designated "the mystery of mysteries," viz., the exercise of creative power, in distinction from the results of animal instinct and the effects of surrounding circumstances. We cannot, however, but remark, at the outset, on the very meagre support which our opponents have been able to give to the Development Theory, and the very subdued tone in which they have spoken its praise. We cannot also but express our surprise, that neither of the preceding writers on this question have favoured us with a definition of the principal terms used in the debate; and we shall at once attempt to supply this their lack of service.

The word "Development" signifies an unfolding, and for some time. was principally employed to express those organic changes which take place in animal and vegetable bodies, from their embryo state until they arrive at maturity; but it has at the present time a much wider application, and is of very frequent occurrence in the composition of our would-be-thought profound ones. By the Development Theory is meant that speculation of philosophers which attributes the present order of things, and the variety in plants and animals, to the working of certain laws impressed upon matter, rather than to the creative fiat of an all-wise and all-powerful God. Hence, in 1748, Demaillet propounded his theory of the origin of different kinds of animals from one another. He taught the direct transmutation of individuals, through altered circumstances and volitional impulses. By way of illustration, he supposed that a flying fish, blown on to land, might, by some efforts of its own, aided by some internal forces, become gradually metamorphosed into a bird! In 1809, Lamarck, a most profound naturalist, gave a more scientific aspect to this transmutation theory. "He supposed the necessary metamorphoses to occur, not in individuals, but in a succession of individuals, and to be produced by accumulated changes, the result of certain adaptations between long-continued alteration in external conditions, such as heat or cold, dryness or moisture, or other surrounding influences, and continuously inherited internal tendencies and powers of many generations of individuals." 'He supposed that the whole series of animals commenced from two primordial stocks, viz., a worm, and an infusorial animalcule, the earliest beginnings of each of which originated in a direct or spontaneous generation! The former line he imagined to pass through worms, barnacles, and shell-fish; and the latter through infusorial monad, polypes, starfish, insects, spiders, and crabs,—both to meet in fishes, from which the vertebrata, including man, were in gradual procession derived!"

66

In the year 1846 this theory attracted great attention by the publication of that clever but unsatisfactory book, the "Vestiges of Creation." It is unnecessary for us here to state the peculiar views advanced by the author of this work, as our friend, "L'Ouvrier" has already so fully noticed them (page 176). To show, however, the dangerous tendency of the book, we may remind our readers that it was published anonymously, and that a little time ago, a

popular author and publisher was most anxious to clear himself from the accusation of being concerned in its authorship!

The absurdity of this Development Theory, when stripped of its technical terms, is very apparent. Disraeli thus amusingly expounds it :-"You know," says he, "all is development. The principle is perpetually going on. First, there was-Nothing. Then there was-Something. Then (I forget the next) I think there were shells-then fishes-then we came. Let me see-did we come next? Never mind that; we came at last. And the next change there will be something very superior-something with wings! Ah! that's it: we were fishes; and I believe we shall be-crows!"

Ridicule appears a lawful weapon to employ in combating such hypotheses as these, and ably has a writer in a recent publication used it, a somewhat lengthened sample of which we are tempted to quote :-" You visit the monkeys in some great zoological collection. If yonder orang-otang or chimpanzee could speak, as animals used to do, in the days of the fabulists (and very sensibly, too, in general), what sort of an harangue would it deliver? Gentlemen of the human species,' it might say, 'You may laugh at us as much as you choose. Quid vetai? It is very true that we are clumsy, inelegant brutes. I admit it. Our arms are undoubtedly very long and ungainly. The toes of our feet are turned inwards, and in consequence we are compelled to waddle along in a rather facetious way. Our thick lips, wrinkled cheeks, and protruding snouts, do not exactly constitute the most prepossessing features in the world. I grant, too, that our facial angle-so your Mr. Camper called it, when he measured us with his callipers, as he pretended to do everything, from a mouse to a Bourbon-is shockingly small. In fact, I am free to confess, that my cousin, the baboon, yonder, is as hideous a fellow as ever lived. And our habits, you say, are low and grovelling? By no means improbable! We don't pretend to be fit creatures to sit down at fine tables, or lounge in gilded drawingrooms. But what of all this? Just a word in your ear, gentlemen. Are you aware that you and we have come from the same stock, that we are all descended from one common ancestor; that we, vile, despicable brutes, as you deem us, are, in truth, bone of your bone, and flesh of your flesh? Yes, my dainty young lady (you with the gay parasol and copious crinoline), pray don't look so indignant when I venture to suggest that there would be nothing particularly outrageous (that's my candid opinion) in your selecting a husband from this very menagerie. I am willing to make you an offer myself. It is true, we are only poor relations,' as one of your would-be wits has styled us; but the simple difference between us is, that you have got on faster in the world than ourselves, and consequently hold your heads a little higher than you had ought. Consult the writings of Monsieur Lamarck on the subject. He is my authority. You can't surely object to the testimony of one of your own conceited species. I would recommend you, therefore, to be a little more civil. Let us be on friendlier terms for the future. Remem

ber, that if we are not exactly men, we are next door to humanity; if not brothers, we can yet boast of the same lineage, and are entitled to wear the same coat of arms as yourselves. Such as I am now, such was once the very, very great grandfather of your race, and, therefore, when you next stir us up,' be pleased to do it with a little more tenderness, and if not with fraternal leniency, yet with some recollection of the respect which is due to the common progenitor of men and monkeys."-British Quarterly Review, April, 1860.

It is not surprising that a theory which involved such manifest absurdities as these should, in this stage of its "development," have been generally rejected by intelligent naturalists, and supported only by a few sceptical philosophers. It was, however, reserved for Mr. Darwin, by the publication of his admitted erudite work on the " Origin of Species," to bring about that metamorphosis in the Development Theory which tardy nature has never yet been known to effect in any living being.

