the Anniversary Meeting of the Geological Society, 1856. 181 



(through Mr. Hamilton's mistake) that not only the conclusion, 

 but also the corrected and detailed tabular view (now filling eight 

 pages of the Philosophical Magazine), had been surreptitiously 

 tacked by me to an old paper, I became morally certain that 

 (while they were under that mistaken belief) all the concluding- 

 portions of it must have been deservedly, and perhaps contempt- 

 uously, rejected by them. Whether right or wrong, this was 

 exactly my conviction and full belief when my paper was sent (in 

 August 1854) to the Editors of the Philosophical Magazine. 



I do not therefore base my vindication from the charges brought 

 against me in the previous extract, by the admission of any blunder 

 or oversight on my own part for which I was responsible. I make 

 no apology to the Society beyond a plain eniimeration of dates 

 which I have derived from the kindness of their Assistant Secre- 

 tary, and of facts which are not denied by Mr. Hamilton. If a 

 mistake was committed, I still hold myself clear of all reasonable 

 blame for it. The mistake was not mine. It was impossible for 

 me (on Mr. Hamilton's own showing) to believe that my paper 

 had been accepted in its integrity by the Council, and under such 

 erroneous acceptance it never could become their literary pro- 

 perty : for I utterly repudiate the notion that any Society has a 

 right of property in a paper submitted to them, unless it has 

 been first accepted in its integrity. 



Why was I not informed by the Council (during the five weeks 

 my paper remained in their hands before it was read) that I had 

 sent them two papers instead of one, and that my latter paper 

 could not be accepted or laid before the Society ? I could then 

 have set them right on a point of fact ; or I could have sup- 

 pressed the conclusion, which fills but four pages in its printed 

 form ; or, if I thought it better, I could have asked them to return 

 my paper before they had technically deprived me of any part of 

 the rights of authorship. Mr. Hamilton has stated the facts 

 incorrectly when he asserts that it was only the " conclusion, viz. 

 the controversial portion, which the Society objected to publish.'' 

 The Tabular View was not a mere reprint of anything I had 

 before published. It was both an expansion and correction of 

 my former views : its compilation cost me more thought than 

 any other part of my paper, and without it the previous sections 

 would have had little or no value. To call the dry Tabular View 

 controversial would be, I think, downright nonsense. If it had 

 been rejected because it reached the Secretary in my second 

 parcel, I could then account for its rejection arising out of Mr. 

 Hamilton's unfortunate and acknowledged mistakes. But I will 

 no longer dwell upon my defence. What I have written must, 

 I think, with any man of common sense, put my conduct towards 



