thor of that letter, no doubt from the presumption, that it is found advan moft laudable motive, justice to the public as well as the manufacturer, has thought proper to contradict the account you had given of the business in a preceeding number, and kindly offers you "better information on this point than you feem to be in poffeffion of." Unfortunately, this superior information is founded upon groundless rumours and vague reports. The writer talks of -supposed facts, the nature andcircumstances of which he seems to be little acquainted with. I give him credit for the fincerity of the motive which he professes, the good of the public, and hope that, confiftently with that view, he will permit me to correct fome unintentional mistatements of his, and particularly the inferences he draws from them. tageous. Your Constant Reader denies that in the operation properly called tanning, "the ratio of a day, by the new process, to a month, by the old, is by any means correct." Of this correctness however many have frequently been eye-witnesses: but if he will not take my word for it, and wishes to be convinced of his mistake, I beg leave to refer him to the 8th vol. of the Repertory of Arts, &c. p. 350, & feq. But, as your Constant Reader justly observes, the important question is, whether the public is likely to be benefited by the new process or not? Though he does not tell us that he ever knew of an experiment properly made to afcertain the merits of it, he fays, that, if he is rightly informed, experiments have been made at several manufactories: he then asks, are there any of extent which continue to purfue it? "Mr. Definond, (he says,) I have underflood first introduced the practice, and in connection, I believe, with a Mr. Biggen established a tannery near to Westminster-bridge." So far his information is accurate enough; but what follows, and particularly the inference he draws from it, is not altogether fo. " In this fituation, (he adds), these gentlemen were at liberty to avail themselves of all the advantages derivable from the new proceis; hut I do not understand that they continue to purfue the plan-a pretty trong prefumption that it was not found advantageous to them as individuals." The connection between these gentlemen was diffolved some years ago, for realons best known to themselves; it is therefore true, as your Constant Reader understands, that fince that diffolution yearly fifty thousand ox-hides, two hunthey do not continue to pursue that or dred thousand calf skins, &c. and where any other plan together; but it by no fince than four times that number of means follows, nor is it true in fact, that hides have been annually tanned, befides in the tannery near Westminster-bridge several other manufactories on the fame the new process is discontinued. If your plan established in different departments Conftant Reader will take the trouble of of France. But if he must have examples inquiring, he will find, that the only de- at home, and will take the trouble of viation introduced there, from the origi- going to Birmingham, he will find one nal plan, was the effect of neceffity, not capable of manufacturing more leather of choice. The vats being few in num- in a year than perhaps any two manuber, and of small dimensions, the want factories in England upon the old plan. of fuficient room to fufpend the hides He will hear of feveral others, though and skins in, rendered it necessary to lay upon a less extensive scale, in Warwickthem one over the other according to the shire, Staffordshire, and other neighbourold practice, in which fituation they require ing counties. If he visits Yaxley, in frequent handling. This the writer of the Huntingdonshire, he will find one where letter will probably not confider as an im- the new process has been very extensively provement: the inconvenience which pro- and fuccefsfully pursued for fome years. duced it is about to be remedied, and the This may be fufficient to answer all that manufactory shortly to be carried to a re- gentleman's questions and remove his fpectable extent more than a strong doubts. It would have been more fatisfactory if this gentleman had informed us when, where, or by whom, the experiments had been made, and what the refult was. If he had stated even one trial fairly conducted which did not fucceed, his affertion might have been of fome weight; and as to his question, whether there are any manufactories of extent which continue to use the new process, the answer is, Yes. He may not perhaps be disposed to admit, as proper examples, Mr. Seguin's manufactory near Paris, which, as he may read in the ad volume of the Monthly Magazine, page 719, was in the beginning of 1796 already capable of tanning MONTHLY MAG. No. go. D He He proceeds, "Mr. Seguin, it is faid, has, in a great measure, discontinued the new process, and that in a country which presents greater facilities in it than England does, bark being an article procured at an easy rate." Your Constant Reader roundly affirms, "that the new process is not calculated for general use in tanneries-and that, if it were generally practised, it would prove an injury to a confiderable part of the hides and skins." We must withhold our affent from these afsertions, until some better reason is alleged for them, than what we have hitherto seen. In the mean time may we beg to know why the leather is more liable to be injured in general than in particular cafes? What part of it, and why a part only, and not the whole, is thus injured ? Much more may be faid on this apparently important fubject, but I fear this letter is already too long: however, before I conclude, may I beg leave to remind your Constant Reader of the adage tentare non nocet, and observe to him that the mere conjectures