Third:—­

...  Darwin’s theory is a dream.  It is not only unsound, but it is in many respects the reverse of truth.  With all his conscientiousness, with all his caution, with all his powers of observation, Darwin in this matter fell into errors as profound as the abysses of the Pacific (p. 301).

Really?  It seems to me that, under the circumstances, it is pretty clear that these lines exhibit a lack of the qualities justly ascribed to Mr. Darwin, which plunges their author into a much deeper abyss, and one from which there is no hope of emergence.

Fourth:—­

     All the acclamations with which it was received were as the
     shouts of an ignorant mob (p. 301).

But surely it should be added that the Coryphaeus of this ignorant mob, the fugleman of the shouts, was one of the most accomplished naturalists and geologists now living—­the American Dana—­who, after years of independent study extending over numerous reefs in the Pacific, gave his hearty assent to Darwin’s views, and after all that had been said, deliberately reaffirmed that assent in the year 1885.

Fifth:—­

     The overthrow of Darwin’s speculation is only beginning to
     be known.  It has been whispered for some time.  The cherished
     dogma has been dropping very slowly out of sight (p. 301).

Darwin’s speculation may be right or wrong, but I submit that that which has not happened cannot even begin to be known, except by those who have miraculous gifts to which we poor scientific people do not aspire.  The overthrow of Darwin’s views may have been whispered by those who hoped for it; and they were perhaps wise in not raising their voices above a whisper.  Incorrect statements, if made too loudly, are apt to bring about unpleasant consequences.

Sixth:—­

Mr. Murray’s views, published in 1880, are said to have met with “slow and sulky acquiescence” (p. 305).  I have proved that they cannot be said to have met with general acquiescence of any sort, whether quick and cheerful, or slow and sulky; and if this assertion is meant to convey the impression that Mr. Murray’s views have been ignored, that there has been a conspiracy of silence against them, it is utterly contrary to notorious fact.

Professor Geikie’s well-known “Textbook of Geology” was published in 1882, and at pages 457-459 of that work there is a careful exposition of Mr. Murray’s views.  Moreover Professor Geikie has specially advocated them on other occasions,[31] notably in a long article on “The Origin of Coral-Reefs,” published in two numbers of “Nature” for 1883, and in a Presidential Address delivered in the same year.  If, in so short a time after the publication of his views, Mr. Murray could boast of a convert, so distinguished and influential as the Director of the Geological Survey, it seems to me that this wonderful conspiration de silence (which has about as much real existence as the Duke of Argyll’s other bogie, “The Reign of Terror “) must have ipso facto collapsed.  I wish that, when I was a young man, my endeavours to upset some prevalent errors had met with as speedy and effectual backing.