the flowers, the squirrel climbing among the tree tops, and all living things in the possession of health and vigour, and in the enjoyment of a sunny existence. They do not see the constant and daily search after food, the failure to obtain which means weakness and death; the constant effort to escape enemies; the ever-recurring struggle against the forces of nature."—(Darwinism. p.14.)

But elsewhere he says:—

"Now that the war of nature is better known, it has been dwelt upon by many writers as presenting so vast an amount of cruelty and pain as to be revolting to our instincts of humanity.

Now there is, I think, good reason to believe that all this is greatly exaggerated; that the supposed "torments" and "miseries" of animals have little real existence, but are the reflection of the imagined sensations of cultivated men and women in similar circumstances; and that the amount of actual suffering caused by the struggle for existence among animals is altogether insignificant."— (Darwinism. p. 36-7).

Last, but not least, we come to the differences of opinion as to whether Natural Selection is, or is not, a necessary factor in the transmutation of species and in the production of organic evolution. Pure Darwinism asserts that Natural Selection is the only method. This view is stated with great explicitness by Professor E. Ray Lankester :—

"I do not hesitate to say that what may be called 'pure' Darwinism -the doctrine of the origin of species by the Natural Selection in the struggle for existence of non-significant congenital variations-is everywhere being more completely demonstrated by reasoning and observation as the single and sufficient theory of that origin; to the exclusion of Lamarckism, and still more certainly to the exclusion of any vestage of the doctrine of design."-(Nature. vol. xxxviii., p. 364.)

Mr. Darwin, on the other hand, says:

"There can be little doubt that the tendency to vary in the same manner has often been so strong that all the individuals of the same species have been similarly modified without the aid of any form of selection."(Origin of Species. p. 72.)

After the statements which have just been made, it can scarcely be said that the theory of Natural Selection is quite so definite or self-consistent as it is generally supposed to be. It is not quite certain that he who reads it as he runs will be sure to read aright, or that the wayfaring man will not be liable to err therein.

Now, in the first place, let me say that it is quite natural that there should be differences of opinion among different persons, and the first thing one has to remember is that Natural Selection may be held with various modifications. Some may believe that it is the one only method of the transmutation of species, others may hold that possibly there are many methods, among which Natural Selection is one. Some may follow Ray Lankester and Weismann, others may follow Darwin and Romanes. On this and other points we have modifications of the theory which almost amount to rival theories, and the attempt to reconcile the two would be a mere waste of time.

In the second place, a discrepancy, if it exists, may arise from the fact that even an eminent specialist sometimes writes from the point of view of the logical exponent of a theory, and sometimes in the character of a careful observer of nature. Both statements may be correct in their own field. Assuming certain data as the axioms of a theory, a man may reason as to what the result must be looking out on nature, he may honestly record what the fact actually is: and he may not be quite aware of the discrepancy which exists between the two sets of statements. This may explain Mr. Darwin's treatment of the question whether variations are small or large.

Mr. Darwin asserts that Natural Selection deals only with slight variations; that on the theory of Natural Selection the variations must be slight; and in nature

accordingly he finds that the variations are slight. This he speaks as the exponent of the theory of Natural Selection, but this does not prevent him from recording observations, which he makes as a student of nature, and which do not accord with the theory.

It seems to me to be quite conceivable that the same man may be an acute logician and a careful observer of nature. In one capacity he will expound the inevitable results of a principle which he supposes to be a law of nature. He may say on my theory this or that will happen-this or that will be found to exist. And the same man may go forth to observe nature and simply report with conscientious exactness the phenomena that he observes. And perhaps it is because many men are in this way most honestly double-minded, that the dictum of George Eliot is fulfilled when she says in the proem to Romola: “The human soul is hospitable, and will entertain conflicting sentiments and contradictory opinions with much impartiality."

But sometimes it would seem that this discrepancy is observed. Perhaps it was this feeling which led Mr. Darwin to omit a very remarkable passage in The Variation from the second edition of that work.

