206 
The Duke of Argyll's [April, 
have been greater both as a savant and as a man. Never- 
theless, whilst we regret his weakness, we must hold him in 
high honour for the good and abundant work which he per- 
formed. It is sad to see in some biographical works he 
occupies a less space than is allotted to Bourignon. Figura- 
tively speaking the Phylloxera is honoured more than the 
vine ! 
IV. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL’S REIGN OF LAW 
AND UNITY OF NATURE. 
By James Simson. 
f f ? 
(MN my “Contributions to Natural History, &c.,” pub- 
(g) lished at Edinburgh and in London in 1875, and with 
an Appendix in 1880, there is an article entitled “The 
Duke of Argyll on the Preservation of the Jews ” (pp. 161 
to 170), called forth by a remark in his “ Reign of Law,” in 
which he said : “ The case of the Gipsies has been referred 
to as somewhat parallel. But the fadts of this case are 
doubtful and obscure, and such of them as we know involve 
conditions altogether dissimilar in kind.” 
To this I replied that “ I should not imagine that he 
knows personally much of either, particularly the Gipsies. 
His remark is too short, vague, and obscure to admit of any 
comment being made on it. For a full discussion of the 
two questions I refer him to the ‘ History of the Gipsies,’ 
which was published a year before the first edition of the 
‘ Reign of Law ’ appeared, and two years before the fifth 
edition, in which collections were made to meet criticisms 
on various matters treated in it. I may add that the subject 
of the Jews is not so well known to the world at large as to 
justify the many positive assertions that have been made in 
regard to them ” (p. 164). 
The same article was appended (pp. 38 to 47) to the 
“ Scottish Churches and the Gipsies,” published in 1881. I 
have not seen any notice taken by the Duke of what I wrote 
in ieply to his remarks about the Jews and the Gipsies. In 
the Appendix to “ Contributions, &c.,” under the heading of 
