212 The Rev. Mr. Whewell’s Remarks on a Note 
steed, &c., p. 211,) of the theory, * Z call zt mine, because it 
consists of my solar and lunar tables corrected by myself, and 
shall own nothing of Mr. Newton’s labours till he fairly owns 
what he has had from the Observatory ;” and (p. 214) he 
says, that Newton “would needs question the observations 
when they agreed not with his theories, or rather conceptions.” 
The book is full of such expressions. The Edinburgh re- 
viewer, wiser than his brother, has pointed out this. 
When my opponent has produced any one passage which 
shows that Flamsteed understood the difference between the 
nature of his own labours and those of Newton, (which these 
passages and many others prove he did not understand,) we 
shall be able to appreciate his claims to use language like that 
which he has applied to my opinions. ‘Till then, such ex- 
pressions as ‘ audacious dictum,” and “we must beg our non- 
undergraduate public to consider,” must, I think, pass for 
bold words used to supply the lack of proofs. 
I repeat also, that Flamsteed’s complaining that the English 
nation was robbed, because Newton’s theory of comets was 
confirmed by French observations, is another proof that Flam- 
steed did not understand what the nature, interest, or value of 
a true theory was. 
With regard to the hard terms alleged by Flamsteed to 
have been used by Newton, I should, I think, have conveyed 
more exactly the impression which Flamsteed’s angry state- 
ment leaves on calm consideration, by saying that it is proba- 
ble that when Flamsteed had talked of the Royal Society as 
the robbers of his property, Newton did, in some way, em- 
ploy the term “puppy”; but that it is certain that this was 
the hardest word which he was provoked to use; for it is 
abundantly clear that if anything worse had been said, Flam- 
steed was not in a temper, or of a character, to abstain from 
recording it. ‘The reviewer’s argument amounts to this :— 
that an angry man cannot exaggerate or misrepresent, because 
a clergyman ought not to lie. I donot think this will avail him. 
On the subject of the sealed packet, I will put the issue in 
the form of a question. What does the reviewer take to have 
been the purpose of depositing the observations in Newton’s 
hands? My answer is simple. From Flamsteed’s known 
irritability, it was thought necessary to require this deposit, 
in order to secure the publication, in case Flamsteed should 
refuse to proceed. The case provided for arrived: the remedy 
was applied. I want to hear of any other interpretation of the 
deposit. 
The exclamatory way in which the reviewer disposes of the 
account given by Arbuthnot of this step, appears to me rather 
