64 Structure of a peculiar Combustible Mineral^ 
as before stated, Mr. Bowerbank and myself are placed in no 
very enviable position ; it is as follows : — 
" Besides those gentlemen who were examined as geologists and che- 
mists, and who differ so widely, there was examined another class of men, 
and possessed of great attainments — I refer to the microscopists. One of 
them was the late President of the Microscopic Society of London — a 
learned body, who make it their object to pry into all things. Three of 
these gentlemen were examined for the pursuer, and four for the defender. 
The pursuer's witnesses told you that there was no trace of organic struc- 
ture, no woody fibre or tissue, in short, no trace of vegetable matter in 
this substance, although occasionally there might be the incidental pre- 
sence of vegetable remains. The witnesses of this class on the other side 
told you, on the contrary, that in every part of it there was the most clear 
vestiges of vegetable structure. I do not know, when I have so many 
geologists and so many microscopists telling me that it is not coal, and 
so many on the other side telling me the opposite, I say I do not know 
that I feel myself much the wiser, or further advanced in the inquiry. 
But if you have, in addition, a great number of chemists, and speaking 
with equal authority and equal contrariety, it is difficult to know what to 
make of the controversy. I do not know that I have anything to say 
against the skill of the microscopists, or the skill of any of those gentle- 
men ; but one general remark may be made on the microscopic testimony, 
and it is, that there are those who see a thing, and also those who do not 
see it — those who do see it, cannot see it unless it is there, and those who 
cannot see it do not see it at all. But very skilful persons looking for a 
thing and not seeing it, creates a strong presumption that it is not there. 
But when other persons do find it, it goes far to displace the notion that it 
is not there. But there is another observation on the microsco]3ic evidence 
that occurred to me. I do not know whether I am under any misappre- 
hension, but I think that three, certainly two, of those examined by the 
defenders, are botanists also ; and I do not think that any of those exa- 
mined for the pursuer, two of them from London, represented themselves 
as botanists. Now, the defender's witnesses are accustomed to look for 
plants, and can understand them when they see them. The gentlemen on 
the other side again, looking for woody fibre or tissue, are not, as I under- 
stand, conversant or skilful in fossil plants. But finding such a difference 
of opinion, and such opposite conclusions arrived at by those persons, 1 do 
not know, unless you think that some gave their reasons more satisfac- 
torily than others — I say I do not know that I feel my mind much 
relieved from the difficulties of this case by listening to all that evidence. 
It is very interesting no doubt, and if they were all standing on one side, 
and nobody standing on the other side, it might be very satisfactory to 
one's mind to listen to such evidence." 
To such remarks I would briefly reply that, however 
severe a counsel may be in his cross-examination, and how- 
ever strong his language in addressing the jury may be, I 
think it to a certain extent excusable, as he is endeavouring 
to do the best for his client ; but I must confess my great 
surprise that a learned judge should see fit to single out one 
set of scientific witnesses from the pursuer's side, and hold 
them up, I would say, almost to ridicule ; that he did so on 
