XXXVI ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 
Society, the first four and the sixth have passed away. When we men- 
tion tneir names, Sir William Dawson, the Hon. Mr. Chauveau, Dr. Sterry 
Hunt, Sir Daniel Wilson, and Dr. G. Lawson, it will be felt that not only 
the Society, but the world is the poorer for the loss of them. Happily 
we still retain the greater number who have shared that honour, and they 
are not among the least known or the least valued of our members. 
Glancing at the various sections into which the work of the Society 
is divided, we become aware of the ravages of time in every department. 
In the first section, that of French literature, we have still twelve of the 
original twenty, and among them those who (as the Reports of the Society 
will show) have done much valuable work. It is sufficient to mention 
the names of the Abbé Casgrain, Dr. Fréchette, Sir James LeMoine, Dr. 
Marchand, and M. Benjamin Sulte, all of them among the original mem- 
bers of the Society, and still remaining with us. 
In the English section, our losses have been more severe. Of the 
original twenty, only eight remain, although three of the remaining 
twelve are yet alive. Of those who have passed away, special mention 
should be made of Evan MacColl, the Gaelic poet, Charles Sangster, the 
Canadian poet, and Mr. John L’Esperance, litlérateur and journalist, all 
of whom have distinguished themselves in their own department; and 
to these should be added the names of Dr. Alpheus Todd, whose work 
is too well known, not merely in Canada, but throughout the Empire, to 
need any comment or commendation from me; and Professor Paxton 
Young, who, although, as far as I know, he left no writings of much 
importance behind him, during his period of teaching communicated his 
thought and much intellectual stimulus to the minds of many men who, 
as students, came under his influence. 
Passing on to the third section, I find that eight of the original 
twenty have left us; but one of them—a much valued member—Pro- 
fessor Chapman, is still alive. Dr. Sterry Hunt was a loss to science and 
to Canada. Of the fourth section, eight have also gone. But here I am 
passing into regions of which I can speak only from hearsay. The late 
Mr. Matthew Arnold expended a good deal of labour in proving that 
Belles Lettres, as he called it—shall we say Literature?—was much more 
cultivating and civilizing than science. However this may be, we who 
are literary and not scientific, may be wiser, if we do not expose our 
ignorance of science. 
On one point, however, in the relation of science to theology and 
literature, I may be permitted to dwell for a moment. It is hardly 
necessary to refer to the old-time feuds and controversies between the 
men of science and the men of theology. To go no further, the late 
f 
