470 
Professor Thomson deep-sea dredging in the Atlantic, to obtain some 
knowledge of fauna existing in deep-sea bottoms. We are only beginning 
to learn that we know very little about the chalk formation, and we have 
Professor Huxley himself admitting that the animals which form the great 
mass of the chalk formation are animals still existing in the seas. We are 
carried back to the cretaceous strata, and there was a suspicion that if we 
could get a better dredging apparatus we should obtain still more surprising 
results. They used to let down a quill to the bottom in the deep sea 
and allow it to penetrate the mud and bring up a small quantity of ooze, 
and a few quill-fulls were all they could obtain to give them a knowledge 
of the fauna of the Atlantic ! Now they have gone back with a better 
dredging apparatus : it will not take up a very large animal, but it is better 
than the quill. Now what was the result of the very first dip ? I believe 
the result has not been made public yet, but I was told to-day upon 
good authority that it will form the principal part of the opening address of 
the President of the Eoyal Society. I asked a good geologist if he could 
give me information as to what had been found, and I learnt that there had 
been one species discovered which is identical, not only with one of those 
found in the cretacean deposit, but deep down in the lias. One fact 
like that brings down a host of geological theories, and I protest against 
the progress of science being stopped by any such dictum as that of 
Dr. McCausland. I protest against such language being used, as being both 
illogical and contrary to an unbiassed search after truth. I cannot help 
believing that the looseness, vagueness, and want of logical accuracy, 
which appear here with regard to the science of geology, can also be 
applied to the whole of the rest of the paper. I understand the principle 
attempted to be made out is the plurality of the races of man in place of 
man’s single origin, and the only reason Dr. McCausland brings forward in 
favour of his own theory is that if we admit his theory we get rid of 
all difficulties with regard to Scripture chronology. But if we do adopt 
it, I do not see that it lessens the chronological difficulty one bit, 
or makes it one atom easier. There is no hint here of the difficulties 
with regard to the chronology of the Old Testament, and the great dis- 
crepancies between the chronology of the ancient versions — the chronologies 
of the Septuagint, of the Hebrew, and of the Syriac. The difficulties 
we have to deal with in the chronology are more of the nature of critical 
difficulties, and they must be met critically. If you meet those difficulties, 
you may be able to give all the time he requires to Mr. Row or to Bunsen in 
his vaguest and wildest conjectures, but I cannot see how the plurality or 
unity of race is to affect that chronology in the least degree 
Mr. Row. — It does not affect my argument about the time required for 
the development of languages at all. 
The Chairman. — One would have thought Dr. McCausland would have 
given us definite and distinct reasons for his belief in the plurality rather 
than in the unity of race. He leads us to imply that there are the strongest 
scientific difficulties in the way of admitting the unity of race. He says, — 
