0)1 M). IL-ycq)ai/i\s Tlicorij. 297 



against my understanding wliat he knows he cannot excuse. 

 This is odd enough, if it be satisfactory enough. 



" The toil," says he, "of dissecting and exposing a vast mass 

 of mis-statement and misrepresentation, is laborious, fatiguing, 

 and disgusting." I assure him I find it so, and something 

 more when coupled, as in both his papers, w ith one continued 

 "mass" of trifling, false reasoning, and error. 



" It is by no means extraordinary," C. tells us, " that Mr. 

 Herapath should be able hy\\iit\\eovy plausibly to explain many 

 phaenomena" ; " it is to be expected that every theory should 

 aftbrd an explanation of some class of experiments or observa- 

 tions." In reply to this, I ask C. Is Mr. H.'s theory by any 

 means confined to a single class of observations ? Has he not 

 extended it to the theories of gases, evaporation, and vapours ; 

 the doctrines of capacity and latent heat; the phaenomena of 

 attraction and cohesion ; the changes of state, &c. ? In all or 

 by far the greater part of these subjects has not Mr. Herapath 

 ojienly and mathematically demonstrated the laws and pheeno- 

 mena ? Has he attempted to shift from a single experiment to 

 which credit can be attached? or rather, has he not decidedly 

 confirmed his results by the experiments of our best philoso- 

 phers ; an'd solicited a further examination by others, which he 

 has candidly pointed out ; and whose results from his theory 

 he has unhesitatingly computed ? Do the theorems of any 

 other person agree better, or even so correctly with experi- 

 ment ? In fine, has there been a theory proposed at any time 

 which combines more (I might perhaps with perfect truth say 

 so much) simplicity and comprehensiveness with such minute 

 precision and experimental fidelity ? If there has, C. can name 

 it, and instance the cases of its equality, or, perhaps, superiority. 

 Probably C. has himself a theory more elementary and more 

 general to propose, which may account for the virulence with 

 which he has attempted to oppose Mr. H. Should this be the 

 case, I shall be exceedingly glad to see it : though I must con- 

 fess, I think the probability of such a theory from such a wri- 

 ter rests upcm a rocking rather than a rocky foundation. 



If C. really think Mr. Hera})ath's theory defective or incon- 

 sistent with facts, why not come immediately to a numerical 

 refutation of it in some of those numerous instances which Mr. 

 H. has advanced ? Surely there are cases enough mentioned 

 to choose with advantage, without constantly beating about ge- 

 neral views and metaphysical difficulties, which can perhaps 

 never be brought to the test of experiment. Besides, Mr. H. 

 has in his theory of latent lieat, the postscript to his second re- 

 ply to X, and several other parts of his writings, calculated 

 results which I should think it woiilil not be so extremely difli- 



Vol. 60, No. 2fM. (hi. 1 K22. P p cult 



