than the rest of us when he ventures so calmly to pronounce upon the fundamental requisitions of life; and therefore we should at least like to be informed how he acquired his knowledge that "life would not be possible," save under the "universal conditions" which he names. But whether or not it is granted that life is only possible under such conditions-and of this I shall have more to say presentlyassuredly life, as we know it, has had these conditions as a part of its "environment," and they must have been of all the more importance because so "universal." It therefore displays some fundamental misconception to say that of such conditions "Natural Selection neither takes nor gives any account."

Again, our critic asks:-"How can a sane thinker persuade himself that Natural Selection, granting it to be the actual law of life, can explain or account for those processes which are the very condition of its existence?" This, as a matter of form, appears well put; but when we inquire into what these alleged processes are, we find that they consist in "the internal growth of bone, muscle, or other organic tissue," to which "must be added the growth of some suitable integument, as the fur of the bear, the scales of the fish, the skin of the earthworm, the shell of the snail" (none of which, therefore, are regarded by Dr. Conder as "organic tissue"). Then "behind this set of adaptations lies a totally distinct set-namely, the adaptation of the organs of nutrition and circulation to produce these structures, and keep them, and themselves also, in constant effective repair." In a word, the "processes" named are just those from which the theory of Natural Selection derives its chief support (as Dr. Conder might have found from Mr. Darwin's works), and therefore it is to be feared that if the regarding of Natural Selection as competent to explain such processes is not compatible with sanity of thought, so many scientific men will become convicted of mental aberration that the Royal Society may as well be at once converted into an asylum for lunatics.

But seriously, why did it not occur to Dr. Conder that he was displaying a certain degree of "self-confident nonchalance" in thus writing about a scientific theory which he must know has commanded the assent of all minds most competent to judge of its merits, but concerning which he clearly shows that he has not himself "taken the trouble to think?" Thus, he further continues:

"This fallacy becomes more glaring when we turn the question on its other side, and look from the organism to its environment. How comes it to be possible for organized life to adapt itself to its surroundings? Simply because the surroundings, through processes stretching (as we cannot but infer) through illimitable ages, have become such as to minister to life. Even at this moment, a very slight and easily conceivable change in our surroundings-such raising of the temperature of the ocean to boiling-point-would speedily render all life impossible on this globe. On examining these surroundings, that the forces and materials of the inorganic universe are as replete with marks of design and other evidence of the all-controlling presence of MIND, as the structure and functions of organic beings."

as the

we find

Now, it will be remembered that I have not argued, and am not arguing, against the evidence of design in this larger sense- or the evidence which is derived from the general order of nature; I am only concerned with showing that this evidence is the same in kind, whether we look to organic or to inorganic nature. And with reference to the above passage it is easy to show that the "fallacy," asserted with so much confidence, is no fallacy at all. The only facts which are supplied to our experience are the facts of adaptation to environment. It is therefore a gross assumption to assert that this adaptation arises from a pre-established harmony between environment and organization—that "our surroundings" are the only ones under which life would have been possible. The converse case is at least as conceivable-viz., that Natural Selection, operating from very early times, is able to adapt life and organization to very great diversities of environment, so that it is only, as it were, an accident that life and organization upon this planet have been obliged to become adapted to a particular range of temperature, constitution of atmosphere, &c. Thus, for instance, to take Dr. Conder's illustration, if the change, which he regards as "very slight," were to occur, and the ocean were raised to a temperature sufficient to destroy the life of all that it contains, it still would not be hot enough to destroy the life of certain low forms of plants which have become adapted to grow in hot mineral springs; we can therefore scarcely doubt that, if the ocean had happened to have been always exceedingly hot, some form of life would have become adapted to live in it. may even go further, and say with sufficient confidence that science can assign no reason why all known life should have become so largely associated with carbon, or why living organisms should have become dependent on the respiration of oxygen, unless it is that, carbonic acid and oxygen happening to have been present in the earth's atmosphere, Natural Selection from the first was obliged to adapt living organisms. to conditions of life so "universal." For anything that we know to the contrary, life and organization may be able to exist, even if elsewhere it is not actually existing, in atmospheres composed of other gases. But be this as it may, assuredly in no case, as I have previously observed, are we entitled magisterially to assert the only conditions under which the existence of life is possible, and therefore it follows that no conclusive argument of a teleological kind can be drawn from the fact that such organisms as we know are adapted to such surroundings as we know. For this fact in no way proves that these particular surroundings have been specially prepared in anticipation of the advent of life, unless it could be proved that only these surroundings are competent to support life. Until this is proved, the possibility remains that the forms of life which we know have been slowly adapted to these particular surroundings by natural selection; and to me it seems, in view of the wonderful plasticity of life in becoming adapted to what Mr. Darwin has called "changed conditions of life" (as, for instance, in aquatic animals be

We

coming terrestrial, and vice versa), that this possibility becomes a probability.*

