likely be preserved, and by preservation give rise ultimately to new specific forms; and therefore, so far as the origin of these living beings is concerned, variation has been the cause in every one of them of their peculiarities. That, however, is not saying variation was the rule-nothing of the kind. Then we are told that this variation involves inconsistency with the rule "like produces like." What then are we to do with the descendants of these variations. We have two principles at work, one (the rule), to inherit the same peculiarities; the other (the exception), to vary them. When, then, you have an individual plant or animal that has varied from its progenitors, what are the descendants of that plant or animal to do? If they follow the rule, they perpetuate the variation, because "like produces like." If they follow the exception, they revert to the original type. Therefore, on Mr. Reddie's principle, the instant variation occurs it should be perpetuated, because “like produces like." Then comes another extraordinary statement,-it amuses me, the number of misrepresentations and misunderstandings in this 'paper! We are told that on one occasion Darwin brings in " use and disuse" because his own "peculiar theory of the struggle for existence is itself felt to be inadequate." One would suppose from this that Darwin's theory of the "struggle for existence" was a theory to account for variations. Let me read what Darwin says himself: "Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural Selection. Some have even imagined that natural selection induces variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such variations as occur and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life.”—(P. 91.) How can it be said, then, that bringing in "use and disuse" as a means of varying organs is helping out the theory of natural selection? Natural selection is simply the law by which these variations, when they occur, are seized hold of and perpetuated; nothing more. To regard it as the cause of the variations is simply to misunderstand Darwin's theory utterly. Then as to reversion, Darwin's pigeon, which he, after a good deal of especial pains, got to revert to the original, how is it misconstrued! He took two pigeons which bred extremely true, such as were scarcely ever known to show a symptom of reversion; he caused them to breed, and he obtained a mongrel. A mongrel is not a reversion. In like manner, he obtained another mongrel, put the two together, and then, and not till then, did reversion appear. And yet this is quoted as a proof-an admitted proof-that varities will come back and revert to the original type

The CHAIRMAN.-I said it was a well-observed fact among naturalists that all natural varieties which man produces have a tendency, when man's interference is taken away, to revert to their original types. I did not think it necessary to quote Darwin for this; but I said it was admitted in two remarkable instances by Darwin that the thing held true.

Mr. WARINGTON.-I think you were misquoting Darwin, with all due deference

The CHAIRMAN.-You have forgotten a passage in which he says that, "do what man will, there is always a recurring to the original blue rock-pigeon." Mr. WARINGTON.-One more remark upon the paper, and that is a view

which Mr. Reddie fathers on me-yet to which I gave in reality neither birth, house, or lodging-that the new species are always progressing upwards. I do not believe it. The variations may as likely be downwards, or sideways; Darwin repeatedly repudiates the idea of there being any necessary tendency to pass upwards from a lower to a higher species. Now as to the later speakers. The principal point to be noticed in Captain Fishbourne's speech is his total misunderstanding of what is meant by natural selection. Let me read what Darwin has said in explanation of this much-abused term : "Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them! In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a misnomer; but whoever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of the various elements? And yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with which it will in preference combine. It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical expressions, and they are almost necessary for brevity. So, again, it is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature; but I mean by Nature only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by us."-(P. 91-2.) Now, I think in the face of this it behoves every one who wishes to speak of natural selection to understand what it

means

Captain FISHBOURNE.-But the quotation goes on, "Further, we must suppose that there is a power (natural selection) always intently watching each slight accidental alteration with the transparent layers, and carefully selecting each alteration which, under various circumstances, may in any degree tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million, and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slightest alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with renewing skill each improvement."

Mr. WARINGTON.-That occurs after the passage I have read. Surely you are bound to interpret one by the other. I will read another, page 95< "It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest— rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good." Darwin says distinctly that when he speaks thus he speaks metaphorically, not literally. The remarks of Mr. Manners I pass over, because to enter fully into the interpretation of the account of creation in Genesis would take quite another evening. Perhaps some day I may go into it. Then as to Dr. Thornton's objection, that there is no real struggle for existence because all forms have existence : so they have, but yet we commonly speak of a person "struggling for existence," certainly not in the sense of struggling to come

into existence. The objection of Dr. Gladstone, that every varation to be preserved must be, according to the theory, an improvement, which in many cases of intermediate stages of development presents a grave difficulty, I had meant to deal with at length, but time forbids. I am well aware that there is a difficulty here--one of the greatest, indeed, which the theory involves. (Hear, hear.) I think, however, there are fair reasons which can be brought forward to show that the difficulty is not so great as may seem at first sight; but it is impossible now to go into this at length. Then there is the objection of Mr. Ince as to Noah's ark being too big for a few species. That supposes that the variations have all taken place since the days of Noah, which Darwin certainly does not at all suppose, but, on the contrary, asks for millions of years. Of course if you can prove that all the races of animals now living came into existence within a short period of the flood, you have a strong objection against Darwin's theory-the strongest conceivable; but for myself I do not think that ever will or can be proved. Then as to the presumption of limiting God to the creation of a few species instead of many, I confess I cannot see it. In the same way I might say it is presumption to say God made only Adam, and did not create every man. You may as well say, when I assert that every man now living is a born man, and not created, that I am limiting the power of God

Mr. REDDIE. We do not consider it presumption to believe that God created only Adam, because we believe this to be revealed to us. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. WARINGTON.-I simply say that the same line of reasoning which would make it presumption to limit creation to a few instead of many species would, applied to a strictly analogous case, make it presumption to suppose God had not created all men as well as Adam. As to Mr. Mitchell, his opening remarks I am compelled to pass over this evening, and proceed at once to that other hypothesis which we are told does account for all the facts. Undoubtedly it does so; but how? Not by hypothesis at all. Regarded as a matter of science, it says simply we know nothing about it. It gives no scientific or natural cause for the existence of living beings at all; it merely says we owe our origin to God, and do not, in fact, know anything about how we came into existence

The CHAIRMAN.-I think you are putting this in an unfair form.

