1841.] On Lightning Conductors to Powder Magazines. 7 



Government House, as having been partially fused by lightning, on the 

 occasion of the building being struck on the 29th of March 1838. 

 Your anonymous correspondent accuses me of such shameful falsehood, 

 on grounds which I shall take up in the order he gives them. 



1st. That he examined the identical piece of iron, which he states 

 now forms the point of the spear on the Britannia, and that he could 

 observe no evidence of fusion. 



As the marks of fusion I saw and described, were not larger than 

 the size of a grain of duck shot or a small pea, and as the iron (sup- 

 posing the piece to be identical, which I shall presently shew strong 

 reason for doubting) must have been exposed to the weather for two years 

 and ten months, an impartial writer should rather have concluded that 

 the marks had been effaced by the exposure, than that I had stated 

 what was untrue. 



Accordingly your correspondent asserts, secondly, that he obtained 

 testimony of the individual by whom the repairs were executed ; who 

 gave negative evidence to any alteration having been made in the point. 



In justice to myself, I am bound to protest against such evidence be- 

 ing for one moment attended to — "Anonymous" No. 1, charges me 

 with falsehood, and adduces the testimony of " Anonymous'' No. 2, to 

 corroborate his case — and this in a simple matter of fact. Opinions or 

 arguments are as strong in every respect, though expressed anonymous- 

 ly as when authenticated by the writer's name. But on questions of 

 facts, personal testimony must ever preponderate. Why does not your 

 correspondent come forward in his own name ? His papers are high- 

 ly creditable to his abilities, and his testimony would then be of value 

 as to any fact he asserts. 



But receiving the case on internal evidence alone, it might be that 

 no alteration was made in the point during the repairs ; it might be that 

 the spear-head is the same as that struck, and nevertheless it is but the 

 natural consequence of the corrosion of an iron point by the influence 

 of climate, that the appearances I saw may have been entirely obli- 

 terated. 



Thirdly. He accuses me of error in speaking of the spear-head, when 

 I should have called it the spear-point. This is not worth rejoinder. 

 Nothing but the mere spirit of hyper-criticism could condescend to 

 such trifling. 



