[196] APPENDIX. 



duced into the journal months previously to my having any connection with 

 it. I knew not of its insertion until I read the published article, like any 

 other purchaser of the work. Even the share I had in inserting Mr. Swain- 

 son's paper into the journal was that of using my personal influence with 

 the then conductors to employ Mr. Swainson as a contributor to their 

 work; and several months, as I have already said, elapsed before the 

 journal could be called mincy even if my connection with it as editor could 

 entitle me so to consider it. 



My assertion, therefore, that the first paper of a controversial nature that 

 I had any share in introducing into that journal " was written by Mr. 

 Swainson himself," is perfectly borne out by the fact ; and, contrary to the 

 assertions clothed in Mr. Swainson's " courteous and camp-like " phraseo- 

 logy, the asserter knows it to be true. 



• 8. " My answer was the first and the last [i. e. controversial paper], until now,'that I ever pen- 

 ned : it occupies four pages. The controversial papers of Mr. Vigors, avowedly by himself, fill 

 exactly forty. {^Zool. Jaurn., vol. iii. p. 92—123., vol. v. p. 134—141.) " 



It would appear, by Mr. Swainson's reasoning, that controversial 



?apers, like the Sibyl's books, increase in value by decreasing in extent, 

 never wish to interfere with the opinions of any man on such specula- 

 tive points ; but Mr. Swainson will allow me, I hope, and other readers, 

 to form our own judgment on these points, and square our practice by 

 this judgment. He ought, however, to have given an honest statement of 

 the particular case which he has just adduced; and have added, that of 

 one of the above papers, the first and longest, amounting to thirty-three 

 pages, not one sixth is controversial. He should also have assisted the 

 reader's judgment in reference to that paper, by adding to his account of 

 its length some opinion as to its merits. His own words, taken from a 

 letter now before me, publicly addressed to the referees to whom I 

 wished to leave the arbitration of this unprecedented controversy into 

 which he has forced me, supply the deficiency. At a period subsequent to 

 the publication of his first letter, he thus expresses himself: — " Mr. Swain- 

 son has distinctly stated his impressions upon this paper. It is remarkably 

 well written; and, as he has said before, he considers the views and 

 sentiments generally to be 'just.' " How he comes to quarrel with the 

 length of a paper, the views and sentiments of which he pronounces to be 

 " generally just," remains to be accounted for. 



- Mr. Swainson now proceeds to explain his connection with the Zoo- 

 logical Society : but in a statement which leaves entirely untouched the 

 main points at issue. It will be in the recollection of your readers, that 

 he accused the society of illiberality, because he, " not being a member, 

 was prohibited from making any effectual use of the Society's Museum," 

 and was therefore forced to go to Paris for study. It was proved against 

 him, first, that he had been a member ; and would have continued to enjoy 

 all the privileges of a Fellow, if he had adhered to those engagements 

 which every man of honour holds sacred, and not the less sacred because 

 they are but honorary, and may not be enforced by the common process 

 of law. It was proved that, even in spite of this defalcation on his part, — 

 a defalcation which would for ever have slept in oblivion, if he himself had 

 not raked up his own dishonour, — every facility was liberally granted to 

 him of making " an effective use " of the Museum. It was, in the last 

 place, proved, that he, not content with this unhandsome conduct towards 

 a public body, carries his unaccountable hostility against it so far as to 

 accuse it of that very illiberality of which he himself was convicted. 



previous attack upon him. This, in fact, was my strong point ; and Mr. 

 Swainson, according to his usual want of tact, plays into my hand, by using 

 my own argument to exculpate himself. 



