216 
Sir John Lubbock said, lie must also differ from his fl jjend ' Profes so 
Huxley ; but with reference to the ingenious paper which had been read, 
“he objected to the term ‘religious theory, because it implied that ■ < 
other theories must be anti-religious. Now for his part (without .P^ e ® 8 
to be more orthodox than he was), he believed that religion and science were 
not opposed one to the other. He did not t»mik Mr ,^die ly « com- 
prehended the Darwinian theory. He was an humble disciple of ^ Mr. 
Darwin’s, and he ventured to claim for that gentleman s theory that it w^the 
only one which accounted in any way for the origin of man ; for ab the oth 
theories were in his judgment, no theories at all, but simply confessions of 
and did not convey’ those definite idea, to the mind which were 
conveyed by the theory of Mr. Darwin.” , 
“ Mr. Crawfurd was of opinion that the terms ‘ anthropology an e ino 
logy ’ were synonymous, or nearly so. For his own part he could not beUcve 
one word of Darwin’s theory. He was sorry for that, because it ^s beheve 
in by so many men of eminence. It was a surprising thing to him that men 
of talent should nail themselves to such a belief (Hear ^ ai r *i J^ r \ 
was said, was derived from a monkey. From what monkey . ( ® 
There were two hundred or three hundred kinds of monkeys and 
monkey, viz., the gorilla, was the biggest brute. Laughter.) Then there 
were monkeys with tails and monkeys without tails, but 
those which had no tails, and. were consequently the most l^e man, we 
the stupidest of all. (Laughter.) People were at a loss to knowhow th_ 
universe was created, and that, no doubt, was a difflc > J • f 
Eeddie, however, seemed to invert the order of nature, lor all t be tot ory ol 
man showed that he was progressive. Our ancestors were barbarians, and it 
was the same with every other race.” 
Mr. Carter Blake said he should wish to be informed what traditions 
among savages Mr. Eeddie referred to, as relating to their previous higher con- 
dition ; and where such traditions are to be found recorded. 
Mr. Fellows also briefly addressed the meeting, but his observations 
were of a general kind (not, however, adverse to the paper), and I regret 
they have not been reported, so far as I am aware. 
In reply to Professor Huxley’s remarks, so far as they related to the pro- 
priety of my paper being read in Section E, I contented myself-as Professor 
Huxley had then left the room— with referring to the complete answer he had 
received from Mr. Nash. His observations were, besides, rather a reflection upon 
the Committee of the Section, and it is not forme to say whether they were^m 
the best taste or not. They were received with “ laughter,” no doubt but a^so 
with adverse murmurs in the Section. For myself, I was not placed on the 
committee till after my paper had been accepted, but I am not aware that 
Professor Huxley had any grounds whatever for affecting to suppose that my 
paper had not been “referred” (as I do know that other papers were), m 
Section E, before being read. Anyhow, the paper, upon being read, was ex- 
tremely we'll received, and was also more fully reported in the newspapers 
with one or two exceptions, than perhaps any other ordinary paper read at 
the meetings. As it is now printed and published along with Professor 
Huxley’s remarks as to its character, the public generally will be able to form 
their own judgment of it, and will further know (if I gather the Professor s 
