1814.] on Don Rodriguez' Paper, SfgJ 



the construction, or the use, of the instruments employed ; and I 

 have shown that, so far from there being an error of that magni- 

 tude, there cannot possibly be one of even half a second, unless 

 there be a corresponding or greater error, in the series of obser^'a- 

 tions for years at the fixed observatories of Blenheim and Ports- 

 mouth. How, then, can any one say, as you do, that " the point 

 can orili/ be settled by repeating the observations," and that " ivell 

 founded doubts may remain on the subject ?" Or, why should the 

 '* style" of my letter be characterized as '' qtiite new in astrono- 

 mical discussions?" Mav not an astronomer or a mathematician, as 

 well as any other man, refute untenable arguments, especially if 

 they be uncandidly advanced, and have a tendency to impeach the 

 accuracy of a great national work ? 



2dly. You, however, seem to express your surprise that I should 

 *' affirm that the sole object of Don Rodriguez is to elevate the 

 French astronomers and depress the English," since his " paper is 

 'remarkable for its moderation and apparent candour." That it is 

 remarkable for its lameness might perhaps he affirmed. But I have 

 yet to learn that tameness and moderation are synonymous terms. 

 And as to " candour," my language was this : " 1 shall not, I 

 hope, be deemed uncandid, if 1 say, tliat to me this object appears 

 to be no other than the depression of English (and perhaps other) 

 ingenuity and exertion, in order to the undue exaltation of the 

 French scientific character." But 1 did not rest satisfied with 

 merely hinting my suspicions as to the point. I adduced some sin- 

 gular passages from Don Rodriguez to show on wiiat those sus- 

 picions were founded; and I have never yet heard of any British 

 mathematicians, except those who were then in the council of the 

 Royal Society, and the well known, though anonymous, mathe- 

 matical writer in the Edinburgh Review, whose inferences as to 

 Don Rodriguez' " candour" did not coincide with mine. 



.^dly. You accuse me of " insinuating pretty plainly, that the 

 Royal Society concurred with Don Rodriguez in his design" of 

 depreciating English astronomers, for the purpose of unduly exalt- 

 ing others. I'his I 'inosl posilivfly disclaim. 1 know that more 

 than two-thirds of the Fellows of the Royal Society scarcely ever 

 attend its meetings, and have no more to do with its management 

 or its publications than 1 have : I could not, therefore, think of 

 imputing any such intetition to tlwm. Nor did I think of imputing 

 .«uch intention to the Right Honourable President or to the council. 

 But the circumstance to which J then adverted as n)atter of sur- 

 prise, and which I now express clearly that 1 may no longer l>e 

 misunderstood, is, that tiie mathematical mcmhers of the council 

 for 1812 should examine Don Rodriguez' paper, and neithei" per- 

 ceive his obvious intention to lower the character of Colonel 

 |VIudge, nor his gross misrepresentation ol the history of measure- 

 ments of degrees in England, France, and l^apland, nor discover 

 that his arguments were incompatible with the received opinions of 

 the best philosophers, at the same time' that they were totally in- 



4 



