355 
R. Matter, Esq., C. E., read the following— 
REMARKS OCCASIONED BY CAPTAIN BLAKELY S WRITTEN VERSION OF HIS 
VERBAL REPLY TO MR. R. MALLET’S PAPER OF JUNE 11, 1860. 
Ar the last meeting of the Academy permission was given to Captain 
Blakely to transmit, in writing, for publication, his reply, then verbally 
delivered by him, to my communication as to priority in ordnance with 
initial tension, read by me on that occasion. Presuming that such 
writing would be a faithful transcript of the words actually spoken by 
Captain Blakely, I did not then consider they contained anything worthy 
of further remark—an opinion entertained, I believe, by nearly all the 
Members of the Academy who were present. 
Having, however, been permitted to read the MS. since sent in for 
publication by Captain Blakely as the transcript of what he then spoke, it 
appears to me to differ so much from what he actually did utter, and con- 
tains statements so contrary to the facts to which they profess to allude, 
that I have felt compelled to ask the President’s permission to record this 
in the face of the Academy, and to refute the statements and inferences 
now brought forward by Captain Blakely in a new form, as if hav- 
ing been given verbally by him in reply here on the 11th instant. I 
am glad to find that the President has given notice of this to Captain 
Blakely, that he may be present; and I appeal to every Member of the 
Academy here, who was then present, in support of my denial that Cap- 
tain Blakely’s MS. version of his reply sent in is a true or accurate tran- 
script of what he actually uttered, or even in any respect like it. Ina 
word, his MS. contains several statements, as injurious as they are con- 
trary to fact, which he never uttered at all, or which could be inferred 
from anything he did utter; and upon these novel and purely imaginary 
grounds he has proceeded to raise a new argument, not one particle of 
which was ever uttered by him in this room. It is for the Academy to 
express its sense of such an abuse of the privilege it gives each Member, 
suo periculo, upon his own honour, to transmit an exact statement, in 
writing, of what he actually uttered, when intended for publication in 
our Proceedings; and I leave it to form its own opinion upon the pro- 
bable validity of claims that require such a course to prop them up. 
I shall contrast, in one or two passages, what Captain Blakely writes 
as having said with what he actually did say, and with the facts of the case. 
He writes :—<‘‘ He” (Mr. Mallet) “‘ withdraws his statement, made 
here on the 14th ultimo, that he had a letter from Dr. Hart, discussing 
the whole question, and dated July, 1854; and tells us he meant to say, 
and believes he did say, 1855, not 1854.” Now Captain Blakely, to 
my recollection, did not make such a statement, or anything like it, here 
on the 11th instant; and, had he done so, I should have at once referred 
him back to my paper, just read, in which, so far from withdrawing 
anything whatever, I affirmed that Captain Blakely himself originated 
his own error of the date of 1854 for 1855, and confirmed this by showing 
that I had read out the dates on the 14th of May last from a written list 
