|6.| He complains of the Committee as partial, & set sup Iohn Ber-
noulli against them & to give the preference to this great Mathe-
maticians send them challenges them to solve [illeg] \one of/ his Problemes. But
I want the But what solving of Problemes has to do in this matter
I do not understand. The Committee without much \any/ skill in mathema-
ticks might search out the old Letters & papers & shew them to
witnesses who knew the hands, [& tell the Society that they met with
nothing whereby it appeared that they M^r Leibnitz had the method
before the year 1677, & that by [illeg] my Analysis communicated by
D^r Barrow to M^r Collins in the year 1669, \&/ by \my/ Letters of 10 Decem
1672 & by my L 13 Iune 1676 & 24 Octob. 1676 they were con-
vinced that I had the method when I wrote those Letters & Papers.
And all the Mathematical skill of M^r Bernoulli will not make
good his pretenses to y^e contrary] & I want them \they were wanted/ for nothing more.
then their testimony \is wanted/ in this matter. M^r Bernoulli with all his Ma
thematicks can be no eviden has brought no evidence to the contrary
And all Bernoullis skill in Mathematicks avails nothing against this
evidence. [illeg] Without much skill in Mathematicks they might report that
they met with nothing in \all/ those Letters & Papers whereby it appeared that
M^r Leibnitz had the method [illeg]  [sic] before the year 1677, &

|7| But M^r Leibnitz represents that the Committe have omitted
things w^ch made against me & printed every thing w^ch could be
turned against him by strained glosses, & to make this appear he
produced an instance in his last Letter, but finding \confesses now/ that he erred in
that instance \affirming that the passage was omitted in the Commerc. / he |&| now |he| produces another \instance/. He saith that I ow in
one of my Letters to M^r Collins I owned that I could not find the
second segments of Spheroids, & | y^t | the Committee have omitted this
Let If the Committee had omitted such a Letter I think they would
have done right, it being nothing to the purpose. But there was
no such Letter. M^r Collins in a Letter to M^r Gregory dated 24
Decem 1670 \& printed in the Commercium pag. 24,/ wrote that my method extended to y^e second segments
of round solids, & [th] [illeg] [he] could \I heare that/ the Letter in w^ch I signified this to
M^r Collins is still extant & conteins the dimension of the second
segment of the Sphæroid. |,| |so that it makes as much for me as M^r Leibnitz pretends that it makes
against me| [Thus you see that the Committee (contrary
to what M^r Leibnitz represents) have [illeg] omitted a Letter w^ch makes
for me, & he ought to beg their pardon for accusing them falsly] & yet
I do not complain of the Committee for omitting it. But I complain of
M^r Leibnitz for accusing the Committee of partiality without being able to
prove [illeg] his accusation wh without knowing wherein they were partial.
For this rashness shews the spirit of the Gentleman.