104 EOYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 



present a prima facie apparently clear ease and satisfaotory as such even 

 to many learned readers; until a closer examinaition revealed the total 

 fallaicy of the whole fahric and mode ot exposition. 



In the meantime it was headlong asserted in the press by a 

 correspond.ent, more bombastic in tone than perspicuous in discern- 

 ment, that " he (Mr. Doughty), is absolutely satisfied that his conclu- 

 " siens are buttressed by truth and cannot be assailed."^ 



Certainly there is much that is plausible in the argumentation of 

 the writer, and though we disagree with his solution on both points 

 adverted to, his paper is singularly interesting to study, and deserved 

 a better result, instead of being now discard.ed by him and meeting a 

 disastrous failure as to the position of both armies, compared to which 

 the small blunders he found in Hawkins are insignificant. 



The connection of this paper with the more complete work which 

 is its legitimate and grown up offspring, is so close and direct that, fco* 

 the sake of argument and comparison, they must be reviewed together 

 and placed in juxtaposition. 



It would be more satisfactory to, us not to refer, in any way, to 

 that paper, if we could pass over several material errors we see in it, 

 and specially in the plan A, as mere oversights or inadvertences, 

 had not Mr. Doughty isince reaffirmed in a deliberate manner 

 their perfect truth and accuracy, being confirmed, as he alleges, by the 

 further plans he had since received from Europe. 



And were it not also, that the insertion of the same paper in the 

 transactions of the Eoyal Society of Canada, was hastily put in before 

 having been examined and discussed by the section; as explained by 

 the Editor, who at first sight judged it " a paper of special value and 

 must assist the student in coming to a correct conclusion." There it 

 remains unchallenged, though admitted now to be erroneous. 



We are sorry to say we cannot fully commend the second version 

 and plan, as being also correct, because the same course o-f reasoning 

 has been partly followed; and they must also oome to grief in part, 

 but not to the same extent as the former, which caused us to stagger 

 at first sight. 



We shall therefore take issue on the findings of Mr. Doughty on 

 the two above mentioned points; and to avoid all misund.erstandings, 

 we shall quote his statements in his own words. 



He says in his paper, p. 410; note : 



1st. " Towards the close o,f my paper I mentioned that two impor- 

 " tant documents relating to the battle were in Europe and that at the 



'■ Cf. Quebec Morning Vhronicle, April 2, 1900. North American Notes and 

 Queries, June, 1900, p. 15, and August, 1900, p. 93. 



