TO4 
thing ; therefore taking ten fuch parts is 
taking one entire thing and tawo eighths 
more, thus i--2.—Laflly obferve, that 
Zis the fame valueas { of the two integers 
which remained. 
After having performed the operation of 
divifion, it is not fufiicient to point cut the 
remainder fimply by faying, ter example, 
‘Tf I divide 1634 by 8, I have 204 fora 
quotient and two remaining ; and if I di- 
vide 164. by 9, I have 18 for a quotient 
and two remaining; but you fhould fay 
in the firft cafe 4 remaining, and in the 
fecond cafe = remaining, becaufe though 
there equally remains two integers in each 
Cafe, yet in the one example two integers 
4re to be divided into eight parts, and in 
the other, two integers are to be divided 
into nine parts.”” 
J. WarBurtTon. 
—L ¥ 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, i 
HE Abbé Barruel has thought pro- 
per to animadvert, in the fourth 
Volume of his ‘* Hiftory of Jacobinifm,”’ 
upon the fpirit and tendency of Profeffor 
Kant’s Philofophical Principles, or what 
is generally called the Critical Philofophy ; 
to reprefent this fyftem as dangerous to 
‘ the moral, religious, and political confti- 
tution of Europe; and to denounce the 
difciples of that venerable man as. ‘“* a 
fpecies of Facobins.”—As this writer has 
taken the liberty to mention my name, as 
well as that of my learned. countryman 
Mr. Nitfch, in the work before-mentioned, 
it is inctmbent upon us to demand his 
proofs of fo bold and virulent an affertion. 
For myepart, I fhould not have fuffered 
this unprovoked adverfary to enjoy the 
apparent triumph of flanding unrefuted 
for upwards of a twelvemonth, had I been 
fooner informed, that he had done me the 
honour to take notice of a book I wrote 
in 17097,-entitled <‘ Slements of the Cri- 
‘tical Philefoshy, &c.” 8vo.. (Londen, 
Longman and Reés.) 
Apprehenfive that for want of room in 
your valuable mifcellany you cannot in- 
fert the particulars: of this controverly, I 
fhall in this place only observe, that I am 
ready to prove to the world the following 
points: : , 
if. That it was unjuft to afcribe im- 
moral motives to Protefior Kant; to con- 
found his fyfem with thofe of others ; and 
to impute a miichievous tendency to his 
writings. 

'Dr. Willich’s Reply to Barruel. 
[ March 1, 
2d. That the Abbé Barruel is 2 cafuift 
rather than a logician, and confequently 
unqualified to write upon philofophical 
ubjects.—The former propofition I hope 
to demonftrate from the original corre- 
fpondence between the late Frederic Wil- 
liam II. King of Pruffia, and the aged 
profefior, whofe anfwer was fatisfactory 
to his fovereign: the,latter I fhall endea-- 
vour to illuftrate by oppofing the words 
of Kant, from the German original, to 
Mr. Barruel’s unconneéted quotations 
taken from an imperfect and anonymous 
French tranflation. I fhall thus demon- 
‘ftrate, that the Abbé was totally unac- 
quainted with the fpirit and tendency of 
Kant’s Philofophy ; and that he has al- 
lowed himfelf to be grofsly led into error 
by a French commentator, whofe concep- 
tions of the fundamental principles upon 
which the Critical Syftem is eltablifhed, 
were likewife erroneous. 
Had the Abbe defended the great caufe 
of Chriftianity and Social Order, with 
arguments clearly deduced from their 
fources ; had he proved, that the {chool 
of Kant is incompatible with the religious 
and civil eftablifhments of the prefent day ; 
I fhould have filently borne his reproaches 5 
nay, even have made with him a common 
caufe. But, as I am firmly perfuaded 
that he is miftaken, and convinced that 
he has contributed to prejudice the world 
againft my venerable teacher, for whom 
neither time nor diftance can diminifh my 
grateful -refpect, I have ventured, and even 
thought it my duty to confute aflertions, © 
whicii every unprejudiced reader will con- 
fider as unfounded and illiberal. What- 
ever iy opinions were, when I compofed 
the Elements of the>Critical Philofophy, 
I folemnly difclaim every ferforal inference 
that might be drawn from a book, in 
which the general principles of another 
author are avowedly fubmitted to the ex- 
amination of the learzed—not with.a 
View to diffeminate them in political circles, 
oy to propagate them in popular pamph- 
lets, but to exhibit the truth or, fallacy 
of thole principles to competent judges. 
I. truft I have faid enough, to canciliate 
the opinion cf thofe whe might have been 
prejudiced againft the philoiophic fyftem 
of a man who, for more than half a cen- 
“tury, has ranked high in the eftimation of 
Europe; whofe irreproachable manners 
are admired by all who have the happinefs 
to know him, and whole whole life has 
been one feries of virtuous actions. 
Iam, Sir, your’s, &c. 
Loudon, Jaa. 15. A. F.M.WILticyy 
