i88o.] 
Correspondence. 
793 
which I have committed really lies in the unpleasant fafls I have 
brought forward. , , 
Now for Mr. Baildon’s charges of discourtesy and for the perso- 
nalities with which his reply is so largely interwoven. Such charges 
surely “ come with a scant grace ” from one who decorateshis book 
with such flowers of rhetoric as “ intellectually and morally im- 
becile ” “vulgar and stupid fallacy,” “ crude, thoughtless, criti- 
cism ” “ the Darwinian with his lack of metaphysical acumen, 
« atheistic flavour,” &c., and who (p. 17) ascribes “ ignorance 
and pride” to those who do not share his sentiments. Yet 
this writer feels highly aggrieved because I declared 
his work to be pervaded by a general tone of dogmatism 
and rashness. This indictment he considers “ untrue,” among 
other things from his own consciousness ! Is he not aware that 
men are often serenely unconscious of their own peculiarities ? 
Is it not, however, rash, even flippant, when a man who, what- 
ever his powers and attainments, has not, I believe, distinguished 
himself by any important researches, magnanimously tells us 
that his “ general aim is not so much to discredit Darwinism 
proper as to,” &c. ? Elsewhere we read of subjects “ beyond the 
range of Tyndall’s mental vision.” Perhaps a happier term than 
dogmatism might have been selected to characterise the tone of 
such a book, but it was at any rate the mildest possible. 
In Mr. Baildon’s reply I am told that the article A Change 
of Front ” proves me to be nothing if not a dogmatist of the New 
Natural History.” This is a singular assertion to make of a 
writer who implicitly declares himself not satisfied with the laws 
of selection and survival, and who (p. 567) admits that the mos_ 
advanced of us all have as yet but very shadowy conceptions 
of the God-given laws of animal and vegetable development. . ^ 
A-ain, mention is made of critics as impartial if not “so superior 
as Mr. Slater. It would puzzle Mr. Baildon to show where I 
have laid claim to any superiority or obtruded my personality 
upon the reader at all. Again, it is declared that I do not under- 
stand the book, and it is next insinuated that I have wilfully mis- 
interpreted it, being deficient in truthfulness accusations hard 
to be reconciled. Mr. Baildon speaks of a zeal for truth to which 
my “class lay almost too vociferous claim. I have laid no 
vociferous claims to truth, nor does it matter what may be done 
bv some “ class ” to which Mr. Baildon is pleased to refer me 
Various other little outbreaks of bad temper, such as the 
charge of not understanding Paley, I shall not notice. They cer- 
tainly will not hurt me and they may perhaps relieve Mr. 
Baildon’s excited feelings. . . T 
For one oversight I beg most sincerely to apologise. I con- 
sidered and stated that amongst the evidences in favour of Dar- 
winism Mr. Baildon had omitted all reference to embryology. I 
find that I was mistaken.— I am, &c., w Slater. 
