154 MEMORANDA. 
“Tn the first paragraph of his letter Dr. Lawson thanks 
the editors of the Journal for the notice of his book, which he 
considers very favorable. It is, of course, a very great satis- 
faction to his reviewer to know this, and to find that Dr. 
Lawson disapproves only of the three charges which he him- 
self quotes. Now, it is useless for Dr. Lawson to find fault 
with my opinions because I find fault with him for his. He 
allows the three charges which I made, viz., that he had not 
translated the weights and measures; that by a merely 
fanciful use of words he endeavours to quarrel with his author 
about the use of certain terms and the relations of certain 
phenomena ; and, 3rd, that he again is at the pains of express- 
ing his disapproval of M. de Quatrefages’ views as to 
vital force, &c., in a paragraph which has all the appearance 
of being put in to show the very advanced ideas of the young 
English school typified by Dr. Lawson, as opposed to the 
antiquated notions of the French school represented by M. 
de Quatrefages. Dr. Lawson allows the undoubted truth 
of these chargés ; what he dislikes is my opinion given about 
the facts they express and their object.’’] 
Remarks on Objectives—I must beg leave, through the 
medium of your pages, to counteract some misapprehension 
likely to have been fostered by some “‘ Remarks” on my 
published observations on deep objectives, which appear at 
p- 21 of the January number of your Journal. 
The author of these remarks seems much disposed to— 
* Fling at one’s head conviction in the lump, 
And join remote conclusions at a jump—” 
for by what process of logic (other than that which, in the 
old story, identifies the horse-chestnut and chestnut horse) an 
opinion can be evolved from any published observations of 
mine that ‘the objectives of Messrs. Powell and Lealand, 
from the ;!,th to the -..th, were the best in the Exhibition, I 
am at a loss to conjecture. Jam, moreover, in a position, as 
juror and reporter, to state authoritatively that no such opinion 
as the author attributes to them was ever entertained by the 
International Jury of 1862. I have on all occasions un- 
hesitatingly expressed my admiration of the skilful and 
excellent workmanship of Messrs. Powell and Lealand, but to 
ascribe to them the exalted pre-eminence which the author of 
the “ Remarks” assumes is quite another matter. For my 
own part, I bave always carefully abstained from any observa- 
tions on the comparative merits of productions of the leading 
