because it revolves around a luminary from which it has derived its being (physically speaking), but which is probably of a lower cosmical nature than it is; and should it in like manner be shown (as will probably be the case) that our animal frame is derived by the usual generative succession "from some lower stock" of animal, will anyone hereafter venture to say that man is less noble on that account?

But certain well-ascertained facts appear to militate strongly against the assumption that man is descended in a direct line from the apes. 1. Although very degraded types of mankind exist amongst us to-day, and traces of similar beings have been discovered in the later geological formations, it is admitted that no form has yet been revealed, which serves as the approach to an intermediate link. The most impetuous followers of Darwin are the most positive on this point. 2. Although we find at the present day savages almost as untutored and undomesticated as any animal "Man," of which we can form a conception-indeed, in some cases almost below the highest domesticated animal in their mental character--and although these beings must have existed through untold ages, often exposed to every state of the weather in absolute nakedness, there has been no reliable case of a tribe reverting to the hairy type, nor any trace of such a variety of the human race having existed as aborigines in former times. And 3. Whilst the intelligence of the apes cannot be said to have advanced in proportion to the complexity of their organization, but to have reached its climax before we approach those forms nearest to Man; the intelligence of Man appears to be of a different nature to that of the apes, which are even less capable of sympathizing with man than some of the domestic quadrupeds; and this intelligence, sui generis, appears just to have entered upon the dawn of its development, and to present an unlimited future.

But whilst the problems of the origin of living beings and of Man present no serious obstacles to a belief in the simple doctrine of the transmutation of species, they do offer fatal objections to Darwin's version of that theory. If his law of natural selection is valid in one case of animal progress, it must hold good in all, and he has no more right to pass over the consideration of "the first steps in the advancement, or in the differentiation or specialization of parts," in "looking at the dawn of life" (in the lowest types of animals) as an inscrutable problem, than he would have to select any other phenomenon difficult of reconciliation with his law. And then what has he to say concerning the origin of the sexes themselves? It is true, he tells us that "he is strongly inclined to suspect that the most frequent cause of variability may be attributed to the male and female reproductive elements having been affected prior to the act of conception; "t but we would appeal to readers + Ibid., p. 8.

* Origin of Species,' p. 137.

of every shade of opinion, whether this is not what the illustrious naturalist himself so often calls, when he refers to the theories of his opponents, a restatement of facts. And where was the necessity for the very existence of the sexual elements at all? What "law" of nature created these? We know that many of the lowest types of animals can and do multiply rapidly and effectively by fission (subdivision of their bodies) and gemmation (budding); and we know, too, not the least so from the wonderful array of facts collected by this most untiring observer, that the pivot upon which the whole question of animal progress turns, is just this one of sexual peculiarities! From the very commencement of life up to the present hour, there are evidences of an immediate designing power-or, to use a term which is looked upon with disfavour by many Darwinians, an ordaining Power; an occult influence in the production and modification of the sexual elements, and consequently of the beings springing from them, totally distinct from the "conditions of existence," ," "natural selection," or whatever else the force may be called, which influences the embryo and the born creature. How often is it that the deceased father is resembled by his posthumous offspring? Had it been the mother, this might be explained by the conditions of gestation; but to what is it to be attributed in the case of the father? Is there anything in Darwin's law-is there not something beyond "atavism," or "the hereditary transmission" of peculiarities (phrases themselves implying ignorance, not knowledge, of natural laws and operations), which causes this constantly-recurring miracle connected with the conception of living creatures?

But the facts of embryology afford very striking evidence in favour of the origin of species by modified descent, and undoubtedly the surrounding conditions of existence have great influence upon the growth of the embryo. The resemblances between the foetal stages of the individuals of different species, too, lend additional probability to the same doctrine; but whoever has the smallest acquaintance with Comparative Embryology must know that whatever value its facts may present in enabling us to judge the question under consideration, they apply equally to Man and to the lower animals.

It is not surprising that when Darwin comes to treat of instincts, he should find in their study but little in favour of his theory of Natural Selection. Still he believes that the latter has the power "of accumulating slight modifications of instinct to any extent in any direction;" and judging by analogy, that is, when we compare this with similar language relating to the modification of the structure of animals, we should be justified in inferring that he believes natural selection to be capable of framing the minds of animals. On * Origin of Species,' p. 229, par. 3; p. 265, par. 2.

the other hand, we can hardly believe that he assumes so much for his favourite theory, for elsewhere he says, "I do not pretend that the facts given in this chapter strengthen in any great degree my theory, but none of the cases of difficulty to the best of my judgment annihilate it.” * That visible nature, in some cases, limits and retards, in others stimulates the physical as well as the bodily activity of living beings, no one will deny, and that such an influence is as applicable to Man as to the lower animals, is just as obvious; but that nature has been, or is, a power, in the well-understood acceptation of the term, acting upon the mind of animals, or of man, or anything but an unconscious agent, very few will admit, and we can hardly believe that the illustrious naturalist himself holds such a creed.

