211 
paper, which was only read, if I may so say, to fill up a gap in our proceed- 
ings, and read with some apologies on my part for bringing it before this 
Institute. We felt it desirable that a paper on such a subject should not 
seem to have been read without discussion, the more especially because it 
was a paper by the Honorary Secretary of the Institute. Our usual practice 
has been to print our papers first, but this one was read at a moment’s 
notice, another paper read previously being very short and not thought suffi- 
cient by the Council generally. Under these circumstances I read my 
paper from the manuscript, and apologised for its character, as it was not 
written to be delivered in this Institute at all. I should, personally, be very 
sorry if a paper of this kind had gone forth as if it had had an unfair advan- 
tage over other papers, and Mr. Holyoake made it an objection to joining 
issue with me that my paper had not been printed. That was almost, I 
consider, an excuse rather than a valid objection, inasmuch as the paper 
was written in answer to some atheistical arguments urged at a meeting 
over which he himself presided, where there were no printed papers made 
use of. I have now in my hands a letter which I have received from Mr. 
Bradlaugh expressing his regret that he could not be here to-night because 
he had to be in Leeds to deliver a lecture. He says : — 
“ 31s£ March , 1870. 
“ Sib, — U nfortunately I lecture at Leeds on the 4th, or I should have had 
great pleasure in taking part in your debate. 
“ If your Institute could nominate a representative man, I could have little 
doubt that most of the English and Scotch Freethinkers would approve me 
as their representative, and that a public debate might be arranged usefully. 
“ In any case I propose to do myself the pleasure of examining Mr. Reddie’s 
paper in the columns of the National Reformer at an early date. 
“ Yours, 
“ C. Bradlaugh.” 
I wrote to tell him that I should bring his letter before the Council, but 
that I did not anticipate they would accept his proposal. I added that 
if he were to write a paper on the subject the Council could not accept it as 
part of the proceedings of the Institute, because it is beyond the scope of our 
objects to allow an atheist to come here with a paper. We have, however, 
met these gentlemen with great consideration whenever they have come 
among us. I differ from Dr. Deane in thinking that the subject of my paper 
is a subject which we ought not to discuss, and I believe it is a subject on 
which science takes antagonistic sides. We had in our inaugural address 
Mr. Michell’s argument on design put forward as against Darwinism, and 
the men of science do not conceal their views, but tell you plainly that they 
deny the argument from design. It is therefore out of the question to say 
that this subject is beyond our scope. But, after all, this is really a question 
for the Council, and you will find by our laws that our objects and the pro- 
priety of our proceedings are not open, to discussion at the ordinary meet- 
ings. This is one of our ordinary meetings where we have friends invited 
to attend, and the one subject before us, as the Chairman might have ruled 
