51 



young compared with Professor Sedgwick, and they have 'changed their 

 opinions. To bring forward Miller and Sedgwick is not fair : bring forward 

 others, and you will find that scientific men are giving in their adhesion one 

 after another. 



Dr. J. A. Frazer. — Is Agassiz ? 



Mr. Henslow. — I do not know. 



The Chairman. — All that this means is that these scientific men believe 

 that a power which they call evolution has an enormous scope and sway, 

 but that it does not cover the whole field. Your own argument as to the 

 retention of types indicates that. 



Mr. Henslow.— Certainly. The thing is deduced from nature, and it is 

 a marvel to me that Dr. Wainwright, who knows so much of science, should be 

 so steadily opposed to it. Take the case of Mr. Bentham. I have heard him 

 oppose evolution in the Linntean Society for a long time, but during the last 

 few years he has been examining the genus Cassia, better known as Senna, 

 which has 350 species, and from his careful study of all those forms, and 

 seeing how they graduate into one another, so that he has great difficulty 

 in separating the species, he has given in his adhesion to the doctrine. You 

 must work at the thing yourself, not get it up from books. Take a group 

 of animals or plants, and then you will find how the dovetailing goes on in 

 every direction : the mind gradually absorbs the theory, and you cannot get 

 rid of it. Dr. Wainwright quotes my phrase that " evolution is a great 

 fact in nature," and argues that it is opposed to a God in nature. But I 

 unite the] two, and say that it is simply a method of God's working. Dr. 

 Wainwright said a great deal about that passage of mine in the 36th page 

 of the paper, and about the theory of evolution as based upon it. All that 

 I meant by that passage is this : As a matter of fact, offspring do vary from 

 their parents. You must admit the variations, but how they arise and what 

 causes them no one knows, nor does any one know what will appear. All 

 breeders of cattle are aware of that. If they want a new kind of sheep, they 

 must be satisfied with whatever nature gives them in the variations, and 

 must take them to their advantage, but they cannot foretell the peculiar 

 variation that will ensue ; they cannot force the variation to be in a certain 

 direction. That is all that is meant by the statement as to our ignorance of 

 these laws being profound. There are laws, because they are regular things, 

 but man is totally ignorant of how they arise, and that is all that Mr. Darwin 

 means. But they do arise, and on that fact evolution is based. Then I am 

 called in question for speaking too positively about evolution. I qualified 

 one expression by saying', " at least among scientific men." Another pas- 

 sage I do not seem to have qualified, perhaps from my conviction that the 

 doctrine will be accepted. You will say, " That is no proof," and I admit 

 it ; but it is a question of time. As to the evolution theory cropping up 

 all through the paper, I cannot help that ; my paper was in fact upon it. I 

 think I have now referred to most of the points that have been brought 

 forward, and have only to thank you again for the kind remarks, many of 

 them most valuable, that have been made upon the paper. (Cheers.) 



E 2 



