3 z8 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



elaborating, and which had been under examination and discus- 

 sion by the whole biological world for a generation, was thought 

 to be thus readily disposed of by a scholar's mate. Very curi- 

 ous, too, was it to observe the different effects produced in the 

 world of science and in the outer world. Neither in the recent 

 controversy between Dr. Wallace and Professor Henslow, nor in 

 the criticisms of Mr. Bateson's late work, nor in the discussion 

 before the Royal Society on Professor Weldon's experiments 

 and views all of them concerned with aspects of Natural Se- 

 lection is there the slightest sign that Lord Salisbury's attack 

 had produced any impression whatever : a serene disregard 

 showing that its irrelevance was tacitly recognized by all. Mean- 

 while the extreme improbability that there could be achieved 

 so easy a triumph being overlooked, there was great rejoicing 

 among those who stand by the old ; even to the extent that a 

 bishop and a dissenting minister were heard exchanging congrat- 

 ulations on what they supposed to be a defeat of the common 

 enemy ! 



And now I have to make a remark to which the foregoing 

 illustration is preliminary the remark that this slaying of effigies 

 entails on those concerned a provoking choice of alternatives. 

 Either the attack must be noticed for the purpose of showing that 

 the thing disproved was not the thing said, in which case time 

 and energy, often much wanted for other purposes, must be spent ; 

 or else the attack must be passed by in silence, in which case 

 readers assume that nothing is said because there is nothing to 

 say that the misstated view is the actual view, and the criticism 

 of it fatal. For it never occurs to them that silence may result 

 from preoccupation or from the belief that controversy is futile, 

 or from ill-health. Once more, after many repetitions, I have my- 

 self to choose between the two evils. As the issue raised by Mr. 

 Balfour is important, I reluctantly decide to accept his challenge. 



Limitations of time and space oblige me to leave some contro- 

 verted views of mine undefended ; as instance certain ethical and 

 SBsthetical ones. I must content myself with saying that those 

 who turn to my own expositions of them will carry away differ- 

 ent impressions from those given by Mr. Balfour's burlesques. 

 But before entering on the essential question, something may fitly 

 be said concerning Mr. Balfour's assumptions and his methods. 

 Let us look first at one of his assumptions. 



" What remedy remains ? " he asks ; referring to the inade- 

 quacy of reasoning "based upon ordinary experience" to "enable 

 us to break out of the Naturalistic prison-house." " One such 

 remedy consists in simply setting up side by side with the creed 

 of natural science another and supplementary set of beliefs, which 