By "Species" has been usually understood a collection of individuals that are alike in every character, not capable of change by any accidental circumstances, and capable of uniform, invariable, and permanent continuance by propagation. All changes produced by accidental causes, in individuals of a species, indicate and mark what are called varieties. But Mr. Darwin, in opposition to these views, maintains that species are mutable, and that by what he calls the "principle of natural selection." What we have considered mere temporary varieties, are capable, in lengthened periods, of producing species, and even genera, and orders; and following out this train of thought, he infers, "from analogy, that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator.'

Mr. Darwin's reputation as a naturalist, his careful and extensive observations and investigations, and, above all, the candid and truthful spirit in which he has written on this subject, have secured for his views no ordinary amount of attention. There are those who eagerly espouse his views, on account of their novelty and ingenuity; and there are not wanting others, who welcome them because they see in them the limitation of the idea of the exercise of creative wisdom and power. At the same time, it is important to know, on account of the bearing of the fact upon the credibility of the theory itself, that some of those who, for the reason last stated, might be expected to receive Mr. Darwin's views with extacies, candidly confess that they are far from being consistent throughout, and are to be regarded as merely introductory to something higher (?) Thus, the well-known anti-religious Westminster Review says,After much consideration, and with assuredly no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear conviction that, as the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by species in nature, has ever been

originated by selection, artificial or natural." Such, then, being the fact, and as little or nothing has been advanced by the affirmative writers in this debate in defence of Mr. Darwin's modifications of an old theory, we may at present dismiss them without further

comment.

A few words respecting the affirmative articles seem called for. That in the last number of the Controversialist, by “Delta," is of a singularly unsatisfactory nature. The remarks with which he opens are quite gratuitous and uncalled for; and the vigilance with which religious men watch the discussion of all subjects having a bearing upon the truth of the Scripture, is a pleasing sign of the times;-it is no manifestation of fear or anger, but a proof of the fact that Piety has found

66

Friends in the friends of science, and true prayer

Has flowed from lips wet with Castilian dews."

The beautiful extract with which "Delta" favours us from the Quarterly Review, occurs in a negative article on this very question, and may be taken as expressive of the views of the disparaged "pietists" as well as of his own. The assertion of our opponent, that “it is chiefly by the facts of every-day life in the natural world that the theory is and must be supported," is very damaging to his cause; for while Mr. Darwin's work abounds with most interesting facts and statements, they supply no direct evidence in support of his theory. Throughout the whole range of nature there is not, and, as far as we can learn, never has been, any development of new organs in animals, nor any proof of the transmutation of animals from the lower to the higher forms. When, therefore, a little further on, "Delta" informs us, "that all organic life has descended from a few primordial forms," we ask him for the facts of every-day life" which support this statement, and wait with interest for them to be brought forward.

We cannot but express our admiration of the healthy religious spirit and reverent tone which pervade the article by E. M., Jun. ; but we would remind this writer that, if all that he advances were admitted, it would still leave the question of the truth of the Development Theory utterly unestablished. We therefore leave his article without further examination, and beg of its writer to give us something more conclusive, or to admit the weakness of his position.

A. J.

That religion is false which, professing to be intended for the use of all nations, is distorted in its doctrines, and narrowed in its precepts, by the prejudices and manners of any one particular age, and any one particular country. That religion is probably true which, challenging the inquiries, and demanding the obedience of every age and every country, is calculated to promote their temporal as well as eternal interest; to co-operate with every useful quality in their government, laws, and manners; and gradually to correct whatever is defective and injurious in them.-Dr. Parr.

Social Economy.

IS COUNSEL JUSTIFIED IN DEFENDING FROM PUNISHMENT A CRIMINAL OF WHOSE GUILT HE HAS BEEN PROFESSIONALLY MADE COGNIZANT?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-III.

IN taking part in this debate, I may perhaps be permitted to state what, however, some of my readers might doubtlessly discover, that I am neither a barrister nor a lawyer; and, having said thus much, I think it right gently to hint that I have no personal interest whatever to be promoted by the establishment of an affirmative position in the solution of this question.

In the course of this debate, it has been stated that it is not the function of counsel to defend the guilty from the due punishment of his guilt. But the practical question remains unanswered, how is counsel to know that a man is guilty? Surely, this is a question for a jury to decide, after hearing the evidence. It is the duty of counsel to point out any discrepancies in this evidence, so as to prevent the possibility of unfair advantage being taken of a criminal's position. It is a grand principle in the English law, that we are to look upon a man as innocent, until he be proved to be guilty; and it would be an unhappy time for England if this were otherwise.

It appears to us that the question we are called upon to discuss is based upon a pure hypothesis. It has not yet been proved that counsel are ever made cognizant of a prisoner's guilt. How can they be supposed to discover it? Is a criminal to employ a solicitor, and tell him the secret in a similar way to confessing to a Romish priest? and then is the solicitor expected to go to counsel, and inform him that the man admits his guilt? Or is counsel to be called upon to examine the evidence, and form his judgment of such guilt? Assuming that some such a mode could be adopted, and that the unfortunate man would stand at the bar undefended, is it not possible that the judge and jury might be less careful in seeing that he was proved, according to the evidence, to be guilty, in case he pleaded "not guilty"? If so, a man would be transported, or hung, without being fairly and properly tried.

Supposing, again, the possibility of a murder being committed, and of certain individuals, who had a dislike for a person, being wicked enough to give false evidence of that person being the murderer, the man would be committed for trial, a report of the case would be circulated in the newspapers, and, amongst others, counsel might be deceived, and believe the person to be guilty, and, entertaining that belief, counsel would decline to defend him. The man might be ignorant, or nervous, and unable to speak for himself; nda,