298 Sir William E. Grove [April 20, 



apparently must do, there must be friction or antagonism of some 

 kind. So with organized beings, Nature only recognizes the right, 

 or rather the power, of the strongest. If twenty men be wrecked on 

 a secluded island which will only suj^port ten, which tea have a right 

 to the produce of the island ? Nature gives no voice, and the strongest 

 take it. You may further ask me, Cui bono f what is the use of this 

 disquisition ? I should answer, If the views be true, it is always useful 

 to know the truth. The greatest discoveries have aj^peared useless at 

 the time. Kepler's discovery of the relations of the i)lanetary move- 

 ments ai)peared of no use at the time ; no one would now pronounce 

 it useless. I can, however, see much probable utility in the doctrine 

 I have advocated. The conviction of the necessity of antagonism, 

 and that without it there would be no light, heat, electricity, or life, 

 may teach us (assuming free will) to measure efibrt by the in-obable 

 result and to estimate the degree of probability. It may teach us not 

 to waste our powers on fruitless objects, but to utilise and regulate 

 this necessity of existence ; for, if my views are correct, too much or 

 too little is bad, and a due proportion is good (like many other useful 

 things, it is best in moderation), to accept it rather as a boon than a 

 bane, and to know that we cannot do good without effort — that is, 

 without some suffering. 



I have si^oken of antagonism as jjcrvading the universe. Is there, 

 vou may ask, any limit in point of time or sj)ace to force ? If there 

 be so, there must be a limit to antagonism. It is said that heat tends 

 to dissipate itself, and all things necessarily to acquii'c a uniform 

 temperature. This would in time tend practically, though not abso- 

 lutely, to the annihilation of force and to universal death ; but if 

 there be evidence of this in our solar system and what we know of 

 some parts of the universe, which probably is but little, is there no 

 conceivable means of reaction or regeneration of active heat ? There 

 is some evidence of a probable zero of temperature for gases as v^e 

 know them, i. e. a temperature so low that at it matter could not exist 

 in a gaseous form ; but passing over gases and liquids, if matter 

 becomes solid by loss of heat, such solid matter would coalesce, 

 masses would be formed, these w^ould gravitate to each other, and 

 come into collision. It would be the nebular hypothesis over again. 

 Condensations and collisions would again generate heat ; and so on 

 ad infinitum. 



Collisions in the visible universe are probably more frequent than 

 is usually supi)osed. New nebulfe appear where there were none 

 before, as recently in the constellation of Andromeda. Mr. Lockyer, 

 as I have said, considers that they are constant in the nebulae ; and 

 if there be such a number of meteorites as are stated to fall daily into 

 the atmosphere of this insignificant planet, what numbers must there 

 be in the universe ? There must be a sort of fog of metaorites, and 

 this may account, coupled with jDOssibly some dissipation of light or 

 change of it into other forces, for the smaller degree of light than 

 would be expected if the universe of stellar bodies were infinite. 



