S22 Rq)ly to Art, I. No. XVIIL 



journal, which, being avowedly written for the public eye, are 

 much more calculated (i. e. than the aforesaid private commu- 

 nications) to foment bitter feeling among individuals, and to 

 bring national reproach upon us all. (p. 98.) It is, moreover, 

 insinuated that I have misused my influence as editor, in 

 making a spirit of dissension and invective the conspicuous 

 feature of that work, and thus giving rise to one of the chief 

 causes of the decline — yes. Sir, the decline ! — of zoological 

 science in this country, (p. 97.) The only answer, perhaps, 

 which ought to be made to such assertions and insinuations is a 

 reference to the names of those eminent persons who cooperate 

 with me in the editorship of that work. These would be of them- 

 selves a sufficient guarantee that no papers of a disgraceful 

 nature would be allowed to creep into it. But I do not shield 

 myself beneath their common responsibility. Neither shall I 

 seek shelter under the principle, however universally acknow- 

 ledged, that no editor of a journal or superintendent of scien- 

 tific transactions is answerable for the papers contained in 

 them, to which the authors affix their names. And yet, Sir, 

 if we do not subscribe to this general principle, what incon- 

 venience will be the result 1 You, among others, will have to 

 answer not only for the errors and misconceptions, but for 

 the evil passions and severe recriminations, of your corre- 

 spondents. You will be responsible for all Mr. Swainson's 

 misrepresentations ; you will even be called upon to account 

 for the language of indignation in which I am constrained to 

 rebut them. But I do not, I repeat, rely upon such a mode 

 of defence. Standing upon higher grounds, and voluntarily 

 assuming every responsibility, I boldly appeal to the work 

 itself for its own justification. Let us enquire what are the 

 controversial papers thus alleged to be injurious to science? 

 Your readers will be startled at finding that the very first 

 paper of a controversial nature, which I had any share in 

 having inserted in that journal, was written by Mr. Swainson 

 himself! Yes, Sir, this meek inculcator of temperance, 

 moderation, and self-denial (p. 106.), was the first to set the 

 example of "prominency in this species of scientific warfare !" 

 (p. 98. note.) The very man, Sir, who accuses me of intro- 

 ducing into the journal over w^hich I presided a litigious 

 spirit, was the man who first tempted me to the deed ! Let 

 me not, however, be understood as condemning the introduc- 

 tion of that paper. It is the blinded inconsistency alone of 

 the would-be critic that I reprobate. The paper itself was a 

 reply, — right or wrong, conclusive or inconclusive, I say not, 

 — but a reply to a previous attack made upon the opinions of 

 the author. As such, I know not how iri common justice the 



