34 Mr. NicJiolsoii's Anstuer 



cated entirely by Mr. Holdred : but it is possible that if intended 

 to convey any unpleasant reflection upon me, thev perliaps with 

 more justice might be applied to himself. In a qualified sense 

 they apply to all writers; and hence arises the idea of the patent 

 and copy-right which the wisdom of the legislature has granted 

 to meritorious individuals who have benefited mankind by their 

 discoveries — thus protecting such persons in the advancement 

 of their reputation, and in the procuring of emolument ; it is 

 therefore no stigma upon a man to wish to enjoy the fruit of his 

 own labour. 



With respect to the article which I put into the Philosophical 

 Magazine ISIS, it was a general demonstration of the polyno- 

 mial \a-\-h + e-\-d-\- &c.j with its application to Involution 



and Evolution; this article was shown to Mr. Holdred before it 

 was committed to the press. 



I spoke ill handsome terms of the work which he was about 

 to publish ; and this was the only time that ever I received his 

 thanks, notwithstanding the instructions I gave him in maturing 

 his work. 



I never in my life borrowed a single idea from Mr. Holdred, 

 or any other man living, without acknowledging it in writing as 

 theirs: but this is not the case with Mr. H. I only desire the 

 reader who may be interested in this branch of analysis to com- 

 pare the article I have just referred to with what Mr. H. has 

 since produced, and say whether or not Mr. Horner could have 

 derived any*advantage from it. It is just as possible that he might 

 have made the discovery by hearing that some one had done it; 

 but it appears to me much more probable he took the germ of 

 his idea from Budan, to whose method it has a much nearer af- 

 finity. It is not uncommon, when a discovery is made by anv parti- 

 cular person, that more than one will lay claim to it. Mr. Horner, 

 by report, is a gentleman, and from what I have seen he appears 

 to be an excellent mathematician, and I have not the smallest 

 doubt of his inventive powers. 



It is painful to me to be under the necessity of exposing Mr. 

 Holdred by entering more minutely into his work; but this must 

 be done in my own defence, in order that the reader may un- 

 derstand the diiference of our methods of demonstrating the 

 rule. 



The account which Mr. Holdred has given in his preface, of 

 the origin of the rule which he was not able to demonstrate 

 without assistance, is not that which he stated to me. When 1 

 put the question to him, he answered, he had taken his ideas 

 from an example iu Ward's Mathematics, which he pointed out 



to 



