enn: and their Merits. 283 
their adjustment is not to be allowed in this case, as the reporter 
(Barnard) himself is an adept in their use,” all of which is entirely 
imaginary with Dr. Hagen. A recent letter from Dr. Barnard 
recites the whole story. He says:—‘ In regard to what Dr. Hagen 
says of my report, he so singularly misunderstands me, or so 
wilfully misrepresents, that it seems hardly necessary to reply to 
him. I never said or intimated that a Tolles’ stand was necessary 
to develop a Tolles’ objective, but only that a stand of some kind 
was necessary, a proposition which I think stands to reason. The 
disadvantage could not appear until the jury, instead of examining 
the glasses, country by country, as I supposed they would, using 
certain uniform tests, ordered at once all the exhibitors of micro- 
scopic objectives to present their glasses simultaneously in one 
place (and that, by the way, as bad a place as could be selected—a 
small room with one window, a moderately-sized table, and no 
chairs). Had the first plan been pursued there would have been 
no trouble about stands, for Mr. Beck, of London, was close by the 
American section with a case full of apparatus, including stands of 
all forms, one of which he subsequently placed at my disposal for 
some length of time. But when the crowd came together at the 
place appointed, the American glasses were present without any 
stands ; and though both Mr. Ross and Mr. Beck, after their own 
glasses had been examined, permitted me to make use of their 
stands, the weariness of the protracted examination, with the 
extreme heat of the crowded room, made the jury impatient, and 
notwithstanding the compliment Dr. Hagen pays me as an ‘ adept,’ 
I was not smart enough to secure, on that occasion, what I thought 
a fair trial of the glasses—by which expression I mean not a fair 
development of their powers, but a fair attention to their develop- 
ment. I never got the whole jury to examine the glasses thoroughly. 
After I had obtamed from Mr. Beck a stand, Dr. Brooke, of 
London, made the fullest trial with them which I could secure from 
any member, and he expressed himself favourably, though he has the 
natural national leaning of an Englishman. It would have been 
ridiculous for me to narrate all this in my report, but it is absurd 
for anyone to interpret what I do say as Dr. Hagen does.” That 
effectually disposes of Dr. Hagen’s inferences that the American 
objectives “did not attain so much as others.” 
Dr. Hagen attempts to controvert the opinion now unanimously 
received in England and America, that the microscope should be so 
constructed as to receive an inclination. He says, “‘ The statement 
made by people here that the working with high-stand instruments 
(they beg turned back) is much more convenient, as keeping the 
neck straight prevents the rush of blood to the head, makes rather 
a comical impression. I say comical, when we consider that for 
tens of years back several thousand low-stand instruments have been 
