402 Mr. W. S. MacLeay's Examination of 



Perhaps other friends who have the pleasure of being nearer to you, have 

 long ere this shewn you your mistake ; but in case they have not, I am 

 sure that you will not be surprized that I should have determined to state 

 how far I feel myself called upon to agree with you in opinion. 



My review of your paper must be premised with the remark, that I 

 do not pretend to combat the general conclusion to which it is your object 

 to arrive, for I confess, that after having twice carefully read over your 

 argument, I am not sure that I understand its drift, and much less am I 

 certain, that if I did understand it, your sentiments would differ consi- 

 derably from my own . If, however, the purport of your Paper be, as 

 there is some reason to suspect, comprehended in the assertion, that 

 " the danger to be now apprehended is, that those who adopt other 

 " arrangements" than the Linnean, " vdll forget the advantages to be de- 

 " rived from what is old in their love of that which is new," then I would 

 once for all observe, that there never was a time when Naturalists paid 

 more attention to the labours of their predecessors, whether ancient or 

 modern, than at present : and therein indeed consists a part of their 

 diagnosis, as you would perhaps express it, from the school which you 

 advocate, and which in its love and veneration for what is not old, but 

 only Linnean, remains in a total and complete ignorance of whatever 

 has not proceeded from the pens of the Swede and his most servile- ad- 

 mirers. 



Still, nevertheless, since I remain in doubt as to this being the object 

 you had in view in writing on Systems and Methods, I shall confine my- 

 self strictly to those of your propositions which I think most difficult to 

 assent to, leaving the general conclusion at which you would arrive, un- 

 less it be as above, untouched, until you shall have, at some future pe- 

 riod, more clearly expressed it. 



You say that you are not yourself opposed to any particular system, 

 but only intend in your Paper to lay down some " first principles of 

 arrangement,^'' to serve as a test by which Naturalists may try all systems. 

 Let us, however, examine calmly these " first principles" themselves, 

 before we apply them ; for the test of a system ought surely to be proved 

 good and true before we can allow it to regulate either our assent or 

 dissent. 



In the first place, you propose to treat the subject metaphysically, as 



