ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 301 



that they could liave been mistaken. 1 do not charge Mr. Stanley 

 Brown, under those circumstances, with having a bias, or anything 

 else — I simjdy say he has made a mistake. 



If the Tribunal desires the reference to that evidence, it is in A])pen- 

 dix II of the British Counter Case, page 33, where the names of all the 

 38 witnesses, and the images at which their Aftidavits are to be found, 

 are all given. And we find that Mr. Mclntyre also thinks the thing 

 impossible; and another gentleman, Mr. Morton I tliink, also says he 

 believes it to be impossible. All I have to say is, it is absolutely 

 imi)Ossible, now, to read the evidence on that subject and entertain 

 such a belief unless you can come to the conclusion that all these 

 witnesses — 38 in number — were either mistaken iu what they profess 

 to have seen with their own eyes, or for some reason did not state 

 the truth. In the same way I may mention another subject upon 

 which Mr. Stanley Brown expresses a positive opinion. 1 mention 

 it because to my own apprehension, apart from having heard any- 

 thing about it, it seems beyond question. I believe any one wonld 

 have said — and would consider now, in view of what has been said 

 about it by either side, that the assertion of the females and others 

 ffcding at sea when living on the rookeries is absolutely incomprehen- 

 sible. I refer to a letter which is to be found in the Appendix to the 

 Sui)plementary Eeport, from Mr. Bartlett of the Zoological Gardens. I 

 make no apology for this, because I do not understand that what is to 

 be found in the Supplementary Keport, though it may be practically 

 oidy a statement of some Natural History matter — the habits of Deer 

 and so on, which you can read for yourselves anywhere — is not that sort 

 of knowledge which my friends in another part of their case have 

 described as "Barn-Yard knowledge," and, in another place, as knowl- 

 edge which it is plain every intelligent man can acquire and make use 

 of for himself. Mr. Bartlett tells us that the excrement of tiiese ani- 

 mals is similar to that of dogs. Xow we know as a fact that it is abso- 

 lutely impossible to keep, any where, twenty dogs in one place for a fort- 

 night without making the place intolerable. 



There must have been 100,000 seals living on an island not of an 

 absorbent soil, to say the least — I do not think it would make any dif- 

 ference whether it was or not. Is it conceivable to any one that these 

 seals were feeding regularly? Is the thing possible? One knows from 

 general experience and actual knowledge that with the smallest bird 

 even it is customary to follow them by such sigus. You cannot, if pass- 

 ing through a sheep field where they have been kept for a few days or 

 a fortnight, pass through it without knowing they have been there. 

 You cannot go through a field where there have been a number of rab- 

 bits without seeing that they hnve been there beyond doubt. Is there 

 any possibility of conceiving, if these seals are properly described by 

 Mr. Bartley — and there is no reason to doubt his statement in that 

 respect, seeing who he is and where it comes from — is it possible for 

 any man to conceive they do feed? If they do feed, I submit to any 

 uni)rejudiced judgment from any point of view, that it must be a matter 

 of common observation and ordinary common knowledge. The only 

 explanation of what is known to be the fact it seems to me must be that 

 they do not take in the food which otherwise you would find signs of 

 beyond all question on the place where they were living, huddling 

 together in thousands, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. 



So much then for our Commissioners. We make no charge ourselves, 

 and regret tliat our friends have felt it their dnty to malce charges of 

 this sort, which it is no use minimising, which it is no use mitigating. 



