trolling outside Intelligence, — which preserves all the varieties best 

 adapted to the siu-roiuiding constantly changing circumstances — 

 thereby producing ever new forms in the lapse of ages, ond merci- 

 lessly converting unadaptable species and individuals into " extinct" 

 forms. 



We cannot deny this so far as artificial selection is concerned ; 

 new varieties of dogs, horses, pigeons, roses, dahlias, geraniums, 

 are manufactured, one might almost say, every year. And some of 

 these (c./jf. pigeons) differ so much from each other, that if we had 

 found the kinds wild in a strange country we should unhesitatingly 

 and justifiably have put them down as distinct species. 



The question that follows immediately upon this is, — Is there 

 any limit to this variation ? Does it only occur within well-defined 

 bounds, or may it go on until we get an indisputably new form, 

 e-ff. a cowslip from a primrose, a dog from a wolf, or two totally 

 new species of bird Irom a wild canary '? 



And here I think I must leave you to take up these questions. 

 I have endeavoured to put the theory before you in plain language 

 without espousing one side or the other. 



It must not be forgotten however that our own origin is included 

 in the theory by most though not by all its advocates. Not, as I 

 said at starting, that we are supposed to be descended from any 

 known kind of ape, — gorilla or other, but that they and we are alike 

 descendants of some one ancestor in the far Past who was neither 

 ape nor human, but still Darwin says a " hairy tailed quadruped." 

 This however, would best form a subject for discussion by itself. 



The Rev. J. Burgess said he thought that, so far as Mr. Ullyett 

 had gone, they were all agreed. 



The Chairman. — Mr. Ullyett has very judiciously expressed no 

 opinion one way or the other. 



Mr. Ullyett said his own opinion was tliat it would be better to 

 place the theory of Darwinism before the meeting, and then some 

 other gentleman could take one side or the other. 



Dr. Fitzgerald said Mr. Ullyett had dwelt upon the fact that 

 Darwin was not an atheist ; on the con^^^rary, anyone who read his 

 works must have seen that they were written by a man of distinct 

 religious convictions. It was said that science and religion were 

 antagonistic, but he did not tliink a greater mistake could be made. 

 A thoroughly scientific man must of necessity be a religious man. 

 There was, of course, the objection one could not help touching 

 upon, viz., that the teaching of science and the teacliingofthe Bible 

 were apparently at variance. This, he believed, to be utterly 

 untrue. The Bible was not meant to teach them science; 

 it was intended to teach them higher and more valuable 

 truths. The holy men whose writings had been transmitted 



