6

be committed to the hands of man. That this theory indeed is presented to us as if it were itself the key, we are well aware, and so it ought to be, if its pretensions of teaching the Origin of Species' could be sustained; but that it continually fails in doing this is manifest even by the acknowledgments of its inventor, of which the above sentence is a specimen; we shall presently see that there are other occasions in which he confesses himself hopelessly obstructed in the labyrinth of error.

'No explanation is offered,' says Mr Darwin, 'why an organism, when placed under unnatural conditions, is rendered sterile.' In these words lurks the unintended avowal that there are certain pre-existing conditions of nature, that nature has prescribed certain organisms to carry out certain functions, and that an attempt to divert the functions into another channel is a failure. This ought not to be acknowledged by an exponent of the theory before us, which repudiates all idea of design, and holds that things are always on the move to better themselves, in a slow but sure advance towards perfection. We indeed * hold that in varied schemes of life, and to realize them, organisms have been prepared, and fitted together in one harmonious whole, to carry out the object for which they were designed, and that they have thus been endowed with life. And this system of design and execution we call nature,

Fixed forms, and which are perpetuated by generations, distinguish their species, determine the complication of secondary functions proper to each of them, and assign to them the part (le rôle) which they have to sustain in the harmony of the universe. These forms do not produce nor change themselves. Life supposes their existence; it cannot be kindled except in organizations already prepared for it, and the most profound meditations, as well as the most delicate observations, only bring us at last to the mystery of pre-existent germs.'-Cuvier, Regne Animal, Introduction, p. 17.

and when we talk of the laws of nature, we mean that law is the expression of prescience, intention, and power; and we have therefore a very clear signification of our thoughts when we say that things are in a natural or unnatural position. But Mr Darwin entertains none of these views. His nature is Natural Selection, originating in no law, and owning no law; it is only a long-sustained experiment, an empirical condition of things trying all correctives, and testing all suggestions, to reach at last the elixir vitæ of a future perfection. If the learned author could always remember this, he would not so frequently make use of expressions which can have no logical standing in his system.

'On the theory of Natural Selection,' says our author, 'sterility is especially important, inasmuch as the sterility of hybrids could not possibly be of any advantage to them, and therefore could not have been acquired by the continued preservation of successive profitable degrees of sterility' (267). This very whimsical decision, almost the strangest that ever has been offered as a tribute to science, is сараble perhaps of more than one interpretation: but we would ask, if sterility did not originate by Natural Selection, by what other means has it been introduced? We have seen that Mr Darwin acknowledges the fact; but he here cuts off from himself the only explanation which he had to offer in his theory. For Natural Selection can do anything, and has indeed done almost everything that ever has been done in nature,—why then has it not been allowed to work in this particular instance? This, at first sight, might seem inexplicable; but when we remember that the rule of sterility is not for individuals alone, but for divisions, distinctions, and groups of animals, with an obvious intention to

keep them apart, and therefore argues an intelligent design; and that, on the contrary, Natural Selection acts only for individuals, caring nothing at all for the benefit of groups and classes, is essentially a selfish individual principle, and knows nothing of a general plan, we can understand how it is that this grand functionary has kept clear of this business.

But again we ask, whence then originated sterility of unions not intended by nature? And again we ask, how did animals, all in the beginning one family, brother and sister, when separating themselves into different forms, and genera, and species, acquire this quality—that is, this quality of fecundity of the species and sterility out of the boundaries of the species? Natural Selection did not help them, because that wise one saw that sterility could not possibly be for their benefit-and yet sterility is the law! Perhaps the animals themselves acted on this occasion on their own view of the matter, and agreed to make the law, without consulting Natural Selection, and have thus adopted a system which has been of no service to them. It must, however, have been a very popular idea with both plants and animals, seeing how generally it has been adopted.

But how does Mr Darwin know that the sterility of hybrids could not possibly have been an advantage to the animals? The hybrid that is sterile has not made itself so, but is sterile as a joint-product of two parents. The hybrid can only take the nature he has, and the organization furnished by his parents. The mule has not made himself sterile, nor can he alter his condition-sterility originates not with the hybrid, but with the parents; hybridity is a negative state produced by the union of male and female not fitted for union--and it is of the utmost possible bene

fit to animals in general, that this sterility is the result of improper unions, as it averts general confusion, and sustains the unity of nature's design.

In this matter, however, Mr Darwin has forgotten himself; for though he thus affirms with such confidence that sterility could not possibly be of advantage to animals,' yet only a few pages earlier, in the 7th chapter, he had as plainly laid it down that the honey-bee workers* have made themselves sterile by Natural Selection, for the benefit of their society!!! If Natural Selection has acted thus in one conspicuous example-if sterility has in that case been produced by Natural Selection-how, we ask, is it quite impossible that it should not have been introduced by the same agency, wherever we see it prevail?

Surely this is a slip of the memory, and a very palpable one. We need not say that we happen to agree with Mr Darwin, and are quite of his opinion that Natural Selection has had nothing to do with the law of sterility: only we are both surprised and amused to see him turn the cold shoulder to his great auxiliary precisely at the time when its valuable assistance would be most serviceable.

But though Natural Selection has not produced sterility, it can cancel it, and has done so in the teeth of all that Mr Darwin has told us of the fixedness of this law. He gives us to understand that at some unknown time, and without any record or evidence to attest the fact, several

A slight modification of structure or instinct, correlated with the sterile condition of certain members of the community, has been advantageous to the community: consequently the fertile males and females of the same community flourished, and transmitted to their fertile offspring a tendency to produce sterile members having the same modification. And, I believe, that this process has been repeated, until that prodigious amount of difference between the fertile and sterile females of the same species has been produced' (260).

species of animals have become fertile amongst one another. Thus we are frequently informed that all varieties of dogs 'descended from several wild species' (20). How opposite this assertion is to the general opinion of naturalists need not to be stated, but Mr Darwin repeats the proposition in many* parts of his book, as if it were an established fact, resting it on the sole authority of his own conjecture. If, indeed, with a total deficiency of proof we should be disposed to accept this innovation in Natural History, the theory would advance a step, and the door would be opened for that mutation of Nature without which Natural Selection must be impotent; but with us Mr Darwin's creed carries no weight unless accompanied with rigorous proof. However, on the question of the varieties of the dog-species, Mr Darwin has much to say on the great difference between the races, but why should he refuse to this category that which he has so strongly urged as producing varieties in other species? He has told us, and told us truly, of the wonderful changes effected in cattle and other animals by breeding, why then make an exception in the case of the dog,-the creature of all others most closely united to man, most constantly under his eye, and least at liberty to make its own choice? In another part of his work, Mr Darwin says, 'lastly-and this seems to me the

'I believe that our dogs have descended from several wild stocks, yet with perhaps the exception of certain indigenous domestic dogs of South America, all are quite fertile together,' and analogy makes me greatly doubt, whether the several aboriginal species would, at first, have freely bred together, and have produced quite fertile hybrids (266).

First it is

This passage involves the petitio principii more than once. assumed that dogs spring from several aboriginal species, and then it is assumed that the crosses between them would, at first, be sterile hybrids. Those two words' at first' assume the whole theory: for the meaning is, that in process of ages Natural Selection would alter this arrangement, and change the sterility into fertility.