his prejudging Dr. Herschel's object, and of an- 

 ticipating its failure, at the very time so much curiosity and 

 interest was displayed about it in his letter. 



Under these circumstances, it is most natural to sup- 

 pose that Dr. Herschel's silence, if the letter in question 

 ever reached him, proceeded from no want of confidence in 

 his instrument, but more or less from disgust, in conse- 

 quence of the application having been made in' a way so pe- 

 culiar and forbidding, as far as it could be construed. 



But further"; it comes in the next place to be particularly 

 remarked, that this disparagement of Dr. Herschel's 40-feet 

 telescope is vei v recent, notwithstanding many proofs of its 

 utility and excellence have been published, many years ago, 

 in the London Fhdosophical Transactions. What then 

 must be thought of the article of the bulletin under review 1 

 As the most favourable construction ought surely to be made, 

 it must therefore be supposed that the author had never seen 

 or perused these volumes ; though they have a wide circula- 

 tion wherever jsciencd is cultivated. But such an omission 

 necessarily implies that, in the present instance at least, the 

 historian had had a very iniperfect knowledge of his sub- 

 ject ; otherwise, it is presumed that the paragraph would 

 have had a very different complexion, by doing justice to 

 Dr. Herschel's labours. 



Indeed, I was so much surprised at this untoward pr^ra- 

 Y 3 graph, 



