3d 
their advice and plans, &c. Here we 
have a full account of the book, with a 
flattering report of its principle and the- 
ory, its elegance, originality, &c. &c. 
I heve no objection, Sir, nor do I fuppofe 
any liberal-minded man has any. objec- 
tion, to the compliments given to Mr, 
Atwood, for his ingenuity and fcientific 
labours, having de(erved well of the pub- 
lic on many eccafions, But why fhould 
éne ingenious man be raifed by the de- 
preffion of another? There is furely no 
good reafon: and yet we here find, the 
fatter is outraged by a moft injurious and 
deceptious compariion of the principles of 
his theory, with that of the former. Ie 
is impoffible to avoid perceiving, that 
there exilts fome fecret and myfterious mo- 
tive for fo much offenfive matter, very 
different from what ought to aétuate the 
mind and influence the condué ‘of a fair 
and judicious Reviewer. Whatever it 
may be, it certainly ought not to appegr 
in thewritings of a Reviewer: whether it 
be fome pique tgainf% any man in parti- 
cular, or whether it arifes from a difpo- 
fition in the gentlemen of Cambridge to 
difcourage the produftions of others; a 
difpofition with which they have fome- 
times been charged, though perhaps un- 
juttly and illiberally. I here mentioned 
Cambridge, becaufe it is faid the mathe- 
matical writer for the Monthly Review 
is at prefent an ingenious young gentle- 
man, refiding in that univerfity, of the 
name of Woodhoufe: if I am miftaken 
in this, I afk his pardon for the mention 
of kis name, and he will correct me by 
difclaiminge the concern. ‘Till then, in 
common with many other perfons, he will 
excufe me for the belief, that he is the 
Reviewer, whofe condu& in the alleged 
inftance is {o much complained of. 
Whatever be the concealed caufe, Sir, 
whether one or both of thofe juft alluded 
to, or whatever elle, the fact appears moft 
certain and evident. Unfortunately for Mr. 
W. however, if he is the Reviewer, it has 
carried him fo much away, in his eager- 
nefs to outrage Dr. Hutton, as to hurry 
him inte firange miftakes and overfights. 
In the comparifon he makes between the 
works of Dr. Hutton and Mr. Atwood, he 
reprefents both their books as the fruit of 
their refearches on the prefent occafion 
of the new projected bridge. How un- 
fair, Sir, is this infinuation! Dr. Hut- 
ton has obje&ted to this mifreprefentation, 
(Revicw for June, page 222),*his tract 
having been hattily compoted, on an-. 
ether accafion, 30 years before. —Again, 
Mr. W. had. mifreprefented Dr. Hut- 
Abufe of Reviews ; and om Bridge-building, 
[Aug. Ts 
ton’s theory, by forcing upon ita fup- 
pofition, difclaimed by him, and unwar- 
ranted by his book, namely, the ufe of - 
mortar or other cement, to form the arch 
into one coherent folid mafs : which Mr. 
W. afterwards retratted.——In the 
lait place, Mr. W. reprefents Dr. Hut- 
ton’s theory, as practically iaccurates 
becaufe it does not confider an arch as 
made up of wedges. In anfwer to 
which, Dr. Hutton replied, that he did 
‘¢ confider the arch as made up of fec- 
tions of wedges, and had pointed out 
the direétion of the joints : adding that: 
every writer on arches muft confider 
them as made up of fuch wedges; for 
without thefe, there can be no fuch 
thing as an arch.” For, what are the 
voufloirs, fo often mentioned in his book, 
but another name for the arch-ftones, or 
the wedge-like pieces which ferm the un- 
der curve of the arch, over which is 
raifed the whole of the upper or fuper= 
incumbent wall, the vertical load or pref- 
fure cf which is thrown into the tangen= 
tial dire€tion of the faid curve, or 
along the line of the faid voufloirs, by 
means of the direétion of the joins, 
or butting ends of thefe wedges, which 
Dr. Hutton fays are always to be confi- 
dered as cut perpendicular to the curve, 
viz. under the article /aufoir, page 104, 
of his book. And yet Mr. W. afks, 
“* In what part of his work has Dr. Hut- 
ton confidered the arch thus compofed.” 
Mr. W. thinks that Dr. Hutton’s 
theory will not apply when the arch is 
formed of wedges, and fays, *¢ it feems 
that, whoever fhould adopt that theory, 
without confidering the mode of applying 
the weight and the forms of the wedges, 
would be deluded by a fpeculative truth.””. 
‘¢ If the arch be compofed of wedges, 
fooner or later their oles muft be 
coniidered.”” Hence we at length per- 
ceive that Mr. W’s objeftion to Dr. 
Hutton’s theory is, becaufe it is not 
founded on the mathematical mode in 
which the wedge acts, when confidered 
as one of the fimple mechanical powers. 
Here then is the rock upon which Mr. 
W. is wrecked, with his new theory, or 
rather old one, which in reality it is, 
having been long before treated of by 
former authors: from thefe authors Mr. 
Emerfon, after he had difcuffed the true 
theory, in his Mifcellanies, introduces 
one propofition, viz. the xith, page 170, 
on this principle, with the view to con- 
demn it, which he very juftly does in 
pages 171 and 173. In faét that old- 
new theory, fo violently contended for by 
eo 
