197 
that I think, while on the one hand we ought not to overstate, we should on 
the other be very careful not to understate the value of negative evidence. 
There can be no doubt that it is of great value as a defence ; and, when the 
doctrine of evolution is put forward, the more pugnacious it is, the more 
fair is it that the negative argument should be used against it. The paper 
we have heard, whether we accept altogether its deductions or not, is one 
well worthy of careful consideration. I think the onus of proof lies so 
entirely with the evolutionists, that the line of argument adopted in the 
paper is a very fair one. It is for the evolutionist to ]3rove how the Glacial 
period is to be got over, and it also lies with him to prove why it is that we 
do not find a sort of sliding scale of fossils. We find, as it were, a certain 
number of milestones, and 'vve assume there is a roadway lying between 
them. If we are sure they are milestones, I grant the inference. We find 
the remains of various creatures, which Professor Huxley took it for granted 
Avere the progenitors of the horse ; but I think it is rather for him to show 
why Ave do not find the intermediate links. If you dig about London, you 
Avill come upon the remains of the former inhabitants from the time of the 
Romans, but Avith no distinct breaks between, so that you may assume 
London to have been continuously inhabited ; but if I found merely Roman 
and Tudor coins, and none other, it Avmuld not be fair to assume that there 
had been a continuous inhabitation of Londoii betAveen the tAvo periods 
represented by those coins. If, then, Ave are to adopt the continuous hypo- 
thesis of evolution, using the term in the sense that all living phenomena are 
to be explained by a continuous process of evolution, Avithout cessation, and 
Avith no assistance from Avithout, I say Ave have a right to require that these 
breaks shall be explained. It certainly does not necessarily involve a denial 
of creation by Divine PoAver to believe that some form of eAmlution played a 
part in it, but I confess that I should like to have strong proof of the evolution 
theory before accepting it. Well, then, I say before Ave adopt the doctrine 
of evolution, Avhich Mr. Callard is opposing, — the doctrine Avhich assumes a 
continuous succession of evolutionary changes by' a process of natural selec- 
tion, — Ave may fairly ask for some explanation of these very inconvenient 
breaks. A proposition in Euclid Avould be very difficult to understand if 
Ave only had some of the syllogisms before us, and Ave had to find out the 
others. I do not say the deficiencies would show that there Avas no argument ; 
but I think Ave ought to suspend our judgment till we found out the 
missing links somehoAV. 
Mr. CALLxiRD. — I have been much interested by the Avay in which my 
paper has been received. I did not expect that the doctrine of a com- 
plete break during the Glacial period would be at once accepted. I knoAV 
that a good deal might be said about it ; but think, if I have an oppor- 
tunity at another time of saying a little more upon the subject, I shall be 
able to prove to you that the glaciation of the northern and southern 
hemispheres was simultaneous. We have not time to go into that proof 
to-night ; but I Avould ask, Avhat leads you to suppose there w'as a glacial con- 
dition on one hemisphere and not on the other ? Until Dr. Croll’s hypothesis 
