New South Wales. 
2 3 
and on tho published reports on these coal fields.” But even 
this is accompanied by a sneer at Mr. Keene’s blunders in 
Palaeontology. 
On the above I would observe that, as I saw the collection 
referred to before it was despatched, I am prepared to say it did 
not completely represent the beds in the local district from which 
they came, and was only a partial display of the series of the 
strata in association with coal throughout the Colony ; and that in 
the arrangement adopted by Professor M‘Coy in the Report, most 
important portions of the beds are omitted. I would, therefore, 
attribute the “ opinion” of the Board respecting the age of the 
New South Wales Coal,” so authoritatively pronounced, to bo 
based on imperfect data, showing that the gentlemen who have 
decided the question are practically ignorant of the true 
grounds of decision, clearly not having made any inspection 
for themselves, and totally ignoring the opinions of tho host of 
observers who have certified to the contrary ; amongst whom is 
Mr. Daintree, a member of the Victorian Geological Survey, the 
late Mr. Stutchbury, who reported thereof as well as many others 
■who have studied the strata in situ , and arc true witnesses against 
the side of tho Oolitical party. In the pleadings on that side, the 
reliable evidence that makes against them is “burked,” and afore- 
gone conclusion is offered as if it were final—and the judgment is 
delivered ex cathedra, whilst numerous witnesses of the first 
credibility are altogether ignored. This may be prudent and 
ingenious, but it is not “ scientific ,” nor is it honest, yet it helps 
to bring out tho magnificent declaration : “ We confine ourselves 
to the statement that wo have not before us a particle of evidence 
indicating that tho coal seams now being worked in New South 
Wales are of Palaeozoic age.” A great compliment this to persons 
who have laboured for years to establish truth; but they may console 
themselves with the reflection, that “ Prejur/cr cst ma'l juyer” 
Amidst this lamentable ingenuity to “tell the truth without telling 
tho whole truth and nothing but the truth” and in the arraying of 
evidence from beyond Australia instead of collecting the whole 
evidence furnished from itself, there is one grateful exception 
which, though not entirely satisfactory, is much more so than some 
previous proceedings were. It would have been better to have 
acknowledged the change. 
In the notes on Mr. Keene’s specimens, Professor M‘Coy, 
though he draws a line where it ought not to be, has changed his 
method of putting his old opinions about tho coal itself, inasmuch 
as he no longer makes use of the notion which he once 
entertained and put in evidence before a Committeo of the 
Melbourne Parliament. I must explain this. 
On the 20th November, 1857, he was examined (as the Chair¬ 
man of a Mining Commission) on the character and extent of 
