226 Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. [Oct. 



in form, and omits a great number of details, which he would no 

 doubt have given, had his paper been prepared, like that of Dr. 

 Waldie, for a scientific body. But it by no means follows that his 

 results can therefore lay claim to greater confidence. I think indeed 

 that, as a general rule, one would rather be inclined to attach most 

 weight to that statement which is made most cautiously, and dis- 

 plays most sense of possible error. And in the particular case under 

 discussion, if I rightly understood some remarks made by Dr. Macna- 

 mara, at the close of our last meeting, there is an important part of the 

 evidence adduced in Dr. Macnamara's report, upon which further infor- 

 mation is necessary, before we are in a position to form an opinion on the 

 trustworthiness of Mr. Waldie's and Dr. Macnamara's results respective- 

 ly. Unless I am greatly mistaken, Dr. Macnamara stated, that he could 

 not hold himself responsible for the sampling, but only for the analyses. 

 The statement in Dr. Macnamara's report, quoted by Dr. Smith, must 

 not therefore be taken as expressing more than that, at the time of 

 writing, Dr. Macnamara had no reason to question the accuracy of 

 statements that had been made to him. But now that there is a dis- 

 crepancy, and a very important one, to be cleared up, before we ' can 

 pronounce any opinion on the amount of organic matter in the 

 Hooghly water, we should I think be informed whether Dr. Macna- 

 mara's specimens were taken from the river, in scrupulously clean 

 bottles, and by a conscientious and careful sampler in the manner 

 stated ; or whether, by a bare possibility, some lazy cooly or chap* 

 prassee, having received his instructions, may not have found that 

 time and trouble as well as certain pice entrusted to him for boat- 

 hire were saved to him, by taking the water from the edge of the 

 muddy river bank. I do not of course state that such was the case. 

 I merely suggest the point as one on which more evidence is desirable, 

 before any decision can be arrived at. 



" Dr. Smith attaches great weight to the fact that 180 tons of night- 

 soil are poured daily into the river, and thinks Mr. Waldie's analyses 

 quite irreconcileable with this fact. I cannot myself see that the facts 

 as stated, would in any way prejudice Mr. Waldie's results, nor would 

 they do so, were the quantity of night-soil ten times as great. The 

 question is one of proportion, and until we know the volume of water 

 discharged by the river, we are quite unable to found any argument 



