Year: 1876

FTohessor ffuxleys seconu AecsuTe'
Professor Huxley's audience was nearly rs
large yesterday evening as it was on Monday
evening, and consisted, to great extent, OF
the same persons, which proves that people
do not attend from mere curiosity to look at
celebrity, but from real interest in the
subject he discusses and q wish to hear
it expounded by one of the most
competent of living men. His man
ner was more pleasing than in the first
lecture, but his voice has not sufficient vol
ume to fill so large hall, and the parts of
the audience most distant from the platform
had to give strained attention, which is
always an abatement of the pleasure of lis
tening. This lecture was also better than
the first in its attitude toward op-
ponents, containing nothing which could
be construed as suppressed sneer
or o dexterous side thrust, like the
vicarious refu.ation he inflicted on Milton
for the scientific errors of Moses. Such
ingenious hits may be amusing, but the
interest of amusement is of very diff
ferent kind from the interest of instruction.
and a man with so many titles to command
attention as Professor Huxley possesses does
not need to resort to any small arts to excite
and hold it. The lecture last evening was
strictly scientific, presenting connected
chain of clear and sk:lful reasoning, with
the added merit of perfect candor. He
neither exaggerated the force of his own
arguments nor understated the difficulties
~, H. kha Of
ment has to encounter. The necessity Of
dealing somewhat largely with anatomical
details rendered parts Of the lecture little
dry to persons not familiar with such de-
tails but the dryness inheres in the subject
and is not the fault of the lecturer


According to the development hypothesis
the animals which exist on the earth (man
included) have attained their present forms
by slow and gradual process of variation
from preceding FORMS Professor Huxley
frankly admitted that break of continuity
in any part of the series would be fatal to
his hypothesis and also admitted that there
are large gaps in the evidence supplied by
fossil animals. 1t is impossible to trace
constant transition from preceding to
succeeding forms with such resem-
blance at every separate advance that
the later might easily have arisen out
of its predecessor. But Professor Huxley
maintains that break in the continuity of
the evidence does not prove that there was a
break in the continuity of the forms. He
contends that large portions of the evidence
have persisted, or, to use his own expression,
that the geological records are imperfect.
They are like volume from which many
leaves have been torn in different
places, with consecutive pages left only
here and there. He made this probable
enough, but speculations as to the forms of
the missing animals, of which no trace re-
mains, is sheer hypothesis Whether, if we
had all the fossils they would supply evil
dence of such gradual shading of form
into form as would establish the doctrine
of development is only o conjecture
in the present state of the evidence
as presented by Professor Huxley But he
estimated it at its real value, admitting that
the array of facts in this lecture only proves
that continuous development is possible, but
does not prove that it is true. He promises
however, to demonstrate its truth in his next
lecture.