562 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY. 
lie brought it to the meeting, be thought he had a thing which would 
certainly be able to hold its own ; and yet, on producing it, he found it 
was utterly condemned. Naturally, he felt very much hurt. He had 
nothing to complain of as regarded anything said about the workman- 
ship, but what he still said was that the people who undertook to 
criticize it should be those who had had it in use and could speak from 
knowledge and experience, rather than a gentleman who had never seen 
it before. He said this because Dr. Van Heurck, after some years of 
actual use, had stated that it worked perfectly well. He would not add 
anything further on that occasion, except that he was much obliged to 
those present for listening to wbat he had said. 
Dr. Dallinger, having suggested that they were not a debating 
society, and in no way bound by the rules of a debating society, 
expressed a hope that if any one had a truth to state he would feel at 
perfect liberty to speak further. 
Mr. Mayall said he could not for a moment admit Mr. Watson’s 
contention that no valuable opinion could be given of a Microscope 
unless the instrument was actually tried. The design was one thing 
and the construction another. The design might be good or bad, and 
the construction might also be good or bad, hence it was evident that 
one might be considered apart from the other. In condemning the 
design of the Van Heurck Microscope he had had no thought of hurting 
Mr. Watson’s patriotic feelings. Until Mr. Watson stated the fact, he 
(Mr. Mayall) was not aware that any sort of patriotism was involved 
in the manufacture of a Microscope. He did not follow Mr. Watson in 
supposing that the approval given of the Microscope by Dr. Van Heurck 
would almost necessarily involve its being approved by those Fellows of 
the Society who were known to have made a special study of such 
matters. It was, perhaps, quite natural that Dr. Van Heurck and Mr. 
Watson should approve of their bantling, and say what they could in 
its defence ; but he must claim for himself exactly the same liberty 
that was possessed by all other Fellows of the Society to decline to 
measure his criticism to suit the particular crotchets of this or that 
amateur, or the interest of any particular manufacturer of Microscopes. 
In dealing with such matters he was not acting in the name of the 
Society, but in his individual capacity as a Fellow. His approval or 
disapproval of a specification or of a construction had no other claim to 
serious consideration than in so far as it fairly represented opinions 
based on experience. It had been no satisfaction to him to condemn 
Dr. Van Heurck’s Microscope, for he could only anticipate what had 
actually happened — that Dr. Yan Heurck would defend himself vigo- 
rously. He had, however, been somewhat perplexed by the line of 
defence taken by Mr. Watson in asserting that the “ principal points ” 
in the Van Heurck Microscope existed already in a Microscope supplied 
by his firm to Dr. Yan Heurck three or four years ago. The question 
seemed naturally to follow : Why, under these circumstances, was Dr. 
Yan Heurck’s name attached to the instrument? There seemed some 
sort of mystery in the matter. For his own part, he was practically 
certain that if Dr. Yan Heurck had sent him the specification, with a 
drawing, asking his opinion, he should have dealt with the technical 
details as he had done at their last meeting. It was no new opinion of 
