and has now made experiments which convince me that the matter which comes out of the glands is real live protoplasm about which I was beginning to feel horrid doubts. Leonard going to build forts.

'Oh Lord, what a set of sons I have, all doing wonders!'

George, to whom this letter was written, had been Second Wrangler and ultimately became Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge and was knighted. He died in 1912, deeply regretted by a multitude of friends, for he was remarkable alike for his social qualities and for his power of work, though the latter, as in his father's case, was sorely obstructed by perpetual illhealth. William Erasmus Darwin, the eldest son, died last year, mourned alike by friends in England and in America, where he had married the sister-in-law of Charles Eliot Norton. The other sons mentioned in the letter survive, and it is to Sir Francis that the world owes the admirable 'Life and Letters' of his father. The eldest son of Horace, the brilliant young Erasmus Darwin, was killed in Flanders last April; a sketch of his fine character is contributed by his cousin Bernard.

Though Emma Darwin was a year older than her husband, she outlived him fourteen years, spending the winter in a pleasant house just outside Cambridge, in the close neighbourhood of three of her sons. The last fifty pages of the book are filled with her letters, written mostly to her daughter Mrs Litchfield, during these fourteen years, that is to say between the age of seventy-four and eighty-eight. In every way they are a wonderful instance of wide interests and keen intelligence retained to the very end of a long life, for they deal not only with family matters great and small, but with literature and politics, all of which are handled with the vigour and good sense of a person in her prime. She helped her son Francis to bring the Biography to a successful conclusion; she delighted in all her grandchildren, and, if at any time she differed with their young mothers on questions of bringing up, she was careful not to interfere. She read constantly, especially biography and novels, and confessed with a certain shame at eighty-six years of age that she was consuming novels at the rate of a volume a day. In this she was like her husband, for he, as his daughter declares, was always 'falling in love' with one Vol. 224.-No. 445.

20

heroine or another; but Mrs Darwin was more critical, knowing Miss Austen by heart, making fun of Miss Yonge, discriminating between the good and bad in Mrs Gaskell, and positively 'hating' Thackeray's women. She was deeply interested in the life of F. D. Maurice, but confessed to finding some difficulty in The Foundations of Belief'; she enjoyed Greville and the Princess Lieven, but did not enjoy 'wading through' Emerson. Of poetry she read little; attempted 'Paradise Regained' 'out of compliment to Mr Bright who used to read it through every Sunday,' and with regard to Wordsworth greatly preferred the 'caustic and amusing' essay of Lowell to the mild enthusiasm of Principal Shairp. In politics, again, she followed with the keenest interest the events and debates in and about Ireland all through the Land League time and the first Home Rule crisis. She was an ardent Unionist, having been, like most of her kindred, a staunch Whig-Liberal all her life; and at a critical moment in the 1886 debates, she writes, 'I am in a fever of anxiety that Chamberlain and Trevelyan don't give way, and then I think Gladstone must collapse.' But with all this literary and political keenness to the end of her days, her character remained what it always had been, clear-sighted on moral questions, deeply affectionate, scrupulous not to hurt or offend, and absolutely unselfish. She embodied, in fact, all the best characteristics of the three families which she represented, and of which this book gives us the history in such a pleasant form. Captious people may object that to a certain extent they formed a mutual admiration society. If they did, it was excusable; but it is much more true to say that they formed a society for mutual affection; and affection is what each and all of them deserved.

HUMPHRY WARD.

FENGE FUBLIC LIBRARY.

DENGE FUERVICE!BRARY

Art. 15.-NATIONAL SERVICE.

THE retreat of the Russian armies before the flood of Teutonic invasion roused a great part of the nation to the grave danger which would confront the country if a similar misfortune should befall the Allied armies in France. Six months ago the Russians had entered on a career of conquest in the Carpathians; and their positions on the remainder of the front, having withstood repeated attacks, seemed impregnable. The change was sudden and dramatic. Within two days of the first boom of the German guns on the Dunajetz, the great retreat which still continues had begun.

