confession that, after turning the matter over in my mind, with
all the aid derived from a careful consideration of Mr.
Gladstone's reply, I cannot get away from my original conviction
that, if Mr. Gladstone's second proposition can be shown to be
not merely inaccurate, but directly contradictory of facts known
to every one who is acquainted with the elements of natural
science, the third proposition collapses of itself.

And it was this conviction which led me to enter upon the
present discussion. I fancied that if my respected clients, the
people of average opinion and capacity, could once be got
distinctly to conceive that Mr. Gladstone's views as to the
proper method of dealing with grave and difficult scientific and
religious problems had permitted him to base a solemn "plea for
a revelation of truth from God" upon an error as to a matter of
fact, from which the intelligent perusal of a manual of
palaeontology would have saved him, I need not trouble myself to
occupy their time and attention [167] with further comments upon
his contribution to apologetic literature. It is for others to
judge whether I have efficiently carried out my project or not.
It certainly does not count for much that I should be unable to
find any flaw in my own case, but I think it counts for a good
deal that Mr. Gladstone appears to have been equally unable to
do so. He does, indeed, make a great parade of authorities, and
I have the greatest respect for those authorities whom
Mr. Gladstone mentions. If he will get them to sign a joint
memorial to the effect that our present palaeontological
evidence proves that birds appeared before the "land-population"
of terrestrial reptiles, I shall think it my duty to reconsider
my position--but not till then.