Sometimes, indeed, the "conditions of existence" are all-powerful in evoking the nobler qualities of animals and men. For Man these "conditions" may be a forest glade, a range of towering peaks, a well-stocked library, a few tuneful sentences; any of these may fan the latent spark of genius, which has lain smouldering for years, and cause the flame to burst forth suddenly. But there are cases where, notwithstanding that the "conditions of existence" may have a repressive tendency, the "instincts"-or in Man the soul-will assert its supremacy, and will mock all Darwin's laws and theories. See, for example, the ungainly peasant, who, under the law of the "hereditary transmission of peculiarities," should have pared his turnips, chewed his bacon, and guided his plough, as did his ancestors before him-how he, encircled by the same "conditions of existence" as surrounded them, spurns their grovelling pursuits, dives down into the depths of physical truth and brings up some pearl of inestimable price, which his "highly educated" fellow-men have in vain been seeking on the surface; or soars upwards to the sky, and descends again with other truths, less pleasing to the sense, perhaps, but serving as another link in the bright golden chain uniting Earth and Heaven.

In this review of some of Darwin's labours, we have been led into many digressions, for which the eminent author is to some extent responsible, for a more suggestive series of works than his has rarely been published; and this we conceive to be one of their most valuable elements. The objection to his theory of "natural selection"—and it is a grave one for the reason already assigned-is, that he refers all the perfect operations of Nature to an imperfect law. Then we may be asked, Why should such a law be regarded? Simply, because it is the best extant. Why, we would ask, is society ruled by imperfect laws? Why is honesty in trade, to a large extent, maintained by clumsy and defective mercantile codes?

* Origin of Species,' p. 265, par. 2.

Because it pleases God to give scope for the exercise of the human intellect by reserving a portion of the truth for man to search out, and thus stimulating each successive generation to reform itself.

As far as we are able to judge, after many years' careful and unprejudiced observation, Darwin is right as to effect, and as to cause, he is partially so. In other words, the Ruler of the universe does use the means so beautifully described by him to bring about certain phenomena in nature, but He appears to employ other and still unexplained means as well. Until, however, some naturalist, possessed of larger powers of observation and comparison, and of a courage equal to that of Darwin, shall arise to complete the theory of "natural selection," or, what will more probably be the case, shall substitute a more perfect theory just as this one is more complete than that of Lamarck; until then, we say, "Darwin's law" will continue to guide naturalists of every order in their biological inferences and zoological classifications.

*

But we cannot help expressing our surprise that so able and observant an inquirer as Darwin can fail to see in the wonderful array of facts collected in his great work, "one long argument" in favour of a constant, ever-watchful, ever-designing, and ever-active Providence. He can perceive the immediate intervention of that Providence in the "original inbreathing of life" "into a few lowly forms, or one," and yet (limiting ourselves strictly to the boundaries defined by him) in the instinct of the bee, which deftly builds its nest, or unconsciously fertilizes the insensient orchid; in the remarkable powers of climbing plants, which possess the faculty of moving in conformity with the requirements of plantlife, † and equally in the affectionate intelligence of the domestic animals, he can see only the action of "secondary causes," and fails to perceive in all these and a thousand other phenomena of nature and of mind, the continuous application of an Almighty Power acting with design. Have too close reasoning and observation drawn a veil across the scene so long admired and watched by our great naturalist, or what has caused this curious obscuration?

This is the great defect pervading Darwin's work; but it is not the weakness of an imbecile, nor yet the foible of an obstinate dogmatist; it is, we hope, the unconscious and, let us trust it soon will be the conscious demerit of a great work, undertaken and partly accomplished by one of the noblest, most exalted, and most brilliant intellects of our age.

On the Various Contrivances by which Orchids are Fertilized by Insects,' (Murray, 1862), p. 2.

On the Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants' (Taylor & Francis, 1865), p. 118.

II. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE LOSS OF THE LONDON.'

By WILLIAM FAIRBAIRN, C.E., F.R.S., &c.

THE introduction of iron as a material in constructive art has been attended with great advantages. For the purposes of shipbuilding it has given greatly increased strength, and afforded facilities for obtaining new forms, which, aided by the power of steam, have ensured a rate of speed in vessels never before attained in naval history. It has, moreover, furnished the naval architect with a material of immense value as regards construction, and its careful distribution in the shape of ribs, frames, and the sheathing of vessels cannot be too highly appreciated. As compared with the best English oak, it exhibits four times its powers of resistance, and it has in addition the double advantage of being almost perfectly homogeneous and free from the defects of open joints, which in the case of the planking of wooden vessels require to be caulked. With all these advantages, iron constructions are surrounded with many dangers when entrusted to the care and superintendence of incompetent persons; in such hands there invariably exists a want of proportion in the formation of iron vessels, which exhibit defective powers of resistance, and such other abnormal conditions as might prove destructive to the efficiency and ultimate security of the structure. It is therefore necessary that the naval architect or builder should be conversant with the properties of the material employed, whether considered separately or in combination, and moreover, he should be satisfied that the vessel, when finished, is capable of permanently resisting the forces of tension and compression, and all the varied strains to which she is subjected when afloat.

In laying down the lines of a ship, all these conditions should be carefully and deliberately considered. It is also of importance to take into account the forms or lines of least resistance, such as a fine entrance at the bows, and an equally clear run at the stern, if high speed is the object to be attained. In such cases, these forms are highly advantageous for vessels navigating rivers and smooth water, but in those intended for long sea voyages, and having to contend with the waves of the Atlantic or the rolling seas of the Cape, it is questionable whether or not some slight sacrifices should be made to speed, and some modification effected in the form of the bows and stern, in order to meet all the requirements of a safe and convenient vessel intended for the double purpose of carrying passengers and cargo.

I have been led to these particular considerations, not so much from the lamentable accident which overtook the 'London,' as from the conviction, that the safety and success of a vessel does not depend so much on its speed as upon its sea-going properties and sound con