that one moiety of the German biologists were orthodox at any
price, and the other moiety as distinctly heterodox. The latter
were evolutionists, a priori, already, and they must have felt
the disgust natural to deductive philosophers at being offered an
inductive and experimental foundation for a conviction which they
had reached by a shorter cut. It is undoubtedly trying to learn
that, though your conclusions may be all right, your reasons for
them are all wrong, or, at any rate, insufficient.

On the whole, then, the supporters of Mr. Darwin's views in 1860
were numerically extremely insignificant. There is not the
slightest doubt that, if a general council of the Church
scientific had been held at that time, we should have been
condemned by an overwhelming majority. And there is as little
doubt that, if such a council gathered now, the decree would be
of an exactly contrary nature. It would indicate a lack of
sense, as well as of modesty, to ascribe to the men of that
generation less capacity or less honesty than their successors
possess. What, then, are the causes which led instructed and
fair-judging men of that day to arrive at a judgment so different
from that which seems just and fair to those who follow them?
That is really one of the most interesting of all questions
connected with the history of science, and I shall try to answer
it. I am afraid that in order to do so I must run the risk of
appearing egotistical. However, if I tell my own story it is
only because I know it better than that of other people.

I think I must have read the 'Vestiges' before I left England in
1846; but, if I did, the book made very little impression upon
me, and I was not brought into serious contact with the 'Species'