203 
The Chairman. — I think we must all thank Mr. Howard for his interest- 
ing and important paper. It is the more interesting to us when we consider 
the purpose which, in his own mind, the writer has evidently set before him. 
He has very well dealt with the conclusions of certain scientific men, who seem 
to be desirous of calling in question the whole doctrines of religion. They write 
with what is manifestly a foregone conclusion, and all their observations are 
tainted with this fact. They are searching for something which they have 
already condemned in their own mind without sufficient examination, and it 
is very important that when men are found going forth and calling in question 
the truths of religion there should be such men as Mr. Howard to show the 
wholesale manner in which they contradict each other; for, although these men 
have really no ground to stand upon, they are at the same time very industrious 
in going about the country and practising upon the credulity of those to 
whom they lecture, and if their teachings were not called in question, people 
would be inclined to say they would have been called in question if they were 
not true, and that these men are great men and true. Consequently, it is, 
as I have already said, important that men like Mr. Howard should have 
the opportunity of dealing with these people, as he has just done in the 
interesting paper we have listened to. 
The Hon. Secretary said — Before the discussion commences I have to 
read the following communications.* The first is from Professor Challis, 
F.R.S. 
“ I have read Mr. Howard’s paper with much interest, as it confirms by 
appeal to facts views which I entertain respecting the date and effects of the 
Deluge from theoretic considerations.” 
* The following letter was received from Mr. Pengelly, to whom an early 
proof of the paper had been sent. The paper when read did not contain the 
term “crypt of dates,” and the peculiar nature of the error, the only 
one alluded to in Mr. Pengelly’s letter, prevented the possibility of its 
affecting the argument. His letter was read, and is inserted in accordance 
with an assurance which was given to him . Replies from those whose 
arguments may be disputed are always encouraged. — Ed. 
“Lamorna, Torquay, 1st February, 1879. Sir, — Be so good as to 
convey my thanks to your Council for so kindly inviting me to be present 
at the discussion on Mr. J. E. Howard’s paper on 3rd inst., and to ex- 
press my regret that, owing to the very short notice, and a pressure of en- 
gagements, it will not be in my power to attend. 
“ I am sorry that Mr. Howard did not send me his MS., for, though 
I have not had time to glance at more than a page here and there 
of the proof you were so good as to forward, I perceive that he has fallen into 
the error of supposing that he visited the Crypt of Dates in Kent’s Cavern (see 
page 166), he having confounded that recess with the Cave of Inscriptions, 
which is in a distant part of the Cavern. 
