340 History of a Review of Smith's English Flora. 



which I am about to mention, has arisen the injustice to Sir 

 James Smith which is now deplored. 



Sir James Smith's two volumes were, with a few others, 

 committed to the critical examination of a Gentleman who 

 came highly recommended, himself a writer on Botany, and 

 experienced, as the Editor was led to believe, in similar duties 

 to those required of him in the present instance ; which were, 

 to furnish early (as the time of printing and the limits of the 

 work required) " a condensed, true and impartial account of 

 the subject, execution and character" of each of the works 

 so submitted for examination ; the proffered remuneration 

 being unusually liberal, and fully adequate to the duties con- 

 tracted to be performed. It happened however, in the hurry 

 of getting up the first Number, and without the Editor's sus- 

 picion of any thing wrong being awakened thereby, that the 

 critiques from the Gentleman alluded to ( as well as some 

 from others) came to hand so exceedingly late in the month of 

 May, as unfortunately to occasion the neglect, on the part of 

 the Editor, of revision of this review of Sir James's work. 



It needs, I submit, gentlemen, but a small share of discern- 

 ment in any reader of Sir James's work, and of the critique on 

 the same, to discover, that private resentment on the part of the 

 Critic has dictated most of his remarks ; stimulated, perhaps, 

 by Sir James having omitted to notice or quote his botanical 

 work, which has been alluded to herein : although in a short 

 paragraph, in the middle of page xxv of his very able and 

 highly instructive Preface, Sir James has candidly and deli- 

 cately stated his reasons, which to me appear conclusive ones, 

 why such omission has been made, but without either naming 

 the author or expressly indicating his work ; towards neither 

 of which has Sir James shown animosity, as far as I can dis- 

 cover, or the wish to injure either. Perhaps, also, a soreness 

 has been felt that F.L.S. does not grace the critic's name; 

 not, as I have been well assured, through any personal offence 

 taken, or influence exercised, by the President of the Lin- 

 nsean Society, but because of foul and unmerited abuse heaped 

 on the memory of the great Swedish Naturalist, and on his 

 system of arranging plants, such as had too much disgusted a 

 large majority of attending Fellows, for them to allow of the 

 calumniator becoming their companion. 



I greatly lament with you, gentlemen, that the very best 

 works of science and research are rarely noticed in the Re- 

 views; from 10 to 15 and 20 years ago, this was far less the 

 ease than at present ; scarcely a Number of the established Re- 

 views then appeared without containing one or more excellent 



analyses 



