218 Prof. Rigaud on a Note in the 
I suppose that if the vilifier of Newton has nothing to sup- 
port him but rhetoric of this kind, the admirers of that great 
man will not feel any permanent inquietude ; and my sole ob- 
ject will be answered. 
I am, Sir, your very obedient servant, 
Trinity College, Feb. 6, 1836. _ W. WHEWELL. 
XLII. Observations on a Note respecting Mr. Whewell, which 
is appended to No. CX. of the Quarterly Review. ByS. P. 
Rieaup, Esq. M.A. F.R.S., Savilian Professor of Astronomy, 
Ozford. 
To the Editors of the Philosophical Magazine and Journal. 
SIRs, Oxford. 
Tue following remarks were, for the most part, drawn up 
before I saw the letters which Mr. Whewell has printed in 
the Cambridge Chronicle of the 6th and 13th of February*. 
Some parts of what had been written were found, in conse- 
quence, to be unnecessary ; but leaving these to his able de- 
fence, I am still induced to offer the remainder to your con- 
sideration. Irritation is so great an obstacle to the attainment 
of truth, that I deeply regret the tone which the writer has 
assumed. That, however, I leave to his better feelings; my 
business is with his facts and his arguments. 
S. P. Ricaup. 
PRE reader is most probably acquainted with the Note in 
question; it seems unnecessary, therefore, to occupy his 
time with introductory explanations of the parts which have 
been thought to require correction. ‘The topics, though ex- 
amined separately, are taken nearly in the order which the 
original suggested. 
Whiston was an honest and laborious man, but very defi- 
cient in judgement. As he advanced in life he became more 
pertinacious in error; he had sacrificed the world to his sin- 
cerity, and, conscious of moral rectitude in his purpose, he 
persuaded himself that he must be equally right in his opinions. 
Bishop Hare’s own character adds no weight to the senti- 
ments which he may express on this subject, but the few words 
which have been quoted from him are not contradictory to 
what is here said. Sir Isaac Newton, therefore, may be equally 
justified in his early patronage of his successor in the Lucasian 
Professorship, and in afterwards shunning his society. ‘This 
change Whiston was unwilling to consider as just; and in 
* See the preceding article of our present Number. 
