NATURAL SCIENCE AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM. rro THE EDITOR OF THE
"SPECTATOR.] Sta,—Perhaps the most important discussions at the Congress, I mean those on 'Recent Advances in Natural Science," &c., and "Recent Advances in Biblical Criticism," were rendered much less useful than they might have been by the readers, with three notable exceptions, endeavouring to cover too much ground for the time allotted to them, and so their papers, far too long, were hurriedly read, in the attempt to get all in. It was impossible to follow what we most wished to hear, and until the report is issued we shall be in ignorance of the arguments and conclusions which three or four of the principal speakers, whose words carry enormous weight, intended to bring before the audience, and the force of their advocacy by speech entirely lost. The points touched on should be limited in number, to fall within the allotted time, and allowance made for the reading to be of that fairly load, clear, and deliberate character (such as that of the Bishop of Carlisle and the Rev. and Honourable A. T. Lyttelton) as would make the most abstruse subjects easy to follow without the strain to hear, which would quite spoil the enjoyment of a story, and makes attention to close argument absolutely impossible.
This was felt by many who spoke to me, and as a suggestion through your widely-read paper may be more effective than any .other means to ensure an alteration of this obvious and serious fault at future Congresses, I venture to ask your insertion of this letter.—I am, Sir, &e.,
Previous page
