164 
discuss questions, but by those who endeavour by phrases of that kind to 
conceal their own ignorance, and who really know nothing about /““he 
teaches or what it does not teach. I did not, however, come here wrth the 
Xw of taking any part in the discussion. I would far rather have heard 
Te remarks of others ; and it was only because I was called upon that I 
have ventured at all to say a word. I have only one more observatonjto 
make, and it is this : It is a strange fact that a person who has the greatest 
powers to acquire languages has often the least comprehe^iouother^ 
tions of one language to another. We have an instance of tlms in the late 
Cardinal Mezzofanti. He was perfectly accustomed to read and write in 
very many different languages ; but if you asked him a question upon any 
point with respect to philology as a science, he la no concep 10 
matter whatever, and was unable to give you any informat, .on It is also a 
remarkable circumstance in connection with this subject, tha y . 
listening to several different languages spoken at the same tune ’^V 
such as to produce a sensation almost like absolute deafness. ° 
to the observations in the paper as to the way m which habit an emp - 
ment alfect language and the pronunciation of speech, it is a mg w it i a 
of us must have observed ; it is a thing which is domg its work at presen , 
and wdl continue to do its work after our generation has passed away I 
have nothing further to say with respect to the paper, except to s a e ow 
heartily I ioin in the vote of thanks which has been proposed to Dr. Ihornton, 
and to express the sincere desire that I have to see men who deal m science 
confining themselves strictly to facts. The moment we find science taking 
primary ground of opposition to Scripture, we ought to ask whether it a 
science or mscience ; and I do. not think we need have any doubt as to the 
answer which we should get to that question. 
Professor Oliver Byrne. — There is one argument which I think Dr. 
Thornton might have used in support of his theory as to the common 
origin of the languages now in use in the world. It might be possible to 
select twelve words in one language similar to those m another ; but for 
that language to be able to return the compliment, unless they were of 
common origin, is not within the range of mathematical probability. 
Mr. Warington— I have just two remarks to make with reference to me 
paper. I have listened to it with great interest ; but it struck me that 
there is one objection to the conclusions drawn, which I think can be 
very easily disposed of, and which has not been touched upon in the 
arguments of Dr. Thornton. It is this :-We have to account for more than 
a mere difference in the names applied to things ; we have to account tor 
a difference of grammar. It appeared to me that Dr. Thornton gave us no 
hint in his paper as to how he would account for one nation having su - 
fixes and another affixes, in their grammar. Is it not to be accounted tor m 
this way? If you take a language with suffixes, you will find that these 
appendages consist of other words shortened so habitually that they lose 
their apparent meaning. You can trace them, upon the examination of 
several words ; and you wdl find that what appears to be a suffix is really 
