ID REPORT— 1841. 



was presented from Dr. Roget, addressed to Mr. Yates, Secretary of the 

 Council : — 



"Dear Sir, "Bernard Street, January 21, 1841. 



" Dr. Rees and myself, having taken into our consideration the letter which 

 you wrote to both of us the day before yesterday, beg, in answer, to refer you 

 to the letter of Dr. Macartney, of the 12th instant, addressed to yourself 

 (which we return inclosed), and to express our entire concurrence in the opi- 

 nion he there gives on the subject of the new reference made to us by the 

 Council of the British Association. The question at issue between Mr. Nas- 

 myth and Mr. Owen being one of considerable delicacy, we have thought 

 it right to protect ourselves from all suspicion of being biassed in our judge- 

 ment by ex parte statements or representations ; and we have accordingly 

 scrupulously avoided having any communication with Mr. Owen, either di- 

 rectly or indirectly, on the matters in dispute. For the same reason we must 

 decline the proffered interview with Mr. Nasmyth, and the more so as we 

 feel that the question, on which the Council request our opinion, would be- 

 come more involved and difficult of solution by the introduction of matters 

 really foreign to it, which would unavoidably result from such an interview. 

 The simple question, as it appears to us, turns upon the matter contained in 

 the original memoirs, in the identical state in which they were read to the 

 Sections of the Association at Birmingham. Mr, Nasmyth having subse- 

 quently made many additions and alterations in these manuscripts, and not 

 having consented to restore them to their former state, as proposed by Dr. 

 Macartney, and having declined to place in the hands of the Referees the ori- 

 ginal memoirs, as desired by the Council, we are consequently unable to exe- 

 cute the task they have requested us to undertake. 



" Dear Sir, faithfully yours, 



" Rev. James Yates." (Signed) " P. M. Roget." 



Dr. Macartney's proposal referred to by Dr. Roget, contained in his letter 

 of the 12th of January to Mr. Yates, was as follows: — 



" If any reference be made to the officers of the Medical Section, the best 

 thing Mr. Nasmyth can do is to efface all the additions and interlineations 

 made in the original paper (having first taken a copy of them for his own 

 use). It could neither be desirable to him, nor to the Referees, that any new 

 or unpublished matter should be exposed, nor can sucTi exposure throw any 

 light on the subject. I, for my part, shall beg to decline the reference if any 

 writing be submitted to me, except what Mr. Nasmyth can assert existed in 

 the paper when read to the Medical Section." 



The Council then adopted the following Resolution, and requested Mr. 

 Yates to communicate it to Mr. Nasmyth : — 



" The Council having at a former meeting taken Mr. Nasmyth's application 

 into consideration, and having referred the question to the authors of the re- 

 port to the Council, dated November 16, 1840, who have been unable to give 

 an answer on the points referred to, regret that they feel themselves incom- 

 petent to take any further step in the case*." 



The members of the Council having received a printed communication from 

 Mr. Nasmyth, dated 20th of March, 1841, addressed to themselves, a meeting 



* In a printed communication from Mr. Nasmyth to the Council, dated 20th of March, 1841, 

 in which this resolution is quoted, the words " regret that they," are omitted in the quotation. 

 These words were, and still are, in tlie original minute which Mr. Yates was desired to com- 

 municate to Mr. Nasmyth, and were accidentally omitted by Mr. Yates in transmitting the 

 Resolution to Mr. Nasmyth. 



