the world just as they present themselves. If there is anything a scientific man labors to be exact in it is in the description of what he has observed. He knows that, if he is inaccurate here, some one will go over his work and discover and expose his errors, thus destroying in a large measure the credit he might otherwise reap from his arduous investigations. No; there can be no question that men of science give the world pure facts as far as they are able; probably no men, not even the clergy, work under so deep and constant a sense of responsibility for the exhibition of the truth without any admixture of fable.
The weaving of facts into theories is, however, another matter, and here undoubtedly a certain personal element may come into play. When Darwin's theories were first broached, all the world, nearly, cried out against them. They were demolished a countless number of times, not only in theological but in scientific periodicals. The world was under the influence of the special-creation hypothesis, and the facts and reasonings of Darwin fell far short, even in the minds of the most of those who read his work, of shaking their faith in the old system of thought. The seed sown was not, however, trampled out of existence, as it might have been in an earlier age. It took lodgment in some minds, and it was not long in showing that it possessed a strong principle of vitality. To-day evolution, in a wider sense than Darwin himself was at first prepared for, is the dominant philosophy. No doubt it was to this philosophy that the duke referred when he hinted at the existence of a kind of intellectual tyranny in the world of scientific thought. It may be, of course, that just as evolution was opposed in the past on account of its novelty and its disagreement with accepted theories, so, now that it has gained a certain prestige, it may receive the adhesion of some who like to be on what appears to be the stronger side, and who may support it in the spirit of partisanship rather than of conviction. How this is to be avoided, while human nature remains what it is, it is difficult to see. Every school of thought that ever existed in the world has had, in addition to its reasonable and convinced adherents, other adherents, in whom the spirit of sect and party has been much stronger than the love of truth. But while we may admit that the evolution philosophy has not escaped, and is not likely to escape, the fate of philosophies in general in this respect, we may very confidently assert that no one to-day who is capable of making any original investigations that might have a bearing on the doctrine of evolution is in the least likely to be unduly influenced by any weight of authority on the side of any particular theory. There never was an age when, in matters scientific and philosophical, there was so complete a "liberty of prophesying" as there is to-day. To talk, therefore, of "scientific orthodoxy," as some do, with the intention of suggesting a parallel with theological orthodoxy, is altogether unfair and misleading. There are no courts for the trial of scientific heresy. The only penalty any man incurs for putting forth inaccurate statements of fact or inconclusive reasonings is that, upon the exposure of his errors, his scientific standing is more or less compromised according to the gravity of the case. No scientific worker can be condemned by the mere ipse dixit of any authority however distinguished: the appeal to facts lies open to the humblest citizen in the republic of science. Here truth is Cæsar, and there is no divided empire.
But, while Science does not set up any unalterable code of opinion, while it does not seek to withdraw any theory or hypothesis whatsoever from the control of verification, it has its own way of looking at things, its own methods of testing what is proposed for accept-
