400 Miscellaneous. 



ed to solicit subscriptions from the citizens. That they will meet 

 with encouragement, we do not doubt. A Society which has 

 done so much to beget and encourage a taste for nature ; which 

 assists so much in the investigation of this widely extended science, 

 and which, from the very nature of things is necessarily so far in 

 advance of our national state, will not, we are confident, be allow- 

 ed to suffer from want of proper support. 



TO OUR REVIEWERS. 



The Editors of this Journal are always thankful for the notices 

 with which they may be favoured by the newspaper-press, and 

 are willing to profit by the hints whether of friendly or hostile 

 critics. They may, 'however, be allowed to say that they have 

 sometimes been distressed by statements which convey to the 

 public — unintentionally no doubt — very imperfeotor incorrect ideas 

 of their meaning. A ? remarkable instance of this has occurred 

 with reference to an article in our June number on the Bowman- 

 ville Coal question. In that article we endeavoured to vindicate 

 Prof. Chapman and Sir W. E. Logan from the charges which 

 had heen urged against them ; and by a careful investigation of 

 all the possibilities that remain of the occurrence of coal in Ca- 

 nada, to show that none of these applied to the current statements 

 respecting Bowmanville, and consequently that the pretended 

 discovery must be rejected. Our explanations may have been 

 less clear than we had supposed, but it certainly was with some 

 surprise that we found one of our contemporaries stating that the 

 possibilities referred to were urged in defence of the supposed 

 discovery ; and that we had blamed Sir W. E. Logan for excess 

 of caution when we said that he is " too cautious to hazard any 

 conjecture as to the occurrence of fjssil fuel in a country where 

 facts palpable to the Geologist have inscribed .everywhere a nega- 

 tion of its presence." With still greater astonishment we found 

 that only a few weeks ago we were accused of attacking our Pro- 

 vincial Geologist as guilty of rashness, an opposite and we are 

 sure still more undeserved charge. Personally we feel that we 

 have good reasoa to complain, that after fully committing our- 

 selves against the so-called discovery, at a time when it was very 

 generally credited, we should now be blamed as if we had taken 

 an opposite course. But as Canadians we feel more deeply ag- 

 grieved, that through what we must regard as the culpable care- 

 lessness of our reviewers, an impression should be spread abroad 

 that there was any controversy between scientific men here on the 

 subject. In the interest of truth, therefore, and of our common 

 country, we ask the gentlemen who have thus misrepresented us, 

 to re-examine the position taken by this Journal, and to do jus- 

 tice to its statements. 



