52 Reply (o Dr. Kelly's Letter on his supposed 



article appeared, withoiU being thought to have reflected 

 on the cb.aractcr or writings ot the supposed discoverer, or 

 indeed on any one else except the editor, whom I wished 

 to correct not only in what regards the notice respecting 

 the Nautical Almanac, but in that which it takes of the 

 French astronomers in their conduct from copying the 

 ephemcris of the Nautical Almanac into their Connoissarrce 

 des Terns. A recent communication has informed me, and 

 must also many others of your readers, that what we take 

 to be written by the editor, may in fact be the production 

 of stmie other person, who chooses to consider himself of- 

 fended at any animadversions on his subject, however in- 

 accurate his statements mav appear, withont declaring such 

 subject to be his own, till alter the animadversions had been 

 published. This circumstance we have now witnessed in 

 the conduct of Dr. Kelly, who has thought proper to de- 

 clare in your last number, that the article above alluded to 

 was his own production ; and the reason he gives for the 

 omission of his signature is, that "i< has been considered as 

 a plain, honest, and lowssumivg statement, that reqnired 

 neitlicr voncher or signature," a criterion by which your 

 readers will be enabled in future to distinguish whether the 

 articles they read are the pnuUiction of the editor, or of a 

 correspondent, to whom they may in some parts allude. 



Whatever may be the opinion uf the readers of the Phi- 

 losophical Magazine, respecting the tenor of the article in 

 question, I much doubt whether they will entertain two 

 opinions respecting Dr. Kelly's last communication ; they 

 will, F am induced to conclude, consider it as a happy display 

 of egotism, and an nnwarrantabie abuse of persons who 

 neither knew, nor could be supposed to know, when they 

 were animnlverting on articles which appeared in the. Phi- 

 losophical Maaaziiie without signature, that they were ac- 

 tually animadverting on Dr. Kelly's productions; at least 

 1 can so speak for myself. But with whatever impressions 

 I wrote my former article, those under which I write this 

 will certainly not be easily mistaken; and since I have been 

 considered by Dr. Kelly as imprudent, I shall take the li- 

 berty oF freely discussing the merits of his statements. 



Dr. KcUv says, that " neither was the statement dictated 

 in !er7ns likely to give offence, and yet it ha-, called forth 

 two litters in animndversinn, uhich are not of the most gen- 

 tle tone or texture, and I shall ttierefore consider them as a 

 kind uj partnership production." I do not know how far a 

 man may venture to pul)lish his opinions when founded on 

 lUe wild delusions of his imagination, so as to keep within 



the 