There is only one other point in Dr. Conder's article which seems to call for a reply. He complains that I "have the hardihood to say that, 'if all, or even some, species had been so interrelated as to minister to each other's necessities, organic species might then have been likened to a countless multitude of voices all singing in one harmonious psalm of praise. But, as it is, we see no vestige of such co-ordination; every species is for itself, and for itself alone-an outcome of the always and everywhere fiercely raging struggle for life."" And upon this passage (which to my mind presents the strongest of all the arguments in favour of Natural Selection) my critic remarks:-"This reckless assertion is refuted by the flavour of every peach, the chemical composition of every morsel of food; by the labour of every earth-worm ploughing his dark path underground; by the structure of every wheat plant storing food on which the labour, commerce, politics, public and family life of nations depend. Sic vos non vobis mellificatis apes!" Now it is easy to apply abusive epithets; but I do not think it will be so easy to show that such a plain statement of fact as I have made is either "reckless" in itself, or displays anything of "hardihood" on the part of him who makes it. For in the sentences which precede those which have been quoted by Dr. Conder, I explain that there are some cases in which "a mechanism or instinct that is of benefit to its possessor has come also to be utilized by other species;" and of this kind are the cases which he mentions. The flavour of fruits is of use to the fruits by leading to the dissemination of the contained seed; the nutritive quality of wheat is essential to securing the early development of the germ; and “the labour of every earth-worm" is primarily of benefit to the earth-worm itself. But before my statement can be shown to be "reckless," Dr. Conder must point at least to some one instance, either in the vegetable or animal kingdom, of a structure or property presented by one species, which is of no apparent benefit to that species, but which is of obvious benefit to some other. And I am in no fear that he will be able to do this, because the challenge has virtually been before the world of naturalists ever since the time when Mr. Darwin wrote that, if one such case could be pointed to, it would be destructive of his whole theory.

Without waiting to follow Dr. Conder into those of his criticisms which are directed against the theory of Natural Selection itself, as distinguished from my method of rendering the evidence, I shall conclude

To take a specific case. Dr. Conder says:-"Take a fact of a totally different kind The size (including weight) of our globe is as accurately adjusted to the flight of a butterfly as to the earth's distance from the sun, and its speed in its orbit." Now, disregarding the fact that neither the size nor weight of the earth have any relation at all either to its distance from the sun or to its velocity in its orbit (for this is a mere error in science, and has no real effect upon the argument), surely to any unbiassed mind it must appear more probable that the butterfly has been adapted to the earth rather than the earth to the butterfly.

by briefly explaining the reason why, in rendering this evidence, I was led to touch upon the relation of Natural Science to Natural Theology.

Dr. Conder says:-" Cultivators of science-professors and amateurs alike—are doing not a little to loosen its authority, and especially to imperil if not destroy its educational value, by neglecting to draw the boundary line sharply round its true domain ;" and he professes that it is as much for the sake of science as for the sake of religion that he has published his criticism. Now, it was precisely for this very purpose of "drawing the boundary line sharply round the true domain of science," that I discussed the subject of natural theology at all. In the past this boundary line has been encroached upon by the forces of transcendental dogma, and this so seriously to the detriment of science that all who wish well to her future progress should be instant, in season and out of season, to clear from her path the obstructions raised by supernatural hypotheses in general, and by the doctrine of final causes in particular. Without going into the history of the subject, it is a matter of notoriety that science has been more hampered by such hypotheses and doctrines than by hypotheses and doctrines of any other kind; and therefore, in the interests of science, the boundary line should be drawn round its "true domain," by insisting on the essentially distinct character of Natural Science and Natural Theology as separate departments of human thought. Thus only can the true educational value of natural science be maintained, and thus only can the permanent interests of Natural Theology be promoted.

GEORGE J. ROMANES.

VOL. XLII.

NN

CLÔTURE FOR THE ENGLISH HOUSE

OF COMMONS.

W

HEN we find that an Autumn Session has been called for the ex

press purpose of considering reform in the procedure of the House of Commons, we are forced to admit that urgency has been proved for such reform.

And, more than this, we are forced to admit that the details of such reform are still matter for debate. There has, indeed, been a noteworthy see-sawing of rumours and reports as to Mr. Gladstone's intentions in regard to the now notorious First Resolution. But, inasmuch as we are told that this First Resolution, or its equivalent, is as it were the hinge on which hangs the whole proposed reform, I am assured it will be useful to remind public opinion of the real issues involved.

I wish briefly to inquire whether it is not true that this First Resolution, as at present worded, is (1) un-English; (2) unparliamentary; (3) self-destructive; (4) useless; and (5) unnecessary, in the sense that there is an alternative which will achieve all the good and do none of the evil contemplated or dreaded of this First Resolution.

1.-Is it not un-English?

Mr. Gladstone, in introducing this resolution, put forward as a main and chief argument in favour of Clôture by a bare majority, that it was a principle that had been adopted by most other Legislative Assemblies; and he founded his appeal most especially on the practice of our Colonies," in which," said he most truly, "the British character is reflected, and which value British freedom not less than we value it."

Premises formulated on such high authority at once become current coin. We find them, for instance, in the circular issued on the Clôture by the National Liberal Federation (page 3) :—

"Q.—But is it not un-English, and only adopted by foreigners?

?