formed by sediment heaped by strong currents on an irregular bottom. That in some cases the sea, instead of spreading out sediment in a uniform sheet, heaps it round submarine rocks and islands it is hardly possible to doubt after examining the charts of the West Indies; and that the waves have power to form high and precipitous cliffs, even in land-locked harbours, I have noticed in many parts of South America. To apply these ideas to the sandstone platforms of New South Wales, I imagine that the strata were heaped by the action of strong currents and of the undulations of an open sea on an irregular bottom, and that the valley-like spaces thus left unfilled had their steeply-sloping flanks worn into cliffs during a slow elevation of the land, the worndown sandstone being removed either at the time when the narrow gorges were cut by the retreating sea, or subsequently by alluvial action." I know not what our friend Mr. Tenison-Woods may think of these impressions. They do not agree with his own theory, and may not stand the test of the advanced gcological science of the present day; nevertheless they are interesting as being the early impressions of so celebrated an observer of nature as Darwin.

I will, if you will allow me, quote the words with which he closes his chapter on New South Wales: "Farewell, Australia! you are a rising child, and doubtless some day will reign a great princess in the south; but you are too great and ambitious for affection, yet not great enough for respect. I leave your shores without sorrow or regret."

Darwin's hypothesis of evolution has been the subject of much controversy. Its adoption by such a leading scientist as Professor Huxley has led many to assume that it has been scientifically proved. But the evidence for the antiquity of man has, upon reconsideration, had its foundations severely shaken. On Darwin's hypothesis, 20,000 years would form but a fraction of the time required to bring about the result which his theory of minute changes demands. It has been argued by many distinguished geologists that the generally admitted glacial and post-glacial condition of the earth, of which the evidences are unmistakeable,

have been such as to break the continuity of mammalian life, and so to destroy Darwin's theory. He himself admits, in the "Origin of Species," 6th edition, page 330, that there is evidence of every conceivable kind, organic and inorganic, "that within a very recent geological period Central Europe suffered under an arctic climate; and the ruins of a house burnt by fire do not tell their tale more plainly than do the mountains of Scotland and Wales tell their tale of glaciation." And in the latest edition of the "Origin of Species" he says (pp. 448-50): "I had hoped to find evidence that the tropics, in some parts of the world, had escaped the chilling effects of the glacial period, and had afforded a safe refuge for the suffering tropical productions; but all the geological evidence we possess relating to that period points to conditions that would render almost inevitable a break in the continuity of mammalian life."

Dr. Page, in his "Text Book of Geology," referring to Britain and the North of Europe, says that "the large mammalia of the earlier tertiaries disappeared, and the land was submerged to the extent of several thousand feet. Sir Henry de la Beche, Sir Roderick Murchison, and Sir Charles Lyell all agree in the evidences of this glacial epoch, extending over the whole of the eastern hemisphere. Sir Charles Lyell says, in his "Principles of Geology," 11th edition, p. 253, that "in one part of the glacial period the desert of Sahara was under water between latitude 30 and 20 (a breadth of nearly 700 miles), so that the eastern part of the Mediterranean communicated with that part of the ocean now bounded by the west coast of Africa." Any retreat of the

mammalia southward on the African continent would thus have been effectually cut off.

It has been confidently asserted that man had no existence in pre-glacial times, and that every attempt to prove otherwise has signally failed. Now, if before the glacial epoch man was not, but when it passed away man was there, when did the evolution take place? This is the question that has failed to receive a satisfactory solution. Everything seems to turn upon this one point-that is

the simultaneous and universal prevalence of the glacial period Could that be once firmly established, then, it is admitted, it would indeed be fatal to Darwin's doctrine. But the proof seems to be wanting that the entire globe was involved at one and the same time in such glacial conditions as would be destructive of all terrestrial life. The doctrine of evolution is thus beset with difficulties; and the true attitude of science, according to Darwin, is to accumulate facts which may unravel the mystery by which the question is surrounded.

Of all the students of nature in the present era none came up to Darwin in his patient, earnest inquiry into and collection of facts. The object of his search was truth, and whatever has been true in the life-work of Darwin will live, whilst whatever has been mistaken will die; and I think we may conclude, from all we know of his gentle spirit and honest nature, that no man—as has been well said of him—would more rejoice at the death than would Darwin himself.

