“It had been hoped that the proceedings would end there, and that a vote of thanks and congratulation, moved by Professor Sergius, of Upsala University, would be duly seconded and carried; but it was soon evident that the course of events was not destined to flow so smoothly.  Symptoms of opposition had been evident from time to time during the evening, and now Dr. James Illingworth, of Edinburgh, rose in the center of the hall.  Dr. Illingworth asked whether an amendment should not be taken before a resolution.

“The chairman:  `Yes, sir, if there must be an amendment.’

“Dr. Illingworth:  `Your Grace, there must be an amendment.’

“The chairman:  `Then let us take it at once.’

“Professor Summerlee (springing to his feet):  `Might I explain, your Grace, that this man is my personal enemy ever since our controversy in the Quarterly Journal of Science as to the true nature of Bathybius?’

“The chairman:  `I fear I cannot go into personal matters.  Proceed.’

“Dr. Illingworth was imperfectly heard in part of his remarks on account of the strenuous opposition of the friends of the explorers.  Some attempts were also made to pull him down.  Being a man of enormous physique, however, and possessed of a very powerful voice, he dominated the tumult and succeeded in finishing his speech.  It was clear, from the moment of his rising, that he had a number of friends and sympathizers in the hall, though they formed a minority in the audience.  The attitude of the greater part of the public might be described as one of attentive neutrality.

“Dr. Illingworth began his remarks by expressing his high appreciation of the scientific work both of Professor Challenger and of Professor Summerlee.  He much regretted that any personal bias should have been read into his remarks, which were entirely dictated by his desire for scientific truth.  His position, in fact, was substantially the same as that taken up by Professor Summerlee at the last meeting.  At that last meeting Professor Challenger had made certain assertions which had been queried by his colleague.  Now this colleague came forward himself with the same assertions and expected them to remain unquestioned.  Was this reasonable? (`Yes,’ `No,’ and prolonged interruption, during which Professor Challenger was heard from the Press box to ask leave from the chairman to put Dr. Illingworth into the street.) A year ago one man said certain things.  Now four men said other and more startling ones.  Was this to constitute a final proof where the matters in question were of the most revolutionary and incredible character?  There had been recent examples of travelers arriving from the unknown with certain tales which had been too readily accepted.  Was the London Zoological Institute to place itself in this position?  He admitted that the members of the