TORBANEHILL MINERAL AND OF VARIOUS KINDS OF COAL. 179 
they present are marked and distinctive; that the one is essentially a woody 
structure, whilst the other is not. Every kind of coal, including the Brown Methil, 
may be at once distinguished from the Torbanehill mineral, by the rings contained 
in a well-made transverse section. I further contend that such an appearance 
constitutes, in the majority of cases, a practical and evident test, distinctive of 
genuine coal, and that by means of it all kinds of known coal, whether house- 
hold or cannel, can at once be distinguished from the Torbanehill mineral.* 
Now if this be the case, it may well be asked how it happened that, at the 
late celebrated trial,} so many persons, all of whom represented themselves as 
being skilful observers with the microscope, should have been made to give dia- 
metrically opposite evidence, not only as to matters of opinion, but as to what 
appeared to be matters of fact? In endeavouring to place the remarkable histolo- 
gical controversy which has originated out of the trial of GILLESPIE versus RUSSEL 
on its correct basis, it must be remembered that unquestionable organic structure 
is only present in the Torbanehill mineral at certain places. No one, for instance, 
can doubt that the scalariform ducts seen by all parties are of vegetable origin; 
but it is nowhere pretended that these were everywhere present in the mineral. 
It is of great importance, therefore, not to confound the organic plants imbedded 
in a substance, with the substance itself. The occurrence of Stigmaria or other 
vegetable remains in coal, or in the Torbanehill mineral, no more constitute those 
substances coal, than they convert sandstone and limestone into coal, in both 
which rocks they are also found. Nor do I imagine it can be generally maintained 
that because animal substances, such as teeth, jaw-bones, or the skeletons of 
fishes and lizards, are occasionally found imbedded in stone, that therefore they 
form an essential and necessary part of the stone itself. At the trial, great amount 
of confusion resulted from not keeping this distinction clearly in view. 
Thus when Mr QuExerr}{ stated that all that which may be supposed like 
vegetable structure in the Torbanehill mineral disappears when the structure is 
thin, he was asked by the Dean of Faculty, ‘“‘ When you speak of that which ap- 
pears as vegetable structure, you mean those isolated fossil plants?” to which 
Mr Quexert unfortunately answered, “ Yes ;” for what he really meant was, not 
* Considering that hitherto no distinct definition of coal has yet been made, and that the efforts 
of mineralogists and chemists have only shewn that those differences they have detected are of degree 
rather than of kind, the structural distinction here pointed out must be of great importance. 
+ “A full report of the trial before the Lord Justice-General and a special Jury of the Issues in 
the action at the instance of Mr and Mrs Gitzesrix, of Torbanehill, against Messrs Russrx and Son, 
coal-masters, Blackbraes, for infringement of lease of coal, ironstone, &c. Reported by Mr Arex- 
AnpER Watson Lyext, short-hand reporter. Edinburgh: Bell and Bradfute. London: Longman 
and Co.; and W. Maxwell, 1853.”  4to, pp. 246. 
This report is acknowledged by all parties to be very accurate, and it may therefore be regarded 
as a trustworthy record of the scientific opinions held by numerous individuals, concerning the mine- 
ralogical properties, chemical composition, and minute structure of the Torbanehill mineral and of 
various kinds of coal. 
{ Mr Lyetz’s Report, page 67. 
