373 
NOTE B. (See p. 346.) 
REMARKS ON THE DISCUSSION, IN REPLY. 
Before proceeding to notice the few issues arising upon the discussion of 
my Reply to Professor Huxley, which appear to require some explanation or 
answer, I beg leave first to be allowed to acknowledge the kind expressions 
of sympathy by the members of the Institute towards myself, under the sad 
circumstances which prevented my being present at the meetings in which 
my paper was read and discussed. I have also to thank the Rev. Dr. Thornton 
for kindly reading for me so long a paper, and for reading it— as I have been 
informed and as I expected — so very admirably. 
As regards the length of the paper itself, I must observe that it was written 
in answer to a discourse which occupied a very long time in delivery ; and 
being a “ reply ” to what was spoken elsewhere, it was necessarily lengthened 
by the statement of my opponent’s arguments in addition to my own. I may 
also point to the fact that a great number of distinct arguments required to be 
brought under discussion, each one of which might well have formed the subject 
of a separate paper ; but I was in this obliged to follow Professor Huxley, 
in reply to whom I wrote. 
I must further premise that it was too much forgotten by some who took 
part in the discussion, that my paper is only a reply, and that it was not 
written to advance or establish arguments or propositions of my own, but to 
refute those advanced and propounded as established scientific doctrine by 
Professor Huxley. The question raised by Mr. Greig, therefore, as to whether 
geology is or can ever be a science, was beyond the scope of the controversy. 
He certainly ventured upon a strong expression when he said, “ Geology is 
not science, it is pure conjecture ; ” and I am not surprised that Dr. Glad- 
stone and others should demur to it. But, strangely enough, the learned 
Doctor himself did his best to establish the merely conjectural character of 
geological chronology— the only deductions of geology then under considera- 
tion,— by himself rejecting “ the hundreds of thousands of years which some 
of our friends speak about” (p. 362, ante), and a fortiori, therefore, rejecting 
Professor Huxley’s “ millions of years ; ” and this he would surely not have 
dared to do, had these “ millions ” or “ hundreds of thousands of years ” been 
deductions of science instead of the “merest conjecture.” 
But in what respect, let me ask, are Dr. Gladstone’s own views superior in 
character to those of Professor Huxley ? Professor Huxley, at all events, 
thought each of his arguments cogent, and therefore that, taken altogether, 
they formed a cogent array of proof in favour of his conclusions. But Dr. 
Gladstone only advanced a series of arguments founded on controverted 
points, upon each of which he gave his own not very definite opinions ; and 
then he added, “ I do not say that any one of these arguments is conclusive 