of an inexperienced man, whatever his candour and fagacity may be in other respects, can have no weight in this, when compared with the positive evidence of many who have had long and extensive practice in the business. I am, Sir, It would feem necessary to ftate precisely in what measure Mr. Seguin has discontinued it. Alterations and improvements in the form and dimensions of his apparatus, may have been neceffary from local circumstances: he may, in fome cafes, make less use than formerly of the gallic and fulphuric acids, for unhairing the hides; but neither of these cafes has any thing to do with the principle of the procefs: modifications may, and must, be observed in the application of it, according to circumstances; but the principle itself is so firmly established, as never to be maken, and neither Mr. Seguin, the original inventor, nor any other person who understands it, has ever yet abandoned it. Your Constant Reader thinks, but does not say why, the new process is more expensive than the old. Most assuredly it cannot be on account of labour, because it requires much less of it than the old mode; the daily operation of handling being totally fupprefled. It must then be on account of bark, as he plainly infinuates. But if he imagines that it requires more bark to tan a S your admit into your valuable given weight of A Mifcellany philological disquifileather in one way than another, he will tions on the dead languages, allow me, find few people of his opinion, because through that medium, to inquire of some it is well known that the quantity of learned reader, whether there are many instances in the Greek Tragic Poets of the augment being omitted, and whether any Ionic peculiarity may be tolerated in the poets of the Attic dialect. tannin abforbed by the leather is what gives it weight. Now it is universally admitted that the leather tanned by the new process is confiderably heavier than by the old; and in this sense, no doubt, more bark is converted into leather; but this confideration is manifestly in fa your of the manufacturer. But is the bark more liable to be waited or lost in the new than the old process ? Apparently much less; and if in any particular cafe a waste or loss of bark takes place, it must be the fault of the manufacturer. The mode pointed out by the new process of afcertaining whether the bark is completely spent or not, is fo fimple and so infallible, that it is fcarcely poffible to be mistaken in it; nor is it more difficult, after the tannin is reduced to a fluid flate, to afcertain whether it is totally abforbed from the liquor by the leather, which cannot imbibe more than is necessary to faturate it: and, in both cafes, a little attention is sufficient to prevent the possibility of a lofs or wafte of bark. A FRIEND TO IMPROVEMENT. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SIR, The very learned and ingenious Profeffor Porfon fays in his preface to the Hecuba of Euripides Plane perfuafum habeo, non licuiffe in Attico fermone augmentum abjicere." A passage has just met my eye in the Edipus Tyrannus of Sophocles, where the augment is rejected contrary to this To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. A SIR, MONG the various periodical publications that have been projected in the course of the last half century, reviews of new books have held a diftinguished place. The idea was plausible and popular; the encouragement prompt and ample. The benefits to literature, and to the public, expected from fuch registers, were too obvious and important not to meet the hearty good wishes of most readers. How pleasing and convenient, to have a regular register of all new publications, and an account of all that is most important in them. How useful thus, not only to be apprised of whatever new books come forth on the subjects we are most interested in, but alfo to be informed of their particular merits and contents, for directing our choice or rejection, and to be amuled and inftructed by abstracts judicioufly made from them, and, in short, a condensed epitome of the whole works! With fuch flattering ideas, we pleased and congratulated ourselves, eagerly encouraging fuch obliging critics and reviewers, without dreaming of any adverse consequences refulting from them. How could we suspect any thing difastrous from fuch obliging, good, and able men? They could have no end in view but the public good. Who could harbour a thought of their ever being actuated by the mean paffions of jealousy, envy, malice, and all uncharitableness; of turning their privilege of concealed Reviewers to all the purposes of a job, to mislead the public mind-to abuse its confidence to puff off the very trash of their own connections and their friends-to mifrepresent and condemn the mott valuable works of others; thus concealedly and implicitly deceiving the public by false notions, to the great difcouragement of true and genuine litera ture? From fuch disastrous consequences, at frit unforeseen or overlooked, but which experience afterwards evinced to be but too possible, we have been induced to think that Reviews, as they are now partially conducted, tend rather to vitiate than to improve the public tafte; and that, unJels they return to the original plan of a fair analysis of contents, and an impar tial account of style and manner, we can hardly help wishing that Reviews may be completely difcountenanced by all literary men. Works of real and sterling merit made their way properly before there were Reviewers to direct or to millead the pub lic judgment; and why may they not do the fame again? I have been led into these reflections by the observation and report of many flagrant instances of the abuse of privilege in Reviewers, to the annoyance of true learning and modest