TORBANEHILL MINERAL AND OF VARIOUS KINDS OF COAL. 179 



they present are marked and distinctive ; that the one is essentially a woody 

 structure, whilst the other is not. Every kind of coal, including the Brown Methil, 

 may be at once distinguished from the Torbanehill mineral, by the rings contained 

 in a well-made transverse section. I further contend that such an appearance 

 constitutes, in the majority of cases, a practical and evident test, distinctive of 

 genuine coal, and that by means of it all kinds of known coal, whether house- 

 hold or cannel, can at once be distinguished from the Torbanehill mineral.* 



Now if this be the case, it may well be asked how it happened that, at the 

 late celebrated trial,f so many persons, all of whom represented themselves as 

 being skilful observers with the microscope, should have been made to give dia- 

 metrically opposite evidence, not only as to matters of opinion, but as to what 

 appeared to be matters of fact ? In endeavouring to place the remarkable histolo- 

 gical controversy which has originated out of the trial of Gillespie versus Russel 

 on its correct basis, it must be remembered that unquestionable organic structure 

 is only present in the Torbanehill mineral at certain places. No one, for instance, 

 can doubt that the scalariform ducts seen by all parties are of vegetable origin ; 

 but it is nowhere pretended that these were everywhere present in the mineral. 

 It is of great importance, therefore, not to confound the organic plants imbedded 

 in a substance, with the substance itself. The occurrence of Stigmaria or other 

 vegetable remains in coal, or in the Torbanehill mineral, no more constitute those 

 substances coal, than they convert sandstone and limestone into coal, in both 

 which rocks they are also found. Nor do I imagine it can be generally maintained 

 that because animal substances, such as teeth, jaw-bones, or the skeletons of 

 fishes and lizards, are occasionally found imbedded in stone, that therefore they 

 form an essential and necessary part of the stone itself. At the trial, great amount 

 of confusion resulted from not keeping this distinction clearly in view. 



Thus when Mr Quekett"} stated that all that which may be supposed like 

 vegetable structure in the Torbanehill mineral disappears when the structure is 

 thin, he was asked by the Dean of Faculty, " When you speak of that which ap- 

 pears as vegetable structure, you mean those isolated fossil plants ?" to which 

 Mr Quekett unfortunately answered, " Yes ;" for what he really meant was, not 



* Considering that hitherto no distinct definition of coal has yet heen made, and that the efforts 

 of mineralogists and chemists have only shewn that those differences they have detected are of degree 

 rather than of kind, the structural distinction here pointed out must he of great importance. 



f " A full report of the trial before the Lord Justice- General and a special Jury of the Issues in 

 the action at the instance of Mr and Mrs Gillespie, of Torbanehill, against Messrs Russel and Son, 

 coal-masters, Blackbraes, for infringement of lease of coal, ironstone, &c. Reported by Mr Alex- 

 ander Watson Lyell, short-hand reporter. Edinburgh : Bell and Bradfute. London : Longman 

 and Co. ; and W. Maxwell, 1853." 4to, pp. 246. 



This report is acknowledged by all parties to be very accurate, and it may therefore be regarded 

 as a trustworthy record of the scientific opinions held by numerous individuals, concerning the mine- 

 ralogical properties, chemical composition, and minute structure of the Torbanehill mineral and of 

 various kinds of coal. 



X Mr Lyell's Report, page 67- 



