454- Prof. De Morgan on the Additions made to the 



letter; secondly, that having marked the parcel as containing 

 letters from Gregory^ he inserted one of Newton without any 

 notice, either on the parcel or in the letter of advice. 

 - I have called this colleclio a parcel, presuming it to have 

 consisted of detached papers. Had it been otherwise, the 

 Committee would certainly have noted the unity of the material; 

 they would have seen that it established Newton's letter as a 

 constituent part of the communication, in spite of the title only 

 mentioning Gregory. Tliey must have seen that their evidence 

 on this point was singularly uncircumstantial : they must 

 have known that their report on the date of transmission was 

 wholly unsupported, even by assertion. It is impossible to 

 suppose that they did not look for and mention all attainable 

 facts tending to authenticate their final conclusion. Moreover, 

 the old editors mention two species of papers as written by 

 Collins ; collectio and schediasma. Had they used the first 

 word only, it might have been judged possible that they would 

 apply it to a number of extracts, all on one paper. But, seeing 

 that they use both words, and both for collections of copies or 

 extracts, surely the first must have meant a parcel of papers, 

 and the second a parcel of extracts on one paper. 



Connected with this parcel, is their suppression of the ma- 

 terial fact of the time at which Collins died, which was sup- 

 plied by the new editors (see XVIII.). He died in 1682, and 

 his papers were examined in 1712. Where they had been 

 during these thirty years the Committee do not state, nor how 

 and when they came into the possession of the Royal Society. 

 If, as I think sufficiently established, we are to call the Col- 

 lectio a parcel of detached papers, then we are called upon to 

 believe, as a matter of course, that CoUins's executors tied up 

 the voluminous papers which they examined in the same par- 

 cels as were untied, and that the same luck attended this one 

 parcel at least, during thirty years. This is but poor founda- 

 tion for a charge of plagiarism. 



Further, we are to suppose that Newton, in his celebrated 

 epistola posterior, written to be sent to Leibnitz, wrapped up 

 his method of fluxions in a cipher, though he knew that Col- 

 lins had been for four years communicating on all sides, and 

 to Leibnitz himself, a letter in which that method " was suffi- 

 ciently described to any intelligent person." 



XIII. (71, 149 of the wrong paging). The words in the 

 note " Et Newlonus ... . p. 105 " are new. 



XIV. (72, 150 of the wrong paging). The words in the 

 note " et per Epistolam .... 34 " are new. 



XV. (74, 153 of the wrong paging). The note is new. 



XVI. (86, 189). The note " JSurdos indices D. Leibnitius 



