aS 
pen, on an occafion which produced an 
ingenious tract on the fubje&t of bridge- 
building, near 30 years before ; a work 
which procured him high encomiums from 
the moft experienced engineers and f{cien- 
tific men. This tract having been long 
out of print, and eagerly enquired after, 
he'was induced to give a new edition of it, 
whieh came out in two weeks after the 
proje&t of the mew sbridge had been men- 
tioned to him, and exactly as in its-origi- 
nal fate. This had no particular rete- 
rence to the new projeét, though it feems 
it was thought that perhaps fome ufeful 
hints might be afforded by it : however, 
the author announced, inthe preface, his 
intention to prepare another on the fub- 
ject, which, at was ‘underftood, might 
contain his more mature thoughts on the 
fudjest, and perhaps on the new projec 
in particular. | 
Matters were in this profperous fate, 
every perion concerned uniting their §¢n- 
deavours in an amicable manner, to give 
the beti:advice and affiftance in his power ; 
when an account of Dr. Hutton’s tra&t 
came out m the Monthly Review for 
March 1802, evidently moft hofile to his 
endeavours and ufefuinefs. . This attack, 
it is fuppofed, came from the pen of a 
young man, of no particular experience in 
the fubjeét of the book, but who, it feems, 
had im fome inftances before, in the 
fame way, fhewn a determined and inde- 
cent hoftility to feveral of Dr. Hutton’s 
publications. This frefh attack of the 
Danciivrec: from whatever caufe his pique 
may arife, was at once more flacrant in 
its nature, and more mifchievous in its 
tendency, as relating toa fubjeét at pre- 
fent of rmmediate and public ‘concern.— 
Regardlefs, however, of all poffible con- 
fequences, public and private, the Month- 
dy Review 1s thus proitituted to the gra- 
tification of private pique and juvenile 
wafhnefs. How illiveral, Sir, and contra- 
digtory of the boafted profeffions of impar- 
tiality and ferious deliberation made by 
Reviewers!) Whoever clances over the re- 
view of the book in queftion, is ftrongly 
impreffed with the hottile intention of the 
Reviewer, and of feveral injurious infau- 
ations, which, it feenys, have fince’ been 
awkwardly relinquifhed by ‘him, viz. in 
the Reviews for May and June, in which, 
showever, he-has renevred the attack with 
other erroneous and injurious affertions. 
To jultify thefe- honeft reflections, Sir, 
det usjuf in afew lines confider only fome 
parts of this very imperfeé and obnoxious 
account. The-general .caft of that fhort 
w@ecount is deciamatory, infidious, con- 
Abufeof Reviews 5 and on Bridgesbuilding.: 
[Aug. Ty 
temptuous, imperfect, and any thing but 
fair, juft, and impartial. , 
~The Reviewer begins his account in this 
manner: *¢ Men of the pen have feldom 
very great fkill in conquering kingdoms, 
but they have ftrong inclination to give 
advice. The fame may be faid of /pecu- 
latiwe men. However inefficient in the 
aétual formation of machinery, they have 
till a great inclinatiqn to inftrug&t the me- 
chanic and architect 5 but the inftructions 
are generally flighted, and the fuggeltions 
treated as mere airy f{peculations—as the 
ferious triflings of a theorift, claiming 
rank only among thofe unfubfantial fyt- 
tems which the pride of caiculation is con- 
tinvally ereéting, and which time and ex- 
perience are conftantly overthrowing)” 
Now, Sir, to what purpofe is. all this de- 
clamation ? Is this the way fairly to re~ 
view the book in queftion—to render juf- 
tice to the public and to the occafion? -Or 
is it nor meant, without reafon, to over- 
whelm the author with indifcriminate ob- 
loquy ? Is it meant to blame all theorifts 
and /peculative men, or only Dr, Hatton 
in particular, for troubling mechanics and 
archite@s wxh advice and fpeculations? 
This young Reviewer may have met with 
mechanics who have affeted to defpife 
fuch {peculations, throvgh their -own ig- 
norance. But is that any good reafon or 
jaltification of his general condemnation of 
theorifts, for exhibiting their fpeculations > 
This is very different from the praétice 
and fertiments of the truly ingenious end 
learned engineer and architect, or even 
nechanic. Theledo notdefpife fuch fpe- 
culations ; but, on the contrary, refpect 
them, encourage them, and praétife them 
themfelves ; well knowing that the difaf- 
trous attemps of the mere mechanic are 
but too often the confequence of fuch ig- 
norance as affeéts to defpife all theory and 
feeculation, As-to Dr. Hutton in parti- 
cular, he has certainly not been forward in 
obtruding this work on the pubiie. After 
the book had been many years out of 
print, and having been often importuned 
to the republication—baving alfo been 
called on for his opinion and ideas on the 
faubject of it by the high authority of tne 
Parliament, he at length confentedto give 
it agai tothe public ; and for this com- 
pliance it fcems he is now infulted by the 
. flippant declamations ‘of a mere fpecula- 
‘tive andjuvenile Reviewer. 
But the reviewer proceeds: ¢¢The ap-~ 
pellation, peculative men, ‘when thus ap- 
plied, is invended asa term of reproach, 
(very decent ‘to'be fure !) becaufe a ne~ 
eloét of experiment has frequently led the- 
2 orifts 
