210 
and therefore a paper on that subject cannot be read with the object of 
refuting any discovery of science. If atheism be a positive subject, then of 
course I am wrong, and we are at liberty to discuss the matter ; but at 
present it does appear to me that atheism is quite out of the scope of our 
Society altogether. I should not, perhaps, have risen to make this protest 
had it not been that on two occasions when I have attended here I have met 
gentlemen who have not appeared here as members of the Institute, but who 
have been present as visitors, and they have been persons whose known opinions 
are antagonistic to Revelation, which is the basis, I believe, upon which this 
Society is founded. Of course we have no power to exclude these gentlemen ,- 
but it is to me very questionable whether we should step out of our way to 
invite them here. I do not know that they were invited to come, but they 
seemed to sit by themselves as if they had not come with any friends, 
and I therefore suppose it possible that they may have been invited with 
the knowledge or connivance of the Council or of some members of the 
governing body in order to provoke an interesting discussion. If that 
has been so, I think it to have been a great mistake, because, though it is 
true that by having such exciting discussions you get your meetings talked 
of and your rooms filled, I do not think you help onwards the instruction of. 
the country and the maintenance of the truth of Revelation, which I have 
always understood was the object for which the Society was formed. I feel 
very diffident in laying these remarks before you, and I have made my obser- 
vations brief because I do not wish to take up your time, although I feel 
strongly that such a paper as this, and such a discussion as is likely to arise 
out of it, are not within the scope of the Society. Such an opportunity gives 
occasion for atheists and freethinkers to come forward and publish their 
opinions, which are calculated, as I believe, to do more harm than is counter- 
balanced by the good done by the reading of any refutation of their views. 
I beg leave to move, founding my motion on a point of order, that the Chair- 
man call on Mr. Morshead to read his paper. 
Mr. Reddie. — I did not interrupt my friend Dr. Deane, who, although he 
rose to order, has made a somewhat disorderly speech, because I was sure 
that what he did was done in the best spirit, and I should like if possible 
never to oppose speaking except by answering it. This is not, however, a 
meeting for discussing the proceedings of the Council or the propriety of our 
entering upon this or that particular question ; but I should like to make an 
explanation with regard to Mr. Morshead’s paper which Dr. Deane has 
spoken of. I do not know whether Dr. Deane received a copy, but a note was 
intended to be sent out to every member of the Institute, and I believe it 
reached most of the members, explaining that Mr. Morshead’s paper would 
not be ready for this meeting, and that its reading would be postponed. 
Now, the discussion of my paper was taken in its place simply because you 
cannot, at a moment’s notice, improvise a paper. And now one word with 
regard to those strangers referred to by Dr. Deane as having been present 
at two of our meetings when we had cognate subjects before us. It was 
deemed advisable for the interests of the Society to take a discussion on my 