merit. It would be endless to attempt to expose or repeat all the instances of cruel injustice that have been practised by these concealed tyrants. I shall at present only advert to one particular instance, because it is a case in which the fubject is at present of very great importance to the nation, and againft an individual unconscious of provoking afsault. The cafe here alluded to is relative to the improvement of the harbour of London, chiefly by means of a new bridge over the Thames, and extensive wharfs. On this occafion, two ingenious engineers, among several others, Messrs. Telford and Douglass, announced their proposal for a castiron bridge, of a fingle arch only, instead of the present London-bridge, which should be of a height sufficient to admit trading ships of confiderable burden to fail through the arch, and so proceed with their cargoes as far as Blackfriars-bridge. This proposal, from its own magnitude, and the importance of its object to the public, became greatly interesting, and the fubject of very general conversation. The Parliament of the nation were even im. pressed with the magnificence and grandeur of the object, to that degree, as to appoint a select committee of members for properly examining this proposal, and conducting the inquiry and concerns relating to it. To accomplish this the more effectually, beside the exhibition of the models and drawings, they caused magnificent engravings of the designs to be executed, which they communicated to a number of scientific and profeffional men, the most able and likely to give advice on so important an occafion, together with copies of a collection of interefting queries relating to the project, to which they requested their answers. This was a very wife and prudent measure in the committee, and well calculated to enfure safety and success in their deliberations. Among several of the public profeffors of the universities, and other learned philosophers confulted on this occafion, was also Dr. Hutton, the profeffor of mathematics in the Royal Military Academy, who was deemed peculiarly proper for reference on a subject which had formerly engaged his attention and employed his D2 pen, pen, on an occafion which produced an ingenious tract on the subject of bridge. building, near 30 years before; a work which procured him high encomiums from the most experienced engineers and scien tific men. This tract having been long out of print, and eagerly enquired after, he was induced to give a new edition of it, which came out in two weeks after the project of the new bridge had been mentioned to him, and exactly as in its original tate. This had no particular reference to the new project, though it seems it was thought that perhaps tome useful hints might be afforded by it: however, the author announced, in the preface, his intention to prepare another on the fubject, which, it was understood, might contain his more mature thoughts on subject, and perhaps on the new project in particular. the temptuous, imperfect, and any thing but manner: The Reviewer begins his account in this very great skill in conquering kingdoms, "Men of the pen have feldom but they have ftrong inclination to give advice. The fame may be faid of speculative men. actual formation of machinery, they have However inefficient in the chanic and architect; but the instructions still a great inclination to instruct the metreated as mere airy speculations as the are generally flighted, and the suggestions ferious triflings of a theoritt, claiming rank only among those unsubstantial fyftems which the pride of caliculation is continually erecting, and which time and experience are conftantly overthrowing." clamation? Is this the way fairly to reNow, Sir, to what purpose is all this detice to the public and to the occafion? Or view the book in question to render jufwhelm the author with indifcriminate obis it not meant, without reason, to overloquy? Is it meant to blame all theorifts and speculative men, or only Dr. Hutton in particular, for troubling mechanics and architects with advice and speculations? This young Reviewer may have met with such speculations, through their own igmechanics who have affected to despise norance. juftification of his general condemnation of But is that any good reafon or theorists, for exhibiting their speculations? This is very different from the practice learned engineer and architect, or even and fentiments of the truly ingenious mechanic. These do not despise such spe. culations; but, on the contrary, refpect them, encourage them, and practife them themselves; well knowing that the difaf but too often the confequence of fuch igtrous attemps of the mere mechanic are norance as affects to despise all theory and speculation. As to Dr. Hutten in cular, he has certainly not been forward in obtruding this work on the public. After the book had been many years out of print, and having been often importuned to the republication-having alfo been called on for his opinion and ideas on the fubject of it by the high authority of the Parliament, he at length confented to give it again to the public; and for this compliance it feems he is now infulted by the flippant declamations of a mere fpeculative and juvenile Reviewer. Matters were in this profperous frate, every perfon concerned uniting their endeavours in an amicable manner, to give the best advice and afsistance in his power; when an account of Dr. Hutton's tract came out in the Monthly Review for March 1802, evidently most hoftile to his endeavours and usefulness. This attack, it is supposed, came from the pen of a young man, of no particular experience in the fubject of the book, but who, it seems, had in fome instances before, in the fame way, thewn a determined and inde cent hoftility to