362 
at the same time I do not go to the extent of believing in the hundieds of 
thousands of years which some of our friends speak about. It is assumed that 
I have stated that Professor Huxley had been misunderstood by Mr. Reddie. 
I did not mean to say so with regard to the main scope and purport of Pro- 
fessor Huxley’s address, but merely as to some of its details. 
Rev. S. Wainwright.— I merely wish to say one word. You have 
just heard from half a dozen sorts of evidences how likely it is that the 
human race is older than 6,000 years ; I only want to mention two facts to 
show with what caution that evidence should be received. The Valley of the 
Somme has been referred to. The theory there is that the river must have 
been at one time a mile in breadth to have filled up the present valley with 
the drift found there. Now, when the river was a mile in breadth, was it not 
diminished in force so as to have been unable to do what at its present w idth 
it might be supposed to do ? There is also another theory as to the elevation 
of the river’s bed ; but into that I will not enter. The other point is as to the 
date said to be required for the formation of peat moss. It is said that 4,000 
years is the lowest period, and some even go as far as 16,000 ; but it has been 
shown that in Ross-shire eight feet of peat moss was actually grown in fifty- 
eight years. 
Captain Fishbourne.— I only wish to say a few words with regard to 
what has been said about the want of a proper spirit in Mr. Reddie’s paper. 
These remarks could only have arisen from the fact that the gentlemen who 
made them did not hear Professor Huxley’s address, and were unaware of the 
spirit in which it was delivered. Perhaps I may speak upon this point with 
more propriety than any clergyman. I was there, and heard Professor 
Huxley allude to the narrowness of the view taken by clergymen, whom he 
assumed to be bound by the Thirty-nine Articles. The impression on my 
mind was that it was one of the most insulting addresses I ever heard. He 
stopped short by saying that he would and could have said more had he 
spoken the whole truth, but he did not like to do so, as it might be regarded 
as insulting to the clergymen whose guest he was. That pointed to a 
different issue, and although his statement did not precisely indicate what 
that issue was, he left us to infer it. Hence the question of Dr. Irons as to 
whether the clergy were knaves or fools. This being the case, I do not think 
it can be said that Mr. Reddie’s paper is not written in a proper spirit. 
One speaker has said that Professor Huxley’s paper does not raise the 
question of the inspiration of the Scriptures. The fact is that Mr. Reddie 
has followed out more strictly the scientific points, though Professor Huxley 
did raise a larger issue. That he intended to raise the whole religious 
question is evident, for, speaking of science, he said “ that is my religion. 
Call it fanaticism if you will. We are utterly at issue with you clergymen, 
and, of course, with your religion. Ours is demonstrably true, and you will 
have to give up yours and come to us.” This being the case, I cannot 
understand how Mr. Reddie’s paper can be characterized as wanting in proper 
spirit or tone ; and I am only surprised that he could have written as tem- 
perately as he has done. I certainly could not, with any regard to what I felt. 
