19 



commences, I have to read two letters, their writers being unable to be pre- 

 sent ; the first is from Sir Eichard Owen, K.C.B., F.R.S. 



" Sheen Lodge, Richmond Park, East Sheen, March 14, 1885. 



" DEAR SIR, I have the honour to return my best respects and thanks to 

 the Council of the Victoria Institute, and regret that my present state of 

 health forbids me to quit the house. 



" The ' Unrevised Proof/ which I now return, has enabled me to pass a 

 most interesting and instructive hour with the accomplished author of 

 the 'Relations of Fossil Botany to the Theories of Evolution.' 



" I much regret that I cannot listen to the Paper and to the Discussion it 

 will occasion. I shall deem it a favour to have a copy, when issued. 

 Believe me, faithfully yours, RICHARD OWKN. 



" Captain Francis Petrie." 



The second communication is from J. Braxton Hicks, Esq., M.D., F.R.S., 

 who would have been present but for a severe cold. He says : 



" The lines followed by the author of this paper seem to be excellent, and 

 with the introductory remarks I quite agree. The great question of Evo- 

 lution is not yet settled ; far from it ; probably it never will be absolutely 

 proved ; at any rate, until it is so, opinions on it can only be formed on 

 probabilities ; and the relative value of these can only be arrived at by 

 examining facts, bearing on the question, with the thoroughness and patience 

 shown by the author of the Origin of Species. Till this is accomplished, 

 and it is a great work, and till every point on either side, be carefully 

 balanced, it will be considered that his conclusions have not been answered. 

 The argument based on the imperfection of the geological records obviously 

 cuts both ways ; like as it enables the evolutionist to escape from the demand 

 for demonstration of the transitional forms, so it also enables his opponent 

 to claim that the absence of any ancestor identical with existing species is 

 no proof of its never having existed. And here the argument of Mr. 

 James comes fairly in, and shows that where the records of the past are 

 copiously revealed, there is a persistence of species and genera, remark- 

 able on the theory that a constant slow change is always occurring. 

 Most of those who have advocated the theory of evolution, have, so it 

 appears to me, jumped to conclusions not warranted by the evidence; and 

 then, having treated possibilities as proved facts, have overlooked what can 

 be said on the other side, being carried away by the enthusiasm engendered 

 by the apparent squaring of the theory with the facts observed. .By this 

 and kindred actions a hasty and spurious philosophy has taken the place of 

 the former painstaking inquiry after knowledge ; and thus true philosophy is 

 discredited. Had all the work on this subject been brought forward as 

 " contributions," and not as final conclusions, we should have advanced 

 sooner towards the solution of the question. To state, as some have done, 

 that the subject is settled, and that all who dissent are the reverse of acute, 

 shows an inadequate conception of the difficult problem before us." 



Mr. W. CARRUTHERS, F.R.S. I have to express the pleasure with which 

 I first read and have just listened to Mr. James's paper, in which I 

 think he has very clearly stated the case he desires to establish. I have but 

 little to offer in the shape of criticism, and still less by way of supplement. I 

 accept, to a great extent, what Mr. James has put before us as a concise 



