234 
it is supported by a good deal of courage. This deficiency of courage with 
respect to the subject of the paper we have listened to is visible in two 
quarters, — it is seen among scientific men in the first place, and it is also 
evidenced among the public. I think there can be no doubt that we out- 
siders observe that scientific men are, to a certain extent, cowed by the 
force of the authority which resides on the side of the materialistic 
dogmas. There is a degree of prudence that will operate to check men in 
any particular pursuit ; as Sir Walter Ealeigh said, “ If a man follows 
truth too closely at the heels, he may chance to have his teeth dashed out 
and there is a feeling also, that unless a person follows closely the current 
of what is popular and fashionable, he may ultimately find himself left 
very much in the cold and may suffer accordingly. I must say there is, to a 
certain extent, the same sort of feeling in the arts, if I may be allowed to 
refer to them in iUustration. People feel that they must be in the fashion. 
Take the case of an architect. He may have a strong taste for the Classical ; 
but people will have the G-othic style, and, much as he dislikes it, he finds 
that he must build Gothic houses. Love of peace degenerates into a w'ant of 
courage on the part of the public, who bow to what they find to be in vogue. 
There is the same sort of feeling in other matters. A good many of us know 
what it is to be in a minority on political questions. You cannot open your 
mouth as one of the minority without finding that you are in an unpleasant 
position, and the result is that you hold your tongue. And this, I am afraid, 
is very much the case with regard to scientific questions. You trace it not 
only among the public at large, but also in the literature which addresses the 
public. Science, we all allow, has sustained a great loss in the death of 
Darwin, whose genuine services I may be allowed to say, though I am not a 
scientific man, will always be appreciated. But the advocates of the 
Darwinian doctrine have put it in the strongest way, that the theory of 
evolution is so absolutely established that no person worthy of considera- 
tion, no man in the scientific world, especially, can or does stand up against 
it for a moment. But we know that this is not the fact, and that there 
are truly scientific men who do not hold the Darwinian view. I was lately 
reading an article in the Saturday Beview on the death of Dr. Darmn, 
and I took notice of a fact which I regard as evidence of the want of 
courage I have referred to. The writer, in referring as an adherent to the 
theory which we are told by Professor Huxley is absolutely established, 
still only spoke of Darwin as having made it exceedingly probable. Indeed, 
the word “ probable runs quietly through that article from beginning to 
end. How, what, I ask, was this a sign of, but that the writer did not 
consider the theory absolutely proved, and at the same time had not the 
courage to say so emphatically ? (Hear, hear.) I agree with a speaker who 
has addressed us this evening in so instructive a manner, that every one, 
even among the general public, ought to have the courage to speak out 
on these occasions, and, when he finds these things taken for granted, 
should ask one or two plain questions. In that case it would no longer 
