311 
the world in the middle ages. He says that the discovery of Columbus was 
discredited because up to that moment science and Scripture had alike been 
made to teach that the world was round like a plate. Taking the words as 
they stand in the sentence, there is no kind of objection to them, but I merely 
wish to show that the interpretation which was then placed upon the Scrip- 
tures must have been an erroneous one, because there is not a single passage 
in the whole of the Scriptures that supports the opinion that the world is 
round like a plate. On the contrary, I think passages may be found in the 
book of J ob which clearly prove a knowledge of the rotundity of the earth. 
(Hear, hear.) 
Mr. E. R. Pattison, F.G.S. — I beg leave to make a few remarks, and I 
will commence by stating that it appears to me that the proposition of Pro- 
fessor Macdonald is very material to the consideration of the question before 
us ; so material, indeed, that if it were proved it must overthrow the theory 
put forward by Mr. Titcomb, since they could not both be true. What is 
Mr. Titcomb’s theory ? It is of a definite character, and if, therefore, we 
are to pass judgment upon it in reference to the facts which he has pro- 
duced, the one proposition is necessarily thoroughly antagonistic to the 
other. With the exception of Professor Macdonald, all the speakers have 
been engaged in adding stones to the noble cairn which Mr. Titcomb has 
raised. The paper which Mr. Titcomb has read is an admirable one, and as 
worthy of the attention of a learned society as any that has been read in this 
room, but we must not, of course, presume that it disposes conclusively and 
for ever of the whole question, and leaves nothing whatever to be said by 
those who take a different view. I therefore think that it is well that Pro- 
fessor Macdonald should state honestly and independently his views, in order 
to enable us to consider in what point of view the paper requires discussion 
this evening, and what must be the tendency and direction of the discussion. 
The title of the paper is, I think, amply justified by its contents. It takes 
the case of a people who, in regard to this subject of the dispersion of the 
human race all over the world, may be termed an experimerdum crucis on the 
question ; for surely if there are any men to be found in the world who have 
not a common origin with the rest of mankind they would be found in 
America, because it must become apparent to any inquirer that, so far as 
intercourse is concerned, there must have been much less intercourse between 
Asia and America than between Asia and any other part of the known 
world. I say, therefore, that if any one thinks he can trace an independent 
origin, where is it more likely that traces of such an independent origin 
could be found preserved than in America ? But Mr. Titcomb has, I think, 
shown that not only do no such traces of independent origin exist, but that, 
on the contrary, there are distinct traces not only in analogical resemblances 
in language and customs to the old world which were found to exist on the 
discovery of America among the Aztecs and other nations, but he has also 
shown that there were certain possible modes by which the intercourse could 
have taken place. The only question with me is how far those proofs can be 
carried. Mr. Titcomb has adduced what I may call the geographical argu- 
