214 AKNUAI, MEETING. 



The Right Hon. Lord Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor (who was 

 cheered on rising), said : Sir Gabriel, ladies and gentlemen. — The 

 motion I have to move is one about which I have no difficalty, for 

 I do not suppose that there is any one present who is not prepared 

 to give their best thanks to Professor Duns for the Annual Address 

 that has been delivered, and onr thanks are also due, in a very high 

 degree, to the gentleman who has been good enough to read it. 

 (Applause.) I must say the unhesitating manner in which he 

 read those awfully long words would have startled a great many 

 readers. I cannot help being reminded of a story that I think 

 was told by Lord Bacon, of a certain great occasion, when the 

 Greeks assembled together. A foreign ambassador (for they 

 had such things in those days) was invited in order that he might 

 hear the wise observations to be made and carry them back to his 

 prince. After a great number of wise men had spoken, there was 

 one gentleman who said nothing, and the ambassador looked on 

 with curiosity and impatience to know what would come from 

 him, and when he appealed to him the man said " go back to 

 yoar rulers and tell them there was one Greek who knew how 

 to hold his tongue." I am afraid I have forfeited that merit 

 already — and yet, I know not what to say, because with reference 

 to the subject of this Addi-ess — Stone Folk Lore — all it means 

 and all its history — I do not know anything. Perhaps that is 

 not a reason, in these dajs, why I should not talk a great deal 

 about it. 



There is one passage that caught my eye upon which, inasmuch 

 as criticism is the very essence of this Society (and we do not 

 allow anything to pass without criticising it if we have something 

 to say), I will say a few words. It is, I believe, the great virtue 

 of our meetings that everybody is obliged to explain what he 

 means — if he can. Now I find a little difficulty in following the 

 argument by which the very learned paper is introduced. On 

 his first page I find the writer says " the distinction between 

 the true and the false is not to be sought for in defective 

 Tuethod, but in the mixed minor premise " and he goes on to 

 say, " Syntheses warranted only by facts are vitiated by being 

 neither factful nor fanciful, but a blending of both." I am 

 not quite certain that I understand that. But this I will say, 

 that I think there is a blending of two totally different theories 



