SCHEME 305 



away ' the property, simply because there is no one 

 who has any right to prevent his doing so. 



" EENEST HATTON." 



It is probably my want of legal knowledge 

 which prevents me from appreciating the value of 

 the professed corrections of Mr. Hatton's opinion 

 contained in the letters of Messrs. Banger, Burton, 

 and Matthews, " Times," January 28th and 29th, 

 1891. 



The note on page 301 refers to a correspondence, 

 incomplete at the time fixed for the publication of 

 my pamphlet, the nature of which is sufficiently 

 indicated by the subjoined extracts from Mr. 

 Stead's letter in the " Times " of January 20th, 

 and from my reply in the " Times " of January 

 24th. Referring to the paragraphs numbered 1, 

 2, at the end of my letter XL, Mr. Stead says : 



" On reading this, I at once wrote to Professor 

 Huxley, stating that, as he had mentioned my 

 name, I was justified in intervening to explain 

 that, so far as the second count in his indictment 

 went for the Eagle dispute is no concern of 

 mine he had been misled by an error in the 

 reports of the case which appeared in the daily 



