' 
2802. ] 
orifts into abfurdity.> But what is all 
this to the purpofe? Is this the way to 
review the book? Or how does the Re- 
viewer apply thefe reflections to the author 
of the Principles of Bridges? Does he 
mean an inlidious application by vague 
infinuations? Although experiment was 
not perhaps neceflary, it has not been 
omitted, mor even real practice, and 
that on a large fcale: it is on public re- 
cord, that on the author’s principles and 
theories, many arches have been raifed, 
with complete fuccefs, by fome engineers 
of the very higheft rank and experience. 
The Reviewer again proceeds :—‘* The 
mathematical conclufiens in the prefent 
work, whether or not they may be con- 
funied by the refults of experiments,” 
(the Reviewer might have known, that 
they have been fo confirmed, and he ought 
‘yn juftice to have faid fo, inftead of infi- 
nuating a doubt of it), * do not appear 
to us to have ‘any reference to the con- 
ftruéction of fuch a bridge as is now pro- 
poled to be thrown over the Thames,”’ 
It is true, that Dr. Hutton’s work could 
not be written with reference to the bridge 
now propofed, being compofed thirty 
years before; but yet the balancing prin- 
ciple employed in the treatife, if a true 
one, muft apply to every arch, whether 
made of ftone or iron, formed.of vouf- 
foirs or wedges, ' 
Again, ** If we at all underftood the 
model which has been exhibited to the 
public, the cait iron bridge will not de- 
rive its firength from the fame principle 
which prevails in commonarches.’’ From 
the mott experienced and learned judges, 
however, as well as that of Dr. Hutton, 
if ever a bridge required the advantage of 
the balancing principle, treated of in his 
book, it is that very bridge, and in the 
sno eminent degree. 
The Reviewer then difpatches his ana- 
lyfis of the work, fuch as itis, in the fol- 
lowing fummary way: *¢ Prop. if. Seét. 
2d, of this traét, isthe fame with that of 
Emerfon, p. 149, Mifcellanies.—Prop. 3. 
and 4. are likewife nearly the fame as 
thofe of Emerfon.” Thus, Sir, inftead 
of explaining the matter and manner of 
the book, the Reviewer contents nimfelf 
with informing the public, that three of 
the propofitions are the fame, or nearly 
the fame, with thefe in Emerfon’s Mif- 
cellanies. This is mighty ufeful infor- 
wmation to be fure, as well.as very can- 
did, and doubtlefs well intended. I be- 
dicve, Sir, that the Reviewer will not find | 
-many other perfons that may think the 
aworle of a propofition -fer its agreeing 
Abufe of Reviews; and on Bridge-buildings. 
-per to the readers of the book, was 
29) 
with fome of Mr. Emerfon’s, or for be« 
ing adopted by him. This ofticioufnefs, 
however, was quite unneceflary, unlefs te 
difcredit Dr, Hutton in the public opi- 
‘nion, as he had rendered every jultice of 
that kind in the work itfelf, to whomever 
it might be due, whether to Mr. Emer- 
fon or not: a juftice which, however pro- 
quite 
immaterial to the mere readers of the Re- 
view. Unfortunately, too, the Reviewer, 
in his hafte, has made a ftrange anachro- 
nifm, by aferibing thofe three propofi- 
tions to Emerfon’s Mifcellanies, a book 
not publifhed till four years after Dr. 
Hutton’s Principles of Bridges had ap- 
peared. Does the Reviewer.recant his ex- 
preflions, and difclaim all intention to im- 
pute plagiarifm to Dr. Hutton? How 
awkward the apology: will it be be- 
lieved ? Can the exprefiions be taken, by 
any indifferent reader, in any other fenfe 
than the defign to impute plagiarifm. -I 
have not heard of one perfon, and the Re- 
view has been fhewn to a great many for 
that purpofe, who does not underftand 
the expreffions in the fame fenfe, as they 
manifeltly bear on the face of them ; or 
who does not confider the critique, fhort 
as it is, and unapplicable to the book, as 
digtated by a moft mifchievous hoftile 
principle, completely unprovoked on the 
part of Dr. Hutton. 
Inftead of printing the anfwer and 
objections of Dr. Hutton, which had 
been made to fuch injurious proceed- 
ings, the Editor of the Review contents 
himlelf, with only noticing, their recep- 
tion, and at the fame time printing the 
Reviewer’s awkward apology, in anfwer 
to Dr. Hutton’s obfervations, difclaiming 
any imputation of plagiarifm, in regard 
to Mr. Emerfon, as well as all ideas of 
malevolence or ill-will towards Dr. Hut- 
ton in particular ; and referring, for far- 
ther information, concerning the reafons 
of his remarks, to his account of Mr. 
Atwood’ ifflertation on Arches, in the 
fame number of the Monthly Review. 
On turning to the account here alluded 
to, viz. of Mr. Atweod’s book, in the 
Review for May, p. 41, the reader is im- 
mediately (truck with an account, written 
ina temper quite the reverfe of that of 
the former. In the account of Dr. Hut- 
ton’s book, fpeculative and {cieutific men 
are reproached, as bufy, troublefome per- 
fons, officioufly molefting the mechanic 
or architeét with their plans and advice : 
but here, on the contrary, in the cafe of 
Mr, Atwood, it is all very fit and proper 
that fuch men fhould flep forward an 
their 
