lie the January number of MIND a footnote appeared which it is as well to quote in full :-" Dr. Meroier originally included in the above article an extended reply to Mr. Shelton s oharge of plagiarism and other personal accusations. I have requested him to omit thia reply on the ground that a continuance of such personalities in the paged of MIND IS intolerable. In fairness to Dr. Meroier it is necessary to add that, in the opinion of the Editor, Mr. Shelton's charge of plagiarism is utterly

more »

... eless, and that his abusive language was quite unjustifiable and in every way regrettable. The Editor apologises to readers of MBD and to Dr. Mercier for having allowed such language to appear " (Horn, N.S., No. 97, p. 83). A note of thia character would appear to call for an explanation from me. Those who have read the discussion referred to will understand that I do not propose to make any elaborate defence of anything I have published either in MLND or in the Nineteenth Century. For them it will be sufficient if I say that I am prepared to repeat everything that I have published and that 1 have nothing to withdraw or defend. A few words are necessary in view of the fact that many who have read the note will not have read the previous discussion. The Editor is pleased to talk about my " charge of plagiarism ". That is not a correct description of anything I wrote. For several years past (since the year 1908) I have, in private discussion, in philosophical •articles and papers, in a thesis offered to London University, of which sections have been published in several journals, 1 and in other ways continually urged that the branoh of logical theory commonly described as methodology should be a subject having a direct practical bearing on the problems of science. I have, moreover, in several investigations, shown by examples that such a treatment of the subject, if undertaken by one sufficiently competent, can give results of considerable scientific value. In this attitude towards logical theory and towards soience, I have encountered opposition from most of those commonly regarded as competent to judge and have received very little support. It follows therefore that anyone who adopta similar ground, whether competently or incompetently, successfully or unsuccessfully, must take account of my work. Anyonje who fails to do so is open to the suggestion of plagiarism. It may happen that the individual in question applies the prinoiple in ways with which I agree or in ways with which I disagree. He may agree with my applications or be may disagree. All this is irrelevant He ought to be .aware that the general position is one specially characteristic of a writer who was in the field before him, and, if aware, he should make due mention of the fact. These remarks are of general application to all -concerned. So far as L am aware, they concern Dr. Mercier only with regard to the artiole he published in the Nineteenth Century in February, 1916.