Gentlemen, I hope you will not think that I am carrying my remarks on the work and character of Darwin to too great a length. I must confess to a deep admiration for the man by the study of his works. His earnestness and his modesty are distinguishing traits in his character-they inspire one with admiring interest; and even if we do not accept his creed or agree with his inferences, or if they should hereafter prove erroneous, that would not detract in the slightest degree from his fame as a naturalist, nor would it lessen the profound sense of gratitude to which his great discoveries in the field of natural science most justly entitle him.

If you would kindly bear with me a little longer, I should much wish to quote to you a few passages collected from the addresses delivered at the meeting of the British Association, held at Southampton last year, expressive of the deep sense entertained by scientific men of the highest eminence as to the loss sustained through Darwin's death. At the meeting of the British Associa tion in Southampton, in the month of August last, the President, in

his opening address, spoke of the "irreparable loss science had sustained in the person of Charles Darwin, whose bold conceptions, patient labour, and genial mind made him almost a type of unsurpassed excellence.” Professor Gamgee, President of the Biological Section, alluded to Darwin's death in these terms:-"So much has lately been written concerning that veteran in science, Charles Darwin, who will figure in the history of the human intellect with such men as Socrates and Newton, that I feel no words of mine are needed to add to your sentiments of admiration and respect. He has made for himself an imperishable reputation, as one of the subtlest, most patient, and most truthful observers of natural phenomena. His powers as an observer were, however, almost surpassed by his ingenuity as a reasoner and his power to frame the hypotheses most apt to the actual state of science, to reconcile all the facts which came within the range of his observation. We remember the time when the name of Charles Darwin, and the mention of the theories connected with his name, awakened, on the part of many, sentiments of antagonism and of unreasonable opposition; but we have lived to witness what I may term a great reparation. Even those who did not know the man and the qualities of mind and heart which have endeared him to so many, have come to recognize that in his work he was actuated by a single-hearted desire to discover the truth, and after calm reflection they have conceded that his studies and his views -like all studies and all views which are based upon the truthnot only are not irreconcilable with but add to our conceptions of the dignity and glory of God." And here I may be allowed to remark that it is impossible to study the writings of Darwin, and especially the one in which he treats of "The Descent of Man,” without recognizing an undercurrent of reverent sentiment, which in one or two places finds expression in words, telling us that man differs from the animal creation, if not in physical characteristics which cannot be bridged over, at least in moral attributes, and in the ennobling belief in God, by his power of forming that conception of the Deity which, to use Darwin's own words, "is the grand idea of God hating sin and loving righteousness.”

Professor Lawson again, who filled the Presidential Chair in the department of Zoology and Botany at this same meeting, opened his address by observing that, "Although the President has made eloquent allusion to the great loss which the whole scientific world has sustained in the death of our great countryman, Charles Darwin, still I am sure I shall not be thought to be doing more than is my bounden duty if I, too, from this Chair, give some utterance to the deep sense of irretrievable loss which all we in this department must feel has fallen upon us. It was on this platform more than in any other place that the great battle of the doctrine of evolution, which is so intimately connected with Mr. Darwin's name, was fought. It was on this platform that his friends and coadjutors, Mr. Alfred Wallace, Sir Joseph Hooker, Professor Huxley, and many others, expounded his views, and added by their own researches to the sum of evidence which has finally convinced all the leading scientists of the day of the substantial soundness of his speculation. There are many of us now present who will never forget the intense interest and excitement which attended the discussions which took place in the earlier days of the history of the doctrine of evolution; nor shall we forget with what bitterness Mr. Darwin's views were met on the occasion of the Association's meetings at Oxford, Cambridge, Norwich, and Exeter, nor how everything that came from his pen was regarded with feelings of suspicion and hatred; and how even his blameless and guileless character was frequently assailed by those who could only see in his works a desire to dethrone all that which they considered sacred. It is also in the recollection of all of us here how he met the attacks which were made upon him by silence, never returning opprobrious declamation or insulting sarcasm by angry or contemptuous answers. Ever conscious that his aim was to search out the truth and that only, he could afford to disregard contumely and misrepresentation. Indeed, so completely was he imbued by the consciousness that his aim was righteous, that the taunts and sneers which were lavished upon him seem to have been powerless even to vex him. Again, you in this department will remember how these