•*821.] Mr. Herapath's Reply to X. - 303 



Article XI. 



Reply to X.'s Remarks on Mr. Herapath's Theory. 



(To the Editor of the Annals of Philosophy.) 



DEAR SIR, Cranford, Sept. 1, 1821. 



The object I have all along professed to have in view is the 

 investigation of truth, and with this object I shall ever be ready- 

 to attend to any remarks on my writings made in an open and a 

 gentlemanly manner, when they display in their author a suffi- 

 cient knowledge of the subject to entitle him to attention. With 

 respect to your correspondent X. he has at least introduced and 

 closed his " Remarks " in a way that cannot fail of eliciting my 

 approbation. Having said this much, 1 trust he will not be 

 offended at my requesting him to read all that I have published 

 on the subject, to re-peruse the papers he has attacked, and to 

 reconsider the one he has written. Probably your correspondent 

 will likewise allow me to observe, that the addition of his name 

 would not induce me to pay less attention to his remarks ; 

 while it would screen them from that jealousy and suspicion of 

 motive with which, I believe, anonymous attacks are now usually 

 regarded, and which circumstances, connected with the fate of 

 the latter paper, are by no means calculated to remove. 



I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully, 



J. Herapath. 



Article XII. 



On Mr. Tredgold's " Refutation" of Mr. Herapath's Theory. 

 (To the Editor of the Annals of Philosophy.) 



DEAR SIR, Cranford, Sept. 20, 1821. 



.1 thank you for directing my attention to Mr. Tredgold's 

 " Refutation of my Theory," in the Philosophical Magazine, 

 which 1 had not had the pleasure of reading. By this gentle- 

 man's observations, I cannot help thinking, that, like your 

 correspondent X, he has taken up his ideas of my paper a little 

 too hastily. It is much to be feared whether the letter that 

 stands at the head of my first paper, indicating some dissatis- 

 faction on my part with certain members of the present Council 

 of the Royal Society, may not have induced many individuals to 

 conceive that these members easily saw through the defects of 



