51 
young compared with Professor Sedgwick, and they have r 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. Hens low. — I do not know. 
The Chairman. — All that this means is that these scientific men T>elieve 
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 Linnsean 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 