So far as the different views of the cruelty of the strife in nature are concerned, the judgment on this question will largely depend upon the subjective view of the spectator. To some the greatness and the cruelty of the carnage are most apparent. Others will dwell on the joy of life which does exist in spite of mortal woes and dangers. Sir Samuel Baker, having told us how to kill with great certainty and efficiency every wild creature in nature, moralises on the bitter struggle for existence which is everywhere apparent to him.

* Vol. ii., p. 424-already quoted.

"In every direction we see a struggle for existence; the empty stomach must be filled, therefore one species devours the other. It is a system of terrorism from the beginning to the end. The fowl destroys the worm, the hawk destroys the fowl, the cat destroys the hawk, the dog kills the cat, the leopard kills the dog, the lion kills the leopard, and the lion is slain by man. Man appears upon the scene of general destruction as the greatest of all destroyers, as he alone in creation, wars against his own species. We hear of love, and pity, and Christian charity; we see torpedoes and hellish inventions of incredible power to destroy our fellow-creatures. The inventors of these horrible engines of destruction receive titles and the highest honours, while those who have worked in progressive science for the welfare of mankind are forgotten in the obscure laboratory, although the saving light which they invented is gleaming above the hidden rock, for the benefit of all, to expose the danger of the sea. Thus with one hand we save, with the other we destroy."—(Wild beasts and their ways. vol. ii., p. 376.)

Compare with this the genial observation of the accomplished naturalist, Mr. Belt.

"Hawks of various kinds are very abundant in the tropics, and if the small birds had to personify death they would certainly represent him as one, for this is the form in which he must generally appear to them. Towards evening the hawk glides noiselessly along and alights on a bough, near where he hears the small birds twittering amongst the bushes. Perhaps they see him, and are quiet for a little, but he sits motionless as the sphinx, and they soon get over their fear and resume their play or feeding. Then suddenly a dark mass swoops down and rises again. It is the hawk, with a small bird, grasped in his strong talons, gasping out its last breath. Its comrades are terror-struck for a moment, and dash madly into the thickets, but soon forget their fear. They chirp to each other, the scattered birds reunite; there is a fluttering and a twittering, a rearranging of mates, then again songs, feeding, love, jealousy, and bickerings.”— (The Naturalist in Nicaragua. pp. 257-8.)

One reason of the discrepancy may arise from a certain indistinctness of appreciation either on the part of writer or reader, and sometimes, perhaps, on the part of both. Thus, in speaking of the nature of the variations which arise in nature, it is possible that the difference arises from the failure to distinguish the variations which are inevitably

and necessarily associated with sexual reproduction from other variations that sometimes occur in connection with reproduction. We shall see presently how difficult it has been to realise what is meant by "accidental" variations in connection with the theory of Natural Selection, and how often the language of Natural Selection is unnatural and peculiar. If these explanations are true, it follows that there may be, and are, really more than one theory of Natural Selection; that the logical inferences of the theory may not always agree with the facts of nature; that we must allow for the personal equation; that we must take the greatest care that we understand a writer in the sense in which he wishes us to understand him.

These are not unnecessary warnings, as I can testify from personal experience, and may be helpful in explaining seeming contradictions. But there is one thing we are bound to protest against: and that is that a man shall use two phrases, two modes of representation-in fact, two contradictory theories as though they were one and identical, just as it suits the exigencies of his present argument. It seems almost incredible that a great writer should have rejected the more accurate in favour of the sometimes more convenient phrase. But so it is! Mr. Darwin says:

"I have called this principle by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the 'survival of the fittest' is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.”—(Origin of Species. p. 49.)

On which point Mr. Herbert Spencer says:-—

"Though Mr. Darwin approved of this expression, and occasionally employed it, he did not adopt it for general use, contending, very truly, that the expression Natural Selection is in some cases more convenient.”—(Nineteenth Century. vol. xix., p. 750.)