1810.] 
must have been derogatory and mortifying to 
their self-impor tance. 
‘© 9. That in their review of your article, 
they told at least two falsehoods, knowing 
them*to he such ; and, of course, for the mere 
‘unworthy purpose of injuring you in the 
i of the world. 
. That itis in vain for them now to 
urge,. ey if you did not copy from an au- 
thor, without acknowledgment when they 
asserted you did thus copy from him, they 
have since discovered that you have ‘copied 
without acknowledgment from others. ‘I’he 
public (and I as one of them) have a short 
and easy methed of settling this point, with- 
out troubling ourselves with a reference, by 
simply observing, that the man who could 
wilfully liein the first instance, is infinitely 
-more likely ta lie in the second. 
only betrayed the cloven foot, but avowedly 
exhibited it to the public: and has nullified 
his own authority by his.motive, and his own 
testimony by his self-conviction’ of, false- 
hood, 
‘¢ 4. All this is confirmed and established 
by the Reviewers’ concluding declaration, 
that they now ‘‘willingly take leave of a 
subject, which no consideration. shall induce 
them to resume; a declaration, by which 
they obviously refuse admission to any thing 
you may send them, as they did in the case 
of your former letter: for why should they 
be guilty of so palpable a piece of injustice, 
as that of excluding you trom theonly ground 
where you can fairly repel their attack to the 
satisfaction of all their ‘readers ; 5 except it be, 
that they know you have the means of per- 
fectly refuting their-calumnies, and thus of , 
still farther depreciating their moral charac- 
ter in the estimation of the public?” 
Thus far from 
my learned friend, Readers of a 
ent description, however, may very pro- 
bably.pass over the self-destructive pas- 
sages in the Reviewers’ epistle with. little 
concern, and admit that at least my cha- 
racter is rendered suspicious, that there 
must be some ground for the charges, 
that they must be partly true, &c. &c.. 
Many readers, Mr. Editor, listen with 
eagerness to an accusation, and balf wish 
many-are. prejudieed, on some , 
it wrue; 
account, 1 favour of the Edinburgh Me- 
viewers, and think they are tou honest, 
many more think they:ere too. politic, to 
commit their character thus deliberately 
upon a groundless calumny. 
' therefore agree.with some af my frends, 
in apprehending no injury whatever from 
this unprincipled attack, were I to treat 
“it with silent contempt. 
Allow me, now, Sir, to quote a passnge 
froin the Preface to my ‘Treatise of Me- 
fre which alone would be held ‘a 
. 
He haé not - 
the communication of. 
differ-— 
I caniice- 
to the Edinburgh Reviewers. 33 
ee answer, I trust, to the charge of 
‘ plagiarism. ry 
** In the composition of the first-volume of 
this Treatise, Ihave derived material assist- 
ance from the labours of several of my pre- 
decessors in this department of science 5 
though I have not, perhaps, so frequently 
cited my authorities as some readers may be 
apt to.expect: but this ‘will not, Ttrust, on 
. consideration, be thoughta culpable omission 5 
for, although I have not, for example, as- 
_ cribed to Prony what I found in succession in 
the writings of Varignon, Belidor, Bezout, 
and D’Alembert,, nor to Parkinson, or At- 
wood, what had previously appeared ia the 
writings of Galileo, Wilkins, Wallis, Desa- 
guliersy or Emerson, esteeming whatever [ 
found in such circumstances, as common pro- 
perty to be adopted without hesitation ; yet, 
in all cases: where I could speak confidently 
of the original author, and particularly where 
the matter quoted had been but seldom pub- 
lished, I have not failed to make the corre- 
sponding reference. As to the second volume, 
it is professedly a compilation ; and Ihave no 
other merit to.claim respecting it, than that 
of having employed much Jabour and pains 
in consulting a great many volumes of jour-- 
nals, transactions, arts, encyclopawdias, the- 
atres of machines, &c. published in England, 
France, and Germany; and having selected 
_ from these numerous, and: often voluminous, 
works, such particulars as were most likely to 
- be serviceable to my countrymen, when pre- 
sented to them, (separate trom every thing 
extraneous,) 1m a moderate- sized single va- 
lume.” 
Such, Mr. Editor, was my language ine 
December, 1805, At the end of four 
years, the active, indefatigable imalig- 
nity of the Edinburgh Reviewers, (and 
in this 1 must own them superior to all 
other human beings, except the North 
_ American Indians.) has collected toge- 
ther, out of two volumes, containing more 
than one thousand and fifty pages, five 
Or six instances, in which, according to 
their representation, L might seem to 
have infringed upon be established 
rules of authorship. Sir, [ speak with 
that confidence, which a man, whose 
moral character i unimpeached, may be 
justified in using, when he confronts him- 
-self to anonymous writers, self-cunvicted 
again and again of deception, prevarie 
cation, and falsehood ; when I affirm 
that, in the course of a deliberate search, - 
_Thave found only one place in which 
reference that ought to have been made, 
has been even accidentally omitted.. 
This one relates to Venturi’s disquisition _ 
_on the exhaustion of vessels through ori- 
fices, in their bases ; which T now regret. 
tical inserted, because, however elegant 
% - 
~ ; 
t 
