ray, by a mean apology, that right which no man
has power, and, I suppose, no wise man has desire to refuse me; but
shall consider the letter published by you last Friday, in defence of
Mr. M----'s[1] design for a new bridge.

Mr. M---- proposes elliptical arches. It has been objected, that
elliptical arches are weak; and, therefore, improper for a bridge of
commerce, in a country where greater weights are ordinarily carried by
land, than, perhaps, in any other part of the world. That there is an
elliptical bridge at Florence is allowed, but the objectors maintain,
that its stability is so much doubted, that carts are not permitted to
pass over it.

To this no answer is made, but that it was built for coaches; and if it
had been built for carts, it would have been made stronger: thus all the
controvertists agree, that the bridge is too weak for carts; and it is
of little importance, whether carts are prohibited, because the bridge
is weak, or whether the architect, knowing that carts were prohibited,
voluntarily constructed a weak bridge. The instability of the elliptical
arch has been sufficiently proved by argument, and Ammanuti's attempt
has proved it by example.

The iron rail, whether gilt or varnished, appears to me unworthy of
debate. I suppose every judicious eye will discern it to be minute and
trifling, equally unfit to make a part of a great design, whatever be
its colour. I shall only observe how little the writer understands his
own positions, when he recommends it to be cast in whole pieces from
pier to pier. That iron forged is stronger than iron cast, every smith
can inform him; and if it be cast in large pieces, the fracture of a
single bar must be repaired by a new piece.

The abrupt rise, which is feared from firm circular arches, may be
easily prevented, by a little extension of the abutment at each end,
which will take away the objection, and add almost nothing to the
expense.

The whole of the argument in favour of Mr. M----, is only, that there is
an elliptical bridge at Florence, and an iron balustrade at Rome; the
bridge is owned to be weak, and the iron balustrade we consider as mean,
and are loath that our own country should unite two follies in a publick
work.

The architrave of Perrault, which has been pompously produced, bears
nothing but its entablature; and is so far from owing its support to the
artful section of the stone, that it is held together by cramps of iron;
to which I a