Phillips on the Oil Question. 331 



and pervert what had beeu adduced by the defendants' witnesses, 

 for the purpose of making a false impression on the public, ^c. ?'* 

 You must be tried by facts and not by professions ; and I for 

 one having charged you with concealing, garbling, curtailing 

 and perverting evidence, repeat and will substantiate the charges. 



I wish to know whether the public call to which you al- 

 lude is a mere gratuitous assumption on your part, or rest* 

 upon satisfactory evidence : my inquiries have hitherto been 

 laisuccessful, and I am curious to learn when, by whom, or 

 through what channel, this demand was made upon your talent* 

 and experience. 



With respect to your concealing evidence, several instances 

 were exhibited in the Associates' Remarks ; and to one of the 

 most palpable you have not offered even the shadow of a reply ; 

 I mean, tlie charge which I brought against you, of entirely omit- 

 ting the evidence of Mr. Daniell and Mr. Martineau ; because 

 it went to prove that there is no danger in boiling sugar in the 

 common mode, and admitting and enforcing Mr. Robinson's 

 evidence because he thought the boiling dangerous, although 

 he confessed he never knew it set fire to a sugar-house : this I 

 think amounts to concealment. Again, I call your attention to 

 what you have stated in the Observations, p. 351, respecting the 

 Juryman's opinion of the oil used in one of our experiments. 

 You were a party to the conversation respecting it, and yet you 

 take advantage of a mistake in the printing of the trial, to 

 insert the word not, totally altering what the Juryman said ; 

 and not content with this, and effectually to misrepresent what 

 he did say, you have suppressed one half of it ; the Juryman 

 is represented in the printed Trial, p. 212, as having said, 

 *' I think we need not trouble Mr. Taylor at all, we are not 

 satisfied about the oil being pure." You, eager to retain 

 this error of the print, and perceiving that the first part 

 of the sentence was at variance with the second, omitted 

 the words " I think we need not trouble Mr. Taylor at all,'' 

 and you stated the matter merely thus, " After which one of 

 the Jurymen said, We are not satisfied about the oil being pure.'' 

 This is I think, an example of your method of curtailing and 



