424 
ORDINARY MEETING, December 21, 1868. 
The Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G., President, in the Chair. 
The minutes of the last Meeting were read and confirmed. 
The discussion on the Rev. W. W. English’s paper on “ Ethical Philo- 
sophy,” &c., was resumed as follows : — 
Rev. Dr. Irons. — I am not aware whether Mr. English is present 
to-night ? 
Mr. Reddie. — No, he is not. 
Rev. Dr. Irons. — I am sorry for that, because that made me abstain to some 
extent at our last meeting from expressing the severe disappointment which 
I felt on reading Mr. English’s paper. I thought that when we are occupying, 
and hoping to occupy permanently, a position before the world which 
should be defensive, a position that should be a credit to our Christianity, it 
was a pity that we should put forward anything on an ethical subject that 
would not bear scientific and careful examination. I do not think the paper 
before us, regarded as a whole, is exactly that which this Institute ought to 
throw down as a challenge to the scientific world — 
Mr. Reddie. — I really must beg here to observe that authors are alone 
responsible for their papers. If we were only to bring forward those papers 
which the Institute could adopt, it would close discussion altogether. I 
think those observations which have just been made by Dr. Irons have more 
the nature of reflections on the Council, for passing the paper of Mr. English, 
than on the author. You cannot make a man think in your own way. We 
have had a former and very valuable paper from Mr. English on another 
subject ; and though I admit that the paper now before us is discursive, 
still it is the first paper we have had upon ethics, and the author could only 
be expected to deal with it in his own way. 
Rev. Dr. Irons. — I am only saying why I think the paper is defective. 
Its discursive character is such, that we could not put it before the world 
with much credit to ourselves. I do not say this as blaming the Institute, 
but because we are bound to remember the very great sacredness of our 
cause and to put before this gainsaying and truth-denying generation 
nothing that will not bear very close examination. I am only to discuss 
the paper before us, and not by any means the acts of the Council, who have 
no doubt done their best. On this occasion we have to deal with ethical 
