Whiston, Halley, and the Quarterly Review. 2925 
claims of the astronomer royal were confirmed by long-con- 
tinued usage. 
*,.* I have much regretted the line which has heen taken 
by the Reviewers. The public mind will be made up on the 
differences between Newton and Flamsteed, and after a time 
this history will be left to the few who are curious about such 
subjects; but while new, there was something exciting in it, 
and it has been put prominently forward, while the British 
Catalogue, as republished by Mr. Baily, has been noticed 
with merely transient praise. Now this is certainly not the 
least valuable part of a very valuable volume. It is a work 
of useful and lasting’ reference for the astronomer, which pos- 
sibly no one would have undertaken excepting the person to 
whom we are indebted for it, and which no one could have 
executed who had not, with the advantages of modern science, 
been, like him, for years familiar with the Historia Celestis. 
XLIII. On Whiston, Halley, and the Quarterly Reviewer of 
the * Account of Flamsteed.” By A CorrEsPoNDENT. 
To the Editors of the Philosophical Magazine and Journal. 
GENTLEMEN, Manchester, Feb. 20. 
HE Note on Mr. Whewell in the late Quarterly Review 
is sufficiently revolting on account of its coarseness, and 
the insulting imputation on that gentleman of having pre- 
sumed upon his official station in the University, and treated 
the subject of Newton and Flamsteed as ifhe were palming his 
opinions upon undergraduates. Now I leave it to the readers 
of Mr. Whewell’s letter to judge if ever imputation could be 
more unfounded, and if his letter be not altogether free from all 
appearance of assumption of the authority either of his office 
or (what is much more) of his high scientific reputation. 
But what is still more reprehensible is the barefaced disin- 
genuousness which the writer displays. What can be a more 
palpable misrepresentation than that contained in the follow- 
ing passage relating to Whiston: “ If, therefore, he was the 
worthless, shallow person that Mr. Whewell would have us to 
believe....”? Now what Mr. Whewell really says of Whiston 
is, that his yudgement is worthless. What is this, but an attempt 
to deceive the reader ? 
Another instance of this utter want of principle is displayed 
in the writer’s reviling Halley for the very same conduct 
Third Series. Vol. 8. No. 46. March 1836. 2B 
