56 Reply to Dr. Kelly's Letter on his supposed 



original computation in iheConnoissancedes Terns, although 

 the contrary is thus stated in the preface to that work. 

 *' Les calculs ont ete faits, comme a I'ordiuaire, sous I'in- 

 spection du Bureau des Longitudes, par MM. Marion, 

 Lalande," &c. which in English is this: " The calculations 

 have heen n)ade, as usual, under the inspection of the Board 

 of Lonsitude, by MM. Marion, Lalande," &c. 



Supp~ose a person should say, he has calculated the time 

 when an event will happen at a given place, and it is 

 known that he has derived this calculation from a previous 

 calculation of its happening at another place, by the al- 

 lowance of some quantity to reduce it from the time at the 

 first place tn that of the latter, could this person be said to 

 have calculated such event for the place assigned ? If it be 

 allowed that he could uuder such circumstances be said to 

 have calculated such event for the assigned place, I c()n- 

 ceive that what the French have said in The sentence which 

 Dr. Kelly brings as a proof of his assertion, is as applica- 

 ble to their having, in the compilation of the ephemeris to 

 their Connoissancc des Terns, taken it from our Nautical 

 Almanac by an allowance of the difference of longitude, as 

 to any other motle of calculation whatever ; for surely a 

 man would not say froni such quotation, that the French 

 had made their calculations from any one set of tables in 

 preference !o another: he would indeed admit their having 

 allowed the calculation to have been made by themselves, 

 but from what tables, or by what means, he could draw no 

 inference; with much. less propriety iherelore could he un- 

 dertake to say, that such calculations were declared to be 

 orioinal. Yet this is the language of Dr. Kelly, and in de- 

 fence of it he has copied the above quotation. It is well 

 known that the French are remarkable for their copious de- 

 tail. Why have they been so sparing in this instance? 

 The instrument,, therefore, which Dr. Kelly has brought in 

 his defence seen)S rather a stumbling-block in his own way. 

 Dr. Maskelyne has been very particular in the preface to 

 the Nautical Almanac, in describing by what tables, and 

 bv what formulae, his ephemerises are derived. If such de- 

 scription can be found in the French Connoissavce des Terns, 

 then are we able to say with confidence, that the French 

 have committed themselves or not, according as the case 

 shall appear: but no assurance of this can be derived from 

 the above quotation. I have been here adducing arguments 

 in proof, that, had f said what Dr. Kelly states of me, viz. 

 endeavoured to slioic at considerable length that the French 

 do not pretena to original matter, he has in my opinion 



brought 



