APPENDIX. [195] 



one to which a great proportion of his friends belonged, as well as other 

 scientific persons who were likely to be interested in the subject. 



6. " In all this [i. e. in my violation of the duties of an editor], however, there is nothing dis- 

 honourable. What I say is, that it implies a want of judgment, and a love of controversy." 



This is meant, I suppose, as explanatory of the allegations he brought 

 against me in his letter, printed in your March Number (Vol. IV. p. 97.) ; 

 and which, if brought home, would have convicted me of most dishonourable 

 conduct. Forsooth, he meant to allege nothing dishonourable I His charges 

 went no farther than to impeach me of want of judgment and love of contro- 

 versy. Thus will the writer meanly and pitifully attempt to retreat from 

 a position to which he had the rashness to advance, but which he had not 

 the courage to defend. But we must not allow him thus to escape. His ac- 

 cusations are matter of record ; their import cannot be mistaken. Let him 

 prove them ; or, by his apology, or equally expressive silence, admit their 

 falseness. Yes, Mr. Swainson, you irretrievably committed yourself by 

 advancing, among other charges of dishonour, those of my having published, 

 in a periodical journal of which I was editor, private letters, not intended 

 by their writers for the public (Vol. IV. p. 97.) ; of being the detractor of 

 men of merit (p. 104.) ; of not acting in accordance with my own profes- 

 sions (p. 98.); of making my professions of truth (so printed in italics for 

 the greater effect) being my guide utterly worthless, by not putting them 

 in practice (p. 105.), &c. &c. &c. I must nail you to these points. Here 

 there shall be no evasion. These charges are either true or false : and on 

 their truth or falsehood depends the reputation of the accuser or the accused. 

 You have not stood to your charges. By a paltry subterfuge, you have en- 

 deavoured to shift your ground ; and by your failing to substantiate the 

 accusation of dishonour, you are virtually convicted of the dishonourable 

 conduct which you had the temerity to impute to me. 



7. " You are told, indeed, that I was the first to begin this system. This the asserter knows to 

 be false." 



I would here, Sir, ask you, is it possible that a man can be in his sane 

 mind who ventures on such a hazardous expedient as that of misrepresent- 

 ing his opponent's observations, when the misrepresentation maybe detected 

 by the reader's turning back to a few pages in the same work ? Let us 

 turn over these few pages, and we shall find that " you are told " no such 

 thing as Mr. Swainson commits himself by asserting that you are. My ob- 

 ject in the passage alluded to (Vol. IV. p. 322.) was to justify myself in intro- 

 ducing papers of an alleged controversial nature into a journal of which I was 

 editor, by showing that these papers were defences of the previous opinion 

 of their authors, not attacks upon others j and, consequently, that the pub- 

 lication of them was both just and necessary. 1 went still farther: I 

 observed, that, even were I culpable in publishing such defences, Mr. Swain- 

 son himself shai'ed the culpability, for he was the first that tempted me to 

 the deed. My words — and I was cautious in using them, being aware of 

 the disingenuous character of my opponent — were expressly as follows : — 

 " Your readers will be startled at finding that the very first paper, of a 

 controversial nature, ivhich I had any share in having inserted into that jour' 

 naly was written by Mr. Swainson himself! " Now this is the assertion on 

 my part, which Mr. Swainson, in the language of " courts and camps," says 

 " I knew to be false." And how does he prove this ? Because " the very 

 first article of this description in my journal is an attack upon him." That 

 previous attack *, however, to which his paper was an answer, was intro- 



* The reader will also perceive, on turning to the passage in question, 

 that I actually absolved Mr. Swainson from any blame, by referring to this 



[N] 3 . - , . . 



