this opportunity of correcting it, I will add that, in the
present volume, I have thought it more candid to mention
distinctly those whose line of conduct I have disapproved, or
whose works I have criticised, than to leave to the reader
inferences which he might make far more extensive than I have
intended. I hope, therefore, that where I have depicted species,
no person will be so unkind to others and unjust to me, as to
suppose I have described individuals.

With respect to the cry against personality, which has been
lately set up to prevent all inquiry into matters of scientific
misgovernment, a few words will suffice.

I feel as strongly as any one, not merely the impropriety, but
the injustice of introducing private character into such
discussions. There is, however, a maxim too well established to
need any comment of mine. The public character of every public
servant is legitimate subject of discussion, and his fitness or
unfitness for office may be fairly canvassed by any person. Those
whose too sensitive feelings shrink from such an ordeal, have no
right to accept the emoluments of office, for they know that it
is the condition to which all must submit who are paid from the
public purse.

The same principle is equally applicable to Companies, to
Societies, and to Academies. Those from whose pocket the salary
is drawn, and by whose appointment the officer was made, have
always a right to discuss the merits of their officers, and their
modes of exercising the duties they are paid to perform.