374 
in itself, but I contend that combined they afford a very strong proof,” &c. 
(p. 361, ante ) ; as if several nothings could amount to something, or a series 
of inconclusive arguments could compose a science, or ever become a very 
strong proof ! . 
It is quite in keeping with this conjectural kind of evidence that Dr. Glad- 
stone believed that Professor Huxley was “ to a considerable extent misunder- 
stood ” by me, because (the Doctor also believed) a gentleman was present in 
the Yictoria Institute better acquainted with the subject who would be able 
to show that to be the case ! I suppose he referred to Professor Morris, or 
possibly to Mr. Row, who described one thing which he considered mis- 
quoted from Professor Huxley, as “ abominable nonsense ” ! But it seems 
that neither of these gentlemen heard Professor Huxley’s address, or were 
really any better acquainted with it than Dr. Gladstone. All who did hear 
the Professor’s address testified that I had not misunderstood him. And 
even Dr. Gladstone, I am glad to find, afterwards qualified this strange 
“ argument from authority” by saying that he did not mean to state that I 
had misunderstood the main scope and purport of Professor Huxley’s address, 
but merely some of its details. What these details might be we are not 
informed. But the two grand points which formed the scope and purport of 
Professor Huxley’s address were discussed by Dr. Gladstone himself, and on 
both these points he differed entirely from Professor Huxley ! I have already 
alluded to one of them— the geological chronology of hundreds of thousands 
and millions of years-which Dr. Gladstone “ does not go to the extent of 
believing.” The other was “ Professor Huxley’s error ” (p. 347, ante), that 
there is an opposition between science and religion, and which he went to 
Sion College expressly to declare, but which Dr. Gladstone says is only the 
teaching of “ the infidel halls of London.” I might say more with reference 
to Dr. Gladstone’s other remarks on this point, but I prefer to refer to our 
Journal of Transactions, vol. i. pp. 142, 144, where it will be found that 
what he said has been already answered. 
I must, however, agree with Dr. Gladstone as to false science bemg 
sometimes unfortunately preached, from our pulpits. My quotations from the 
Saturday Revieiv and from Mr. Warington (pp. 305, 306) explain how this 
comes about ; and the foot-note on p. 36 of our first volume illustrates it stiff 
better. The gentleman there referred to, who boasted that he had “ taught 
the same geology for fifty years,” is a scientific clergyman. The concluding 
words of my paper are actually a warning against this, which Dr. Gladstone 
appears to have overlooked. 
Professor Morris was very well answered by the Chairman, with reference 
to the Atlantic soundings ; and he afterwards appears to distrust his own 
statement as to any “ soundings” fourteen feet deep in the chalk ! I doubt very 
much myself whether they penetrated the chalk-ooze to the extent of even 
four inches, in fetching up the specimens for microscopic investigation. On 
several points Professor Morris believes that I misunderstood Professor Huxley. 
But, if I did not, that only means that the two Professors are at issue on all 
such points just as other great geologists are known to be at issue— for 
