well filled. The principal interest of these meetings is however derived from the discussions which arise after the papers are read, and which sometimes do not assume a very scientific character. Geology is not generally popular with the public, and has not as yet sufficient claims to make it so, the opinions of its advocates being split into party theories, and the papers that are read before the Society giving rise to discussion neither the most rational nor acceptable. What is wanted in the reason is made up for in the jocularity of the discussions, and sallies of wit usurp the place of the grave deliberations of science; what is wanted in argument made up from deductions from close investigation, is met with in the sophistry of the forum or debatingroom. Sometimes it is to be lamented that these discussions take a different character, being directed against the fundamentals of revealed religion, and have a tendency to subvert those doctrines which are the basis of our modern civilization. From these circumstances the Society takes especial care that their proceedings shall not be reported: the attendance of every person from whom these might emanate being carefully excluded from the meetings. Their own reports indeed appear carefully worded, and supplied by their own secretaries, in the Literary Gazette and the Athenæum, but in these accounts all allusions to their discussions is avoided. In these respects the Geological Society does not court the freedom of public discussion, which, through the medium of the press, is allowed by every other Society in the metropolis.”—Pp. 77, 78.

It may be requisite to assure the reader that this paragraph is copied with literal accuracy. The writer's representation of the general character of Geology may be very safely left to itself, as an instance of the ancient practice not yet become uncommon, that persons "speak evil of the things which they understand not." But it contains insinuations and assertions which call for attention: and

I should think myself wanting in the observance of moral duty, were I to neglect the opportunity afforded by the publication of this volume, of bearing testimony to truth, and so of counteracting injurious representations. To any candid thinker it must appear an unreasonable expectation, that any person that pleases should be allowed to take notes of the papers, conversations, and discussions of any scientific or literary institution, and to publish them. No Society of respectability and honour would submit to such an intrusion. Besides other obvious objections, this one immediately presents itself; the contingency, not to call it a certainty, that mistakes and misrepresentations would be committed, and those often of the most serious import, even by well-intentioned reporters.

The impropriety of this complaint is however a small thing, in comparison with other parts of the passage. The writer does not say that some instance may have occurred, or even more than one, in which a speaker had uttered sentiments irreconcilable to reason or piety. The reflection would then have arisen, that no society to whose objects unreserved discussion is essential, could prevent such an occurrence, or ought to be held answerable for it, unless it had manifested approbation, or at least connivance. I do not say this as an apology for any known fact, for I have never heard of such an occurrence. But the writer evidently strives to produce the impression that scientific investigation is not the chief object of the Society's meetings, that it is made only a mask for the effecting of other purposes, that the most momentous truths of religion are assailed with scoffs, in the guise of witticism and sophistry as the substitute for argument, that infidel and immoral principles are bandied about, and that the Society gives encouragement and protection to such a course of proceeding.

I feel it my duty to declare that, to the best and utmost

of my knowledge, these accusations are contrary to truth and exceedingly unjust. My great affliction, extreme deafness, restricts my advantage, in attending the meetings of the Geological Society, almost entirely to the inspection of the specimens, sections, and figures. Yet I am a constant attendant: and, if infidel or otherwise irreligious and immoral sentiments were propounded by any of the speakers, I am not unprovided with the means of receiving information; and those means would not have been ineffectual. I am well assured that, even if in any long past time it may have happened that opinions or insinuations have been broached, of the character which this author alleges, the blame has rested on the offending person, and could, upon no principle of equity, have been imputed to the Society and, from my own knowledge, I am persuaded that, were such a thing to occur, it would be met by a strong expression of disapprobation from the chair and by the general sense of the meeting. But I can go farther. I have sought information from some of the oldest, most active, and most influential Fellows of the Society: and upon good authority I am enabled to say that the accusations are not true. One of those gentlemen, whose means of knowledge are ample to a degree that few men can obtain, has written to me : "I can fully bear testimony to the entire correctness of what is stated in your Note, in contradiction of the calumnious assertions with regard to the discussions at the Geological Society.—I can truly say that no discussions or observations hostile to Revealed Religion, or treating it with levity, have ever been heard by me at the Society's meetings; nor do I believe that in so large and respectable an assembly, generally attended and often presided over by Ministers of religion, any such would be for a moment attempted or permitted."

The abstracts of papers read in the Society are printed for the use of its members, under the title of Proceedings;

and brief statements, with the approbation of the Society, are sent to the two journals mentioned, by a gentleman in whose ability and accuracy the fullest confidence may be placed. By this method, the public is furnished with correct information, instead of being left to the reports of incompetent persons, which could scarcely be any other than defective and misrepresenting.

Sec. ed. This testimony is confirmed by one of the brightest ornaments of the Society, who has written thus, Nov. 16, 1839. ". I was greatly surprised at your extract [from the book referred to in this Note,] for its shameless untruth. During more than twenty years I have been a member of the Geological Society, and very frequently have attended its meetings; and I never once heard an expression directed against the fundamentals of religion, nor would any sneer at Revealed Truth be tolerated for one instant. And what does this vituperative author mean, when he says that our Society 'does not court the freedom of public discussion which is allowed by every other Society in the metropolis?' These words at least prove that ignorance and malevolence often go together. The other chartered philosophical Societies of London, so far as I know them, have no discussion or debate upon the Memoirs submitted to them. Our debates are the exception, not the rule; and I am certain we do right in excluding reporters, who would mangle what we now say in the utmost confidence of a mutual good understanding.--"

ADDENDA.

In addition to the observations which conviction of duty and, I must say, painful feeling, led me to make in pp. 106 and 492 upon the common practice of seeming to deify Nature, I beg attention to some remarkable passages from the Chevalier de Lamarck, (who died a few years ago, at the age of near 90,) to whose talents as a zoologist and a botanist every person does homage, but whose doctrine of the production of all the species of organized beings, from "appetency," and in the way of "progressive developement," it may be hoped has not many adherents. May it answer good purposes, as an admonitory specimen of the hallucinations in highly gifted minds!—Mr. Lyell felt it necessary, after giving a lucid exposition of that hypothesis, to assure his readers that his sketch was no exaggerated picture." Princip. III. 22. B. iii. ch. 1.

It is no wonder that Lamarck has been charged with atheism. But, unless we impute to him hypocrisy and fraud, (for which I believe that no just ground could be laid,) great regard is due to both his arguments and the language in which he clothes them, upon the absurdity of identifying Nature with God.

I first avail myself of Mr. Lyell's summary. "Nature -is not an intelligence, nor the Deity; but a delegated power, a mere instrument,—a piece of mechanism acting