330 Repli/ to Art. I. No. XVIII. 



country ever produced ; and of Dr. Horsfield, the friend, 

 companion, and cooperator in the liberal views and splendid 

 exertions of that great man, will suggest sufficient proofs of 

 the justice of my assertion. I will add to these examples of 

 unjust treatment that of Mr. Swainson himself: and I need 

 adduce no farther case in point beyond that with which he 

 has himself in the present instance supplied us, his contro- 

 versy with M. de Ferussac (p. 106.) ; a case where he accuses 

 and convicts of striking injustice a naturalist of France, in the 

 very paper in which he contends, with notable inconsistency, 

 that no such injustice exists in that country. 



4. The accusation to which I shall next allude is almost 

 too contemptible to be noticed. It amounts simply to an 

 assertion that I have described two birds as new to science 

 eighteen months after he — I beg pardon, >we — Mr. Swainson, 

 had already described them. Nothing but the previous com- 

 ment, that this was " a much graver charge than mere careless- 

 ness," and the subsequent attempt to prove, by a series of 

 what is meant to pass for argument, that I knowingly described 

 these birds a second time, to the disparagement of the first 

 describer, would justify me in introducing such a paltry sub- 

 ject upon your readers' notice. Now, Sir, such a charge as 

 the latter brings with it its own refutation. Is there any man, 

 I will ask, in his right mind, who would knowingly describe 

 animals as new, which are in reality old ; or, in other words, 

 would knowingly commit an error which he equally well knows 

 would be detected at the first glance? Such is the futile 

 nature of the charge itself; but it is worth the attention of 

 -your readers, to trace out the inconsistencies of the whole 

 paragraph which contains this charge. The first step of the 

 writer is to lay down the conclusion at which he means to 

 arrive, his object being to establish a graver charge than mere 

 carelessness :■ — his second step is to point out the gravamen of 

 the charge, assuming it to be " malice prepense " on my part, 

 which he proves, by a chain of undeniable reasoning — "I 

 knew his paper, where he described these birds, for I quoted 

 it:" — his third and concluding step is to draw his deduction 

 from the foregoing premises, " what, then,^' he says, " are we 

 to think on this matter ? Simply, what we believe : the mis- 

 takes are unintentional ; proofs of looseness of research, and 

 inaccuracy of observation," &c. — Mark, Sir, the subtle logic 

 of this our " goodman delver " in criticism. The error was 

 kfiawingly committed ; argal, it was unintentional : — it ori- 

 ginated in mere carelessness ; argal, it exposed the " guilty 

 person " to a much graver charge than mere carelessness ! 



But this is trifling with our subject. Let us see what are 