several of Dr. Hutton's publications. This fresh attack of the Reviewer, from whatever cause his pique may arife, was at once more flagrant in its nature, and more mischievous in its tendency, as relating to a subject at prefent of immediate and public concern.Regardlefs, however, of all poffible confequences, public and private, the Monthly Review is thus prostituted to the gratification of private pique and juvenile ramness. How illiberal, Sir, and contradictory of the boafted profeflions of impartiality and ferious deliberation made by Reviewers! Whoever glances over the review of the book in question, is strongly imprefled with the hottile intention of the Reviewer, and of feveral injurious infinuations, which, it feenis, have fince been awkwardly relinquished by him, viz. in the Reviews for May and June, in which, however, he has renewed the attack with other erroneous and injurious affertions. To justify these honeft 'reflections, Sir, let us just in a few lines confider only fome parts of this very imperfect and obnoxious account. The general caft of that fiort account is declamatory, infidious, con. 12 and parti pellation, speculative men, when thus ap- 2 orifts 1 prifts into abfurdity." But what is all this to the purpose? Is this the way to review the book? Or how does the Reviewer apply these reflections to the author of the Principles of Bridges? Does he mean an infidious application by vague infinuations? Although experiment was not perhaps neceffary, it has not been omitted, nor even real practice, and that on a large scale: it is on public record, that on the author's principles and theories, many arches have been raised, with complete fuccefs, by some engineers of the very highest rank and experience. The Reviewer again proceeds:-" eds The mathematical concluions in the present work, whether or not they may be con firmed by the refults of experiments," (the Reviewer might have known, that they have been so confirmed, and he ought in justice to have faid so, instead of infinuating a doubt of it), " do not appear to us to have any reference to the conftruction of fuch a bridge as is now propofed to be thrown over the Thames." It is true, that Dr. Hutton's work could not be written with reference to the bridge now proposed, being composed thirty years before; but yet the balancing principle employed in the treatise, if a true one, muft apply to every arch, whether made of stone or iron, formed of vouffoirs or wedges. Again, "If we at all understood the model which has been exhibited to the public, the catt iron bridge will not derive its ftrength from the fame principle which prevails in common arches." From the molt 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 molt eminent degree. The Reviewer then dispatches his analyfis of the work, fuch as it is, in the following fummary way: "Prop. 1st. Sect. 2d, of this tract, is the fame with that of Emerfon, p. 149, Mifcellanies. - Prop. 3. and 4. are likewife nearly the fame as toofe of Emerfon." Thus, Sir, instead 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 lame, with those in Emerfon's Mifcellanies. This is mighty useful information to be fure, as well as very candid, and doubtiefs well intended. I beHeve, Sir, that the Reviewer will not find many other perfons that may think the worte of a proposition for its agreeing with fome of Mr. Emerson's, or for be ing adopted by him. This officioufnefs, however, was quite unnecessary, unless to difcredit Dr. Hutton in the public opinion, as he had rendered every justice of that kind in the work itself, to whomever it might be due, whether to Mr. Emerfon or not: a joftice which, however proper to the readers of the book, was quite. immaterial to the mere readers of the Review. Unfortunately, too, the Reviewer, in his hatte, has made a strange anachronifim, by afcribing those three propofitions to Emerson's Miscellanies, a book not published till four years after Dr. Hutton's Principles of Bridges had appeared. Does the Reviewer recant his expreffions, and disclaim all intention to impute plagiarism to Dr. Hutton? How awkward the apology: will it be believed? Can the expressions be taken, by any indifferent reader, in any other fenfe than the design to impute plagiarifim. I have not heard of one person, and the Review has been shewn to a great many for that purpose, who does not understand the expreffions in the fame sense, as they manifestly bear on the face of them; or who does not confider the critique, short as it is, and unapplicable to the book, as dictated by a most mischievous hoftile principle, completely unprovoked on the part of Dr. Hutton. Instead of printing the answer and objections of Dr. Hutton, which had been made to fuch injurious proceedings, the Editor of the Review contents himlelf, with only noticing their reception, and at the fame time printing the Reviewer's awkward apology, in answer to Dr. Hutton's obfervations, difclaiming any imputation of plagiarism, in regard to Mr. Emerfon, as well as all ideas of malevolence or ill-will towards Dr. Hatton in particular; and referring, for farther information, concerning the reafons of his remarks, to his account of Mr. Atwood's Differtation on Arches, in the fame number of the Monthly Review. On turning to the account here alluded to, viz. of Mr. Atwood's book, in the Review for May, p. 41, the reader is immediately ftruck with an account, written in a temper quite the reverse of that of the former. In the account of Dr. Hutton's book, speculative and scientific men are reproached, as busy, troublesome perfons, officioufly molesting the mechanic or architect with their plans and advice: but here, on the contrary, in the case of Mr. Atwood, it is all very fit and proper that such men should step forward with |