reader.

In some few instances also we have found ourselves called upon to adopt
a more critical tone; where we were disposed to dissent from the view
taken by the author on particular questions of a controversial kind, or
when he is arguing in support, or in refutation, of opposing theories on
some points of science not yet satisfactorily cleared up.

We could have wished that our duty as translators and editors had not
extended beyond such mere occasional scientific or literary criticism.
But there unfortunately seemed to be one or two points where, in
pronouncing on the claims of distinguished individuals, or criticizing
their inventions, a doubt could not but be felt as to the perfect
_fairness_ of Arago's judgment, and in which we were constrained to
express an unfavourable opinion on the manner in which the relative
pretensions of men of the highest eminence seemed to be decided,
involving what might sometimes be fairly regarded as undue prejudice,
or possibly a feeling of personal or even national jealousy. Much as we
should deprecate the excitement of any feeling of hostility of this
kind, yet we could not, in our editorial capacity, shrink from the plain
duty of endeavouring to advocate what appeared to us right and true; and
we trust that whatever opinion may be entertained as to the
_conclusions_ to which we have come on such points, we shall not have
given ground for any complaint that we have violated any due courtesy or
propriety in our _mode_ of expressing those conclusions, or the reasons
on which they are founded.