'M7 



same pen. I wish Mr. Row had had time enough to make a few remarks 

 upon another branch of the subject, — I mean the question of the criticism 

 of history, in relation to discrepancies, because that is a very important 

 point. We know there are many apparent discrepancies in Scripture ; and how 

 far any rational kind of criticism would make the book historical, although it 

 seems to some to contain discrepancies, would form in itself very interesting 

 matter for a paper. There always are discrei^ancies, more or less, in contem- 

 porary accounts. During the late war, for instance, the correspondents of 

 the Standard and of the Daily News sent very different accounts of what took 

 place, according to the side from which they wrote. Both accounts were, no 

 doubt, in the main correct ; but there were discrepancies, although those 

 discrepancies did not make the accounts unhistorical. In conclusion, I may, 

 perhaps, be allowed to express my strong conviction that Mr. Row's paper 

 is a very valuable contribution to our proceedings. (Cheers.) 



Mr. I. T. Pritchard.— I must say that I agree with what Mr. Titcomb 

 has said with reference to Dr. Currey's remarks on the province of the 

 historian. If I understand Mr. Row rightly, he intends to find fault with, 

 or to throw doubt upon, statements which historians have recorded, and to 

 show us how careful we ought to be in accepting them as facts ; and that 

 we ought not to receive them unless they are supported by good authority 

 and by collateral testimonj^ Now, I will mention two illustrations of this 

 view. Take, for instance, the question of biographical as distinguished 

 from political history — I mean that portion of history which deals with 

 the lives of great men. A discussion took place only a year or two ago, 

 upon certain incidents connected with Lord Byron's life, and it was ver}^ 

 instructive from one point of view. Here was a case in which a man had 

 moved in society, and was very well known, and certain facts had taken 

 place within the cognizance of a number of people living at the time of the 

 discussion ; and yet, as that discussion went on, no single fact was brought 

 forward which was not contradicted by some person who had very good 

 grounds upon which to form an opinion. This was a case in Avhich a promi- 

 nent man had passed from society, almost within our own recollection, and 

 yet it was impossible to get at the truth relating to his life. With such a 

 case before us, how can w^e trust to any historian for obtaining a correct view 

 of such a man as Henry VIII. or any one of earlier date ? As to the state- 

 ments of historians with reference to such events as the number of men 

 slain in a particular battle, and matters of that kind, I should like to offer 

 another illustration within my own experience, which brought to my mind 

 the same idea which Mr. Row has expressed. It was an incident that hap- 

 pened to me in one of our great Indian battles during the recent wars. We 

 all know how apt reports are to magnify the numbers of those who are killed 

 in battle, and on one occasion — at the battle of Goojerat, which broke down 

 the military power of the Sikh nation, and laid the Punjaub at our feet, — it 

 was my fortune to be present. The battle went on from early morning to 

 midday, and it was magnificently conducted. Towards the afternoon we 

 got into the enemy's camp, which was then deserted, and in the evening we 



VOL. VII, Z 



