376 Notices respecting New Books. 



At page 60 Mr. Nichols6n has given an example, in whidi, 

 after the subtrahend is formed, the figures necessary to produce 

 the coefficients for the next step are none of them exhibited. 

 Mr. Nicholson calls it his own ; but in my opinion he ought to 

 call it his way of working my rule. In the next page he falsely 

 asserts that higher multipliers than U are necessary in my me- 

 thod. 



The method I have given at the end of my Supplement, Mr. 

 Nicholson calls Mr Horner's method ; and says I have been an- 

 ticipated by himself in point of publication : but it resembles 

 Mr. Horner's in no respect, but there being no regard had to the 

 figurare numbers ; so that I have been anticipated by no one in 

 this 1' ethod ; but Mr. Nicholson has taken good care that I 

 should not be long before him, he having made use of it, without 

 any alteration in principle, in that very Postscript, written to 

 reprobate me for having said a little of the truth concerning him. 

 He has left out the products and the constant figures, which he 

 would have the reader to think is a great improvement. As to 

 kavinr^ out the products, it would have been perfectly easy and 

 natur;il to me, who learnt the short Italian method of division 

 wlien a child at school, which I could prove to any one by show- 

 ing my first ciphering book; in which method the multiplication 

 and subtraction are performed together in one line. I have re- 

 commended this method of division to several ; but the common 

 answer I have had is, that it would be ill done to add any burden 

 to the memory, for the sake of saving the writing down a few 

 figures. Upon recommending it to a teacher, he said, I could 

 not form any idea of the trouble with young boys and girls, when 

 any thing is imposed on their memory; which made me think 

 the generality of authors on arithmetic must be of the same 

 opinion, since so few of them take any notice of that method of 

 division. This consideration has made me write down the sub- 

 trahends throughout the whole tract ; thinking it was not my 

 office to teach another kind of arithmetic, but to show principle. 



In June or July 1S19 Mr. Robert Gibson told Mr. Nicholson 

 that I had made an improvement in the method of solving equa- 

 tions, beyond which (I believed) nature could not go ; so that 

 Mr. Nicholson need not pretend to think that it could have been 

 derived from what he published in the following May. 



In a letter I wrote to a subscriber at Woolwich, dated De- 

 cember 1, 1S19, I spoke of this method (I being then waiting 

 irj'patiently fur the printing of it); my words were: Iniohich 

 there will be found a method of solving equations, tiilh great 

 ease, luithout any regard to J'tgurute numbers, in addition to 

 my fust mhthod. 



1 showed the method to a subscriber, Mr. Jonathan Horn, of 



Bowes 



