196 



probable," and asking how the little 

 vipers breathe, and how the diges- 

 tion of the old one acts (Mr. Buck- 

 land's heresy), said : 



" I again assert that I saw the young 

 ones swallowed; and it matters not 

 after this whether the releasing of them 

 from the inside of the mother was skil- 

 fully or otherwise performed ; nor can 

 any amount of special pleading on the 

 part of ' Lawyer C.' in any way affect 

 that fact." 



Facts like these can be ascer- 

 tained any summer in England, in 

 opposition to Mr. Buckland's asser- 

 tion that they are " grandmothers' 

 stories," and " tales of Old Mother 

 Hubbard." At the end of Mr. 

 Card's remarks Mr. Buckland said 

 that " the discussion must now 

 close." It should certainly close 

 with the affirmative, that vipers do 

 swallow their young, on evidence 

 direct as well as circumstantial, and 

 " as a fact is proved in a court of 

 justice ; difficulties, suppositions, or 

 theories not being allowed to form 

 part of the testimony." 



In the form of a prefatory note 

 to the preceding article, entitled 

 Mr. Frank Buckland and White of 

 Selborne, printed and extensively 

 circulated in Great Britain, as an 

 appendix to the book, was the fol- 

 lowing : 



" It is to be hoped that this subject 

 will be well ventilated in England, 

 where there are so many publications 

 that take more or less notice of natural 

 history. Mr. Buckland being in the 

 way should prove no bar to that being 

 done ; for it is a question with many, 

 What is his real standing as a natu- 

 ralist ? 



" In his treatment of the matter in 

 dispute, he has ignored every circum- 

 stance, argument, and fact bearing on 

 the affirmative side of it, and has had 

 recourse to the ignorance of others, and 

 a song, instead of hard facts and solid 

 reasons, in support of it. Since he has 

 committed himself so fully to the ques- 

 tion at issue, judgment must be given 



APPENDIX. 



against him by default in the event of 

 his not making good, or not explaining, 

 the challenge he has had before the 

 world for years back. 



" His surroundings in England make 

 it a difficult matter to ' bring him to jus- 

 tice ' on this question, in the ordinary 

 way. Appropriate parts of the accom- 

 panying article were offered to two 

 journals there, bat were declined - for 

 reasons which I and others may imagine, 

 but cannot state." 



I have not noticed that even one 

 paper there took Mr. Buckland to 

 task for " altering, mixing, and 

 mutilating" the text of White, and 

 inserting all kinds of frivolous 

 matter in the work, such as the song 

 to the tune of Lord Lovel, phrases 

 like " grandmothers' stories " and 

 "tales of Old Mother Hubbard," 

 and remarks in keeping with what 

 he lately wrote to the Times, when, 

 in speaking of the destruction of 

 oyster spat, he said : 



" I think then what an awful slaughter 

 of oyster-mothers and babies has been 

 carried on during the last two or three 

 weeks in London alone. Why, it is 

 worse than the Turkish atrocities ! " 



This tone, indeed, runs through 

 most of his writings, where it may 

 remain, but it is sadly out of place 

 in White's Natural History of Sel- 

 borne. 



The only journal which really 

 called Mr. Buckland to account in 

 any way, that I know of, is the Ex- 

 aminer, long afterwards, that is, on 

 the 2d February, 1878, when, in re- 

 viewing Professor Bell's Edition of 

 White, it wrote rather gingerly as 

 follows : 



" Of a later edition [than that of Ben- 

 nett], by another hand, [that is, Mr. 

 Buckland], we need say nothing ; it has 

 already succumbed under its own pre- 

 sumptuous inefficiency." 



I have nothing to say of Mr. 

 Buckland personally, but I claim 



