Notices respecting Neiv Books. 371 



does not understand any of the subjects he has undertaken to discuss; 

 he cites his own blunders as characters and attributes of the systems 

 he impugns, and then actually takes credit to himself for overthrowing 

 them. There is no such thing in the entire introduction as a fair state- 

 vient or an examination of any of the systems he proposes to consider ; 

 all is arrogant, unsupported assertion, mingled with garbled extracts. 

 His criticism of the various systems of ornithology or of zoology in 

 general, is exceedingly confused and intricate, and difficultly intelligi- 

 ble ; and many of his observations are utterly inapplicable, referring 

 only, in reality, to his own misconceptions of the systems impugned. 



Conscious, apparently, of the charges that would be preferred 

 against him, on account of the misrepresentations which we have now 

 briefly characterized, Mr. Rennie, in p. v, of his "Introduction," 

 offers the following apologetical remark : 



" The offer to print any reply to my arguments, which might be 

 sent me, exculpates me, 1 conceive, from all charges of a personal 

 nature; and it would grieve me much, if my dislike to their doctrines 

 and language [those of Mr. W. S. Macleay and his disciples] has, in 

 any instance, betrayed me to infringe upon the courtesy and decorum 

 which ought uniformly to characterize such discussions. To enter 

 into any compromise with error, would be unpardonable weakness 

 and delinquency; but to endeavour, by contempt or abuse, to hurt 

 the feelings of the person judged to be in error, would exhibit the 

 character of a bully or a ruffian." 



But we will tell Mr. Rennie, that the offer to print any reply to his 

 arguments that might be sent him, affords no excuse whatever for 

 making false representations, (and many such has he made,) which 

 must necessarily have an effect upon the public mind unfavourable to 

 the subjects of them, before the replies can appear. As well might 

 the defamer of the character of any private individual hold himself ex- 

 culpated from the charge of slander, by his offer to print a denial of his 

 unjust representations, after they had gone forth to the world, to the 

 injury of the object of his attack. It is difficult to conceive, also, that 

 Mr. Rennie's professions of sorrow, if he should be found to have been 

 betrayed into an infringement of the courtesy and decorum which 

 ought to characterize scientific discussions, can be sincere, when we 

 observe, in almost every page of his portion of this volume, the most 

 palpable violations of courtesy, of decorum, and of truth. What his 

 intentions may have been it is impossible for us absolutely to know, 

 but it is certain that the pages before us present many examples of 

 contempt and abuse, which in their own intrinsic quality, would be- 

 come only those characters to which Mr. Rennie, in the concluding 

 sentence of the above extract, has rightlv ascribed the exhibition of 

 them. 



We now proceed to prefer against Mr. Rennie, .vmrt/iw, the charges 

 which, as it appears to us, he has justly incurred by the representations 

 made in the introductory matter to his edition of Montagu's Ornitho- 

 logical Dictionary now before us. We pledge ourselves to prove these 

 charges, by the most ample and satisfactory evidence, as we proceed in 

 this review. We shall intersperse them now with various facts rc- 

 •^ H 2 spccting 