Mr. WARINGTON.-We are obliged to say, when asked how this came about, that we believe it came about in some way from God. Now we are brought, sooner or later, to this point in every science-a point beyond which our investigations cannot go, and where we must be content to refer the matter simply to God's immediate action. My position, then, is this: it does not matter in the least, theologically, where that point lies, near or far away. God's ultimate relation to all things is as true if it be placed at a period countless millions of ages ago, as if it be placed but at yesterday. I object, therefore, to any comparison between these two hypotheses, in the favour, theologically, of the one rather than the other, because the one takes us a little quicker to God's immediate action than the other. Then as concerns the

proof of this so-called Biblical hypothesis, whether the Bible really does teach what is alleged concerning the origin of species, that I must pass. One word, however, as to the argument of design. Supposing Darwin's hypothesis true, what does it amount to theologically? It amounts to this: that God, having respect to the well-being of His creatures, has impressed a law upon their existence, that they shall always remain marvellously well adapted to the circumstances in which they are placed. Darwin says repeatedly that the end which is attained by natural selection is, that every creature in existence, plant or animal, shall always have by variation and competition a nature well adapted to the circumstances in which it is placed, because the best adapted will invariably be those which are preserved. It seems, therefore, to me, that it matters very little-as far as design is concerned whether these adaptations were designed separately by God for each individual, or whether He so ordered the laws which govern life that each individual should perpetually become thus adapted. Rather does it seem to be more marvellous, more God-like, to implant one principle capable of making all individuals for all ages admirably adapted to the places in which they live than it is separately to design and fashion each. Take for illustration, an automaton draught-player whose hands are pulled by wires. For every move the automaton makes, a wire has to be pulled on purpose to make him take that move. Babbage thought he could make an automaton after a wiser fashion than that, and he made one that should choose its own moves, so that whatever move its antagonist made, the automaton immediately, and as it were of itself, took the right move in answer ;-surely a far greater display of skill and design, a far higher proof of genius. So, too, it seems to me it is a greater and more marvellous thing, if God fitted all creatures to the place in which they live by means of a law impressed on a few original beings, than if He separately designed each one

The CHAIRMAN.-That is not the view taken in Darwin's works; it is the view in the Vestiges of Creation, which Darwin ignores. I said design was to be sought for throughout creation. Darwin ignores design; and the passages were to show, both with regard to the formation of the eye and the instinct of the bee, it was an ignoring of the existence of design; and no fair interpretation can be put on the words of Darwin which does not include that idea, and this idea must be adopted by those who would quote Darwin as proof of the existence of the self-existing, self-evolving powers of nature.

Mr. WARINGTON.-These passages never gave me the idea which Mr. Mitchell says they give him, and there are others also to whom they have never given such an idea. The extreme lateness of the hour renders it impossible for me to go as I should wish into the details of the argument about the eye and the bee's cell. I do not for an instant deny the wonder involved in how these things came to be, but I confess I do not see how you make it one whit more incredible if you suppose the bee to have acquired its instinct rather than had it innate. That such an insect should make such cells is a marvel in itself, but I do not see how it is a greater marvel to suppose it gradually acquired than to suppose it created; but I dare not attempt to enter into a

full explanation on this head, nor yet as to the still more marvellous structure of the eye, because time is so far gone. To my mind, neither in the least touches Darwin's position. One word, in conclusion, as to hybridism. There are cases of animals and plants which, up to the moment when they were found to yield fertile hybrids were regarded by naturalists as species, and it strikes me the same thing would be done if it were found that mules were fertile: we should at once be told that horses and asses were one species. Such reasoning can only be described as begging the question. It is asserted, because the offspring are sterile, therefore the original parents were true species. But to establish this you have to prove, as a fundamental basis, that the true test of specific difference lies in this one solitary set of organs-those of reproduction, so that those organs and those only will be the true index. Until I see that fundamental basis not assumed, but proved, I confess I shall object to take sterility of hybrids as a fair test of what are species and what not. In conclusion, let me say that I do not wish to be considered as pledging myself to Darwinism in any way. I do not think there is sufficient evidence in his book to prove his theory to be true; at the same time I do feel strongly-and mainly from the discussions in this Institute that the current objections against Darwinism are invalid and fallacious. The discussion of to-night and last evening has considerably strengthened that conviction. I am no nearer believing Darwinism than before, but I am certainly more convinced than ever that the objections urged against it are irrelevant or inconclusive.

The meeting was then adjourned.

NOTE.

In the Anthropological Review for April last, No. 17, will be found the following account of a discussion which recently took place in the Anthropological Society of Paris, "On the Relations between the Anthropoid Apes and Man"; and which will be read with interest by the members of the VICTORIA INSTITUTE, as bearing upon Mr. Darwin's theory as applied to man's origin, in connection with the preceding discussion upon Mr. Warington's Paper on "The Credibility of Darwinism"- -more especially considering the eminence of the French Anthropologists whose views are therein expressed. The discussion appears to have been opened by DR. PRUNER-BEY, in the course of his Address upon taking the Chair as President of the Paris Society, vice Dr. Gratiolet. The account proceeds as follows:

On the Relations between the Anthropoid Apes and Man, by M. Schaafhausen of Bonn, translated by M. Pruner-Bey.-The scientific portion of M. Du Chaillu's work has been received with distrust by the learned. There