96 
product of intelligence, and that chance or the blind force of nature could 
never have brought about the result exhibited. I think the paper read to us 
by Mr. James an extremely able and important one, and we are greatly 
indebted to him for it. I can only express my regret that our first meet- 
ing this year has fallen on New Year’s Day, as the usual family gatherings 
on that day may have prevented some being present. 
Mr. James. — It has been very gratifying to me to find that almost all the 
speakers have been in entire agreement with the views I have expressed. I 
am sorry Prebendary Row has left the room, and that consequently I cannot 
have the pleasure of thanking him personally for the cordial way in which he 
has spoken of my paper. I quite agree with him that a popular statement of 
the arguments I have urged would be very valuable ; but I must point out 
that my paper has been written throughout with obvious reference to the 
views put forward by our opponents, and, as I have had to meet them some- 
what on their own ground, my exposition has necessarily been rather dry. 
It is the doctrines of the materialists that I have been combating. I have 
been extremely pleased to be able to read the protest, contained in my paper, 
against the materialistic tone which has become so common in works of 
natural science of the present day. I do not mean to say that a work on 
botany ought or need contain any allusion to theology, but it certainly need 
not go out of its way to deny purpose and assault design. This is a 
fault which we can most certainly charge against Sachs’s great work, which 
has now reached its second edition, and which is officially published by the 
University of Oxford. I do not think the University ought to give its 
sanction to a one-sided statement of this question, whereas Dr. Sachs, or his 
translator, goes out of his way to cast a slur on design, although he does 
not bring anything like arguments against it. If the idea of design is 
not scientific, if it be contrary to the impartiality of science to say any- 
thing in favour of Theism, why say anything contrary to Theism ? It is 
as a protest against this course that I have been most pleased to deliver 
this paper, in spite of the fact, referred to by our Chairman, that this is 
New Year’s Day. (Applause.) On any day I am glad to offer my paper as 
a protest against scientific prejudice. To a certain extent, perhaps, this 
tone in works on botany and kindred subjects is a matter of fashion ; 
many people who, doubtless, do not hold materialistic views are, 
nevertheless, apt to fall into what has become the mode, and are led to 
do so possibly from want of courage. As to what Mr. Row has said about 
probability, I have used that word in its strict logical, and not its popular 
sense. The logical value of the Argument from Design is, of course, only that 
of high probability. Mr. Howard has been kind enough to do nothing but 
praise the paper. With regard to what has been said about Lord Bacon, 
I still think he went too far in condemnation of final causes. But Darwin, 
although he formally denied them, nevertheless practically used them when he 
started a most fertile subject in introducing the notion of the benefit to be 
derived from cross-fertilisation. The question which he asked was, what 
was the advantage to be derived by different plants from cross-fertilisation. 
