292 Mr. Barlow on Lieut. Lecount’s Treatise on Iron Rails. 
five inches deep and the head an inch deep,) the ratio in that 
particular case is 1 to 9. 
The worst, however, is what follows in the subsequent chap- 
ters, where he compares my computed, or rather his com- 
puted, results with my experiments, and where by a very un- 
accountable blunder he mistakes through the other 87 pages 
my columns of index readings for deflections, and pays me 
and my rules some very awkward compliments because the 
two do not agree. Now, I should have wondered very much 
if they had, for they might as well be compared with the co- 
lumn of sunrisings in any page of an almanac as with the 
column of numbers he has mistaken for deflections. 
I have explained, (I should havethought sufficiently clearly, ) 
at p. 36 of my First Report, what these numbers are, and how 
the deflections in the adjacent columns are obtained from 
them; and must think that Mr. Lecount is the only person who 
has yet misunderstood them. I have called them in the head 
of the column, to mark the distinction, deflections by index in 
some places, and in others index readings; but in ali the 
tables the adjacent column is headed deflections for each ton, 
and it is this column alone with which comparisons can be 
made; and I must repeat that I cannot help thinking that 
Mr. Lecount is the only person who has yet fallen into this 
singular error. If I had not a better opinion of his integrity, 
I should be almost inclined to think it was a designed mistake 
to make outa case in favour of the fish-bellied rail, but of this 
I most fully acquit him; but then to what am [ to attribute it? 
I know but of one other explanation. 
As an example or two of the kind here referred to, the 
reader will excuse my quoting the following. At page 109 
he says, “ Mr. Barlow gives the mean deflection per ton at 
015, and the deflection for 74 tons ‘107; whereas in the very 
same table, and only three lines above this deduction of +107 
deflection for 74 tons, it is shown in the experiment that at 
7 tons it was actually °335, or three times greater than that 
which is deduced by this mode of proceeding for 74 tons 
There is some mistake here evidently.” 
Evidently there is, Mr. Lecount, and it is this; you have 
mistaken my index readings for deflections: if you will look 
again you will find that you could not have found a better 
proof of the correctness of my deductions. 
Again, page 151, Mr. Lecount says: * Mr. Barlow himself, 
p. 103, Second Report, states the deflection by computa- 
tion, &c. to be from +051 to ‘055 with 11 tons, although in 
the same page, and only three lines above, the experimental 
deflection is registered from actual observation 0717. What 
