1809.]. Account of Mr. Ol. Gregory's Treatise of Mechanics, 31 
affluence.” but for the sake of assisting 
indigent merit, and of bringing a.subject 
again under discussion; that all who were 
able to judge, might ascertain where 
“© truth” was manifested, and where 
“* justice” was dispensed. I neither ex- 
pected, nor wished, that Mr. Hornblow- 
er’s statements should be passed over in 
silence: it was rather my desire, that it 
should be strictly examined ; that both he 
and Mr. Watt should be esteemed by the 
public, according to their real merits. 
No person would be more unwilling than 
myself, to countenance any depreciation 
ef Mr. Watt’s character, as a man of in- 
genuity and science: I shall be very hap- 
py, if the conduct of his ill-advised ad- 
vocates does not leave an impression 
upon the public mind, that he is too 
much actuated by the spirit of monopoly 
for a genuine philosopher. 
I need not tell you, in how many 
points Mr, Watt’s present advocate has 
Jeft Mr. Hornblower’s . positions. un- 
touched : they may be easily determined 
by any person, who will compare the two 
accounts. I will proceed to the second 
topic, on which I proposed writing; and 
which is, the deviation from truth, in the 
note at the foot of page 236. The Re- 
viewer, adds that note, obviously for the 
purpose of asserting that, in the ‘* second 
volume of my Mechanics, the abstract of 
Coulomb’s ex periments,and the section on 
Horizontal Windmills,are taken with little 
variation, and no acknowledgment from 
Dr. Brewster’s edition of Ferguson’s 
Mechanics. Thesame is true, of the ar- 
ticle on the teeth of wheels, and_part of 
the description of the thrashing ma- 
chine.” Now here, Sir, in a short note 
of ten lines, are four positive assertions ; 
each of which is positively false : in con- 
tradiction to them, [aftirm, first, that my 
account of Coulomb’s experiments was 
printed before Dr. (then Mr.) Brewster’s 
edition of “ Ferguson’s Select Lectures,” 
was published, and that no two descrip- 
tions of the same experiments can possi- 
bly bemore unlike; Dr. Brewster’s being 
a concise summary, comprised in five 
pages of a large print; while mine is a 
detailed account, occupying nineteen 
pages, printed witha smalltype. In op- 
position to the reviewer's farther charges, 
ofmy having taken from Dr. Brewster, 
with no acknowledgment, I have to state 
as below. ‘The piece in my first edition, 
extracted from Brewster, on Horizontal 
Windmills, begins thus: ‘ Mr. Brewster 
makes also the following remarks, -on the 
comparative power of horizontal aad 
vertical windmills ;” and ends with an 
express reference to “‘ Brewster’s Fergu- 
son, vol. u.” ‘The extract from Brewster, 
in the article ‘ Teeth of Wheels’, was 
preceded by these words, ‘* availing our- 
selves for the most part, of the judicious 
remarks just published by Mr. Brew- 
ster,” and terminated, asin the former 
Instance, by a reference to ‘* Brewster's 
Ferguson, vol. 1.” No part *‘ of the de- 
scription of the Thrashing Machine,” is 
taken from Dr. Brewster; but there is a 
small table, which both that gentleman 
and myself have derived from the same 
source ; a source to which we have both 
referred, It would be a very heavy tax 
upon your patience, were I to add to the 
foregoing, some extracts from my second. 
edition, (which the reviewer must have 
seen, because he refers to it) ; otherwise 
I could point to pages 421, 461, 485, 
493, 508, of the second volume, for 
abundant evidence, that I never could 
wish to filch from, or to injure, Dr. 
Brewster. ; 
The doctor, indeed, knows me too in- 
timately, to entertain any doubt on that 
head; and, I may add, he respects me 
too highly, to leave me any room to con- 
ceive, he had any part in these insinu- 
ations: for, in aletter to me, hearing 
date February 24, he says, speaking of 
this critique, ‘* There are mentioned in 
note, some passages in your 2d Vol. 
which, in the first edition, had'a resem- 
blance to some passages in my Appendix 
to Ferguson. I need scarcely assure 
you, that this was done in consequence 
ofno communication or request of mine. 
Upon the whole, from the slight glance 
I have got of the article, you will, [ 
think, not be greatly displeased with the 
reviewer.” In truth, I am not: his con- - 
duct, and the motives from which. it 
emanates, rather excite my pity than 
my anger: but | think you must feel ine 
dignant, that the character of the Edin-*» 
burgh Review should be degraded by 
its being made the vehicle of wilful false- 
hood, (for such, I fear, you will find it ;) 
and Mr. Watt must be vexed to find 
that he has committed his defence to a 
man, who, by four deviations from truth, 
of easy detection, must inevitably weaken 
the effect of every other part of his state- 
ment. : . 
For my own part, however, all I hare 
to request is, that your love of “truth | 
and justice” will induce you to state in 
Number 27, that the note, of which I 
now complain, is erroneous throughout, 
I know toe much of the nature of Re- 
Be ae views, 
