the existence of right and wrong. On the other hand, no brute has the faculty of articulate, rational speech: most persons will also admit that brutes are not capable of truly concerted action, and we contend most confidently that they have no self-consciousness, properly so called, and no perception of the difference between truth and falsehood and right and wrong.

Let us now consider Mr. Darwin's facts in favour of an opposite conclusion.

First, his testimony drawn from his own experience and information regarding the lowest races of men.

Secondly, the anecdotes he narrates in favour of the intelligence of brutes.

In the first place, we have to thank our author for very distinct and unqualified statements as to the substantial unity of men's mental powers. Thus he tells us :

'The Fuegians rank amongst the lowest barbarians; but I was continually struck with surprise how closely the three natives on board H.M.S. "Beagle," who had lived some years in England, and could talk a little English, resembled us in disposition, and in most of our mental qualities.'-Vol. i. p. 34.

Again he adds:

'The American aborigines, Negroes, and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, showing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.'-Vol. i. p. 232.

Again:- Differences of this kind (mental) between the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages are connected by the finest gradations' (vol. i. p. 35).

Mr. Darwin, then, plainly tells us that all the essential mental characters of civilised man are found in the very lowest races of men, though in a less completely developed state; while, in comparing their mental powers with those of

VOL. II.

C

brutes, he says, 'No doubt the difference in this respect is enormous' (vol. i. p. 34). As if, however, to diminish the force of this admission, he remarks, what no one would dream of disputing, that there are psychical phenomena common to men and to other animals. He says of man that

'He uses in common with the lower animals inarticulate cries to express his meaning, aided by gestures and the movements of the muscles of the face. This especially holds good with the more simple and vivid feelings, which are but little connected with the higher intelligence. Our cries of pain, fear, surprise, anger, together with their appropriate actions, and the murmur of a mother to her beloved child, are more expressive than any words.'-Vol. i. p. 54.

But, inasmuch as it is admitted on all hands that man is an animal, and therefore has all the four lower faculties enumerated in our list, as well as the two higher ones, the fact that he makes use of common instinctive actions in no way diminishes the force of the distinction between him and brutes, as regards the representative, reflective faculties. It rather follows as a matter of course from his animality that he should manifest phenomena common to him and to brutes. That man has a common nature with them is perfectly compatible with his having, besides, a superior nature and faculties of which no brute has any rudiment or vestige. Indeed, all the arguments and objections in Mr. Darwin's second chapter may be met by the fact that man being an animal, has corresponding faculties, whence arises a certain external conformity with other animals as to the modes of expressing some mental modifications. In the overlooking of this possibility of coexistence of two natures, lies that error of negation to which we before alluded. Here, as in other parts of the book, we may say there are two quantities a and a+x, and Mr. Darwin, seeing the two as but neglecting the x, represents the quantities as equal.

We will now notice the anecdotes narrated by Mr. Darwin

in support of the rationality of brutes. Before doing so, however, we must remark that our author's statements, given on the authority (sometimes second-hand authority) of others, afford little evidence of careful criticism. This is the more noteworthy when we consider the conscientious care and pains which he bestows on all the phenomena which he examines himself.

Thus, for example, we are told on the authority of Brehm that

'An eagle seized a young cercopithecus, which, by clinging to a branch, was not at once carried off; it cried loudly for assistance, upon which other members of the troop, with much uproar, rushed to the rescue, surrounded the eagle, and pulled out so many feathers that he no longer thought of his prey, but only how to escape.'-Vol. i. p. 76.

We confess we wish that Mr. Darwin had himself witnessed this episode. Perhaps, however, he has seen other facts sufficiently similar to render this one credible. In the absence of really trustworthy evidence we should, however, be inclined to doubt the fact of a young cercopithecus, unexpectedly seized, being able, by clinging, to resist the action of an eagle's wings.

We are surprised that Mr. Darwin should have accepted the following tale without suspicion :

'One female baboon had so capacious a heart that she not only adopted young monkeys of other species, but stole young dogs and cats which she continually carried about. Her kindness, however, did not go so far as to share her food with her adopted offspring, at which Brehm was surprised, as his monkeys always divided everything quite fairly with their own young ones. An adopted kitten scratched the above-mentioned affectionate baboon, who certainly had a fine intellect, for she was much astonished at being scratched, and immediately examined the kitten's feet, and without more ado bit off the claws' (!!). —Vol. i. p. 41.

Has Mr. Darwin ever tested this alleged fact? Would it

be possible for a baboon to bite off the claws of a kitten without keeping the feet perfectly straight?

Again, we have an anecdote on only second-hand authority (namely a quotation by Brehm of Schimper) to the following effect:

In Abyssinia, when the baboons belonging to one species (C. gelada) descend in troops from the mountains to plunder the fields, they sometimes encounter troops of another species (C. hamadryas), and then a fight ensues. The Geladas roll down great stones, which the Hamadryas try to avoid, and then both species, making a great uproar, rush furiously against each other. Brehm, when accompanying the Duke of Coburg-Gotha, aided in an attack with firearms on a troop of baboons in the Pass of Mensa in Abyssinia. The baboons in return rolled so many stones down the mountain, some as large as a man's head, that the attackers had to beat a hasty retreat; and the pass was actually for a time closed against the caravan. It deserves notice that these baboons thus acted in concert.'-Vol. i. p. 51.

Now, if every statement of fact here given be absolutely correct, it in no way even tends to invalidate the distinction we have drawn between 'instinct' and 'reason'; but the positive assertion that the brutes 'acted in concert,' when the evidence proves nothing more than that their actions were. simultaneous, shows a strong bias on the part of the narrator. A flock of sheep will simultaneously turn round and stare and stamp at an intruder; but this is not 'concerted action,' which means that actions are not only simultaneous, but are so in consequence of a reciprocal understanding and convention between the various agents. It may be added that if any brutes were capable of such really concerted action, the effects would soon make themselves known to us so forcibly as to prevent the possibility of mistake.

We come now to Mr. Darwin's instances of brute rationality. In the first place he tells us :

'I had a dog who was savage and averse to all strangers, and I purposely tried his memory after an absence of five years and two

days. I went near the stable where he lived, and shouted to him in my old manner; he showed no joy, but instantly followed me out walking and obeyed me, exactly as if I had parted with him only half an hour before. A train of old associations, dormant during five years, had thus been instantaneously awakened in his mind.'-Vol i. p. 45.

No doubt! but this is not 'reason.' Indeed, we could hardly have a better instance of the mere action of associated sensible impressions. What is there here which implies more than memory, impressions of sensible objects and their association? Had there been reason there would have been signs of joy and wonder, though such signs would not alone prove reason to exist. It is evident that Mr. Darwin's own mode of explanation is the sufficient one-namely, by a train of associated sensible impressions. Mr. Darwin surely cannot think that there is in this case any evidence of the dog's having put to himself those questions which, under the circumstances, a rational being would put. Mr. Darwin also tells us how a monkey-trainer gave up in despair the education of monkeys of which the attention was easily distracted from his teaching, while a monkey which carefully attended to him could always be trained.' But attention' does not imply reason.' The anecdote only shows that some monkeys are more easily impressed and more retentive of impressions than others.

Again, we are told, as an instance of reason, that 'Rengger sometimes put a live wasp in paper so that the monkeys in hastily unfolding it got stung; after this had once happened, they always first held the packet to their ears to detect any movement within.' But here again we have no need to call in the aid of reason.' The monkeys had had the group of sensations 'folded paper' associated with the other groups— 'noise and movement' and 'stung fingers.' The second time they experience the group of sensations folded paper' the