Many people, who for months had lived in a world of dreams and illusions, created by optimists who depicted Germany as in a state approaching military and economic exhaustion, and Russia as possessing unlimited resources, began to wonder whether it was wise to rely on our Allies to win the war for us, and to ask what we had done to help them. It had already been publicly asserted that a deficiency of munitions had hampered our army in the field and exposed it to excessive loss; and inconsistent and evasive ministerial utterances did not allay anxiety. The public statement referred to was corroborated by the information, which leaked out from private sources at the front, that the shortage of artillery ammunition was so great that batteries had been placed on a very limited allowance per diem, which they could not exceed without special orders. It was realised that, just as our preparations for war had been inadequate, so, after nine months of war, the arrangements for providing the army with means to fight were still seriously defective.

It was not to be supposed that the Government had been ignorant of this deplorable state of affairs; and they were blamed for their remissness in a matter so vital to the success, and even safety, of the army. A prominent member of the late Government made the astounding admission that, if our preparations had been defective, the people, and not the Government, were to blame, because the public had not made its voice heard on the subject. Those who should have led had waited

for a lead. Now, in response to public pressure, the Ministry was reconstructed and a Munitions Department was established, which took in hand the organisation of our manufacturing resources.

But public attention had been concentrated on the Army; and a great many who had been content to play at follow-my-leader along the pleasant path of selfdeception, began to think that leaders who had proved remiss in some important respects might be equally wanting in others. It was found that recruiting had fallen off, despite successive urgent appeals and the exercise of various forms of pressure. It was also found that numbers of skilled men had been taken from indispensable industries, restricting the output of munitions and the export trade; and that a large proportion of married men had been enlisted, causing hardship to individuals and a large expenditure on account of separation allowances; while thousands of young bachelors, who had responded neither to appeal nor pressure, were profitably filling the vacancies of the more patriotic. Anxiety was felt as to the ability of a system so unfair and inefficient to provide and equip an army strong enough to fulfil our obligations to the Allies, and to safeguard our own interests in the struggle for the freedom of Europe. It was seen that we are fighting a great nation in arms with a fraction of our resources. If the Government wanted a lead they were given it by a section of the Press which asked whether it was wise to risk defeat, when, by developing our full power, victory might be made as certain as anything can be in war. Our Allies had accepted the obligation of personal service for all citizens of military age. We alone had untouched reserves. What right had we to evade a similar obligation?

The mention of obligatory service raised a storm of opposition in another section of the Press which had always opposed preparation for war, and which was pledged to the voluntary system as an article of political faith. Ignoring the fact that the question at issue was purely one of military expediency, they discussed it with all the heat and partiality which characterise political controversy. The more responsible papers on this side

opposed the suggestion with time-worn academic arguments which, long since discredited, have been refuted by recent experience. We hear less of the once popular assertion that one volunteer is worth three pressed men,' for the so-called 'conscript armies' have shown their mettle on many battlefields, and it would imply too outrageous an insult to our valiant Allies. But other stock arguments were paraded in full strength. Compulsion, it was said, is opposed to the genius-presumably the inclination or prejudice-of the nation. But inclinations must yield to necessity; and our independence is more important than our prejudices. It was urged that National Service would dislocate our industries, the fact being ignored that this is precisely what the voluntary system has done; and that Germany, while keeping vast armies in the field, has worked her essential industries at far higher pressure than in peace, and maintained a superiority in all the material of war. It was further objected that to alter our system during war would be as foolish as to change horses when crossing a stream. This objection, like the proverbial philosophy on which it relies, leaves untouched the vital question, What should be done if the horses break down? Is it better to leave the waggon in mid-stream, and fall to wringing one's hands helplessly on the bank, or to make a manly effort to replace the exhausted team? Again, it was pointed out that the voluntary system had done much more than had been expected; that a great army had been raised by voluntary effort; that we had already done more for the Alliance than we had undertaken to do; and lastly, that it was not proved that the system had failed to supply our needs. It was, however, obviously irrelevant to point to what had been done, the question being, Had we done enough to ensure victory? and if not, what more could be done? And it was clearly impossible for the Government to give proofs of either the adequacy or inadequacy of our recruiting system without disclosing information concerning the state of our resources, present and prospective, which would be of infinite value to the enemy.

When argument had failed, a less scrupulous section of the Press set itself to oppose the new movement tooth and nail, regardless of consequences. Finding that the