17 
bigotry, would certainly have known better. Reverting to the 
theory of natural selection, he remarked that it had been objected 
that if it were true some signs of its action would be found in 
domesticated animals. He thought, however, that it was un- 
reasonable to expect this, as in the artificial state of existence 
implied by domestication, animals were probably subjected to 
different modes of action of this law, as compared with those in a 
state of nature. Another objection was that no one had ever 
witnessed the process of development which it was alleged took 
place. When, however, the shortness of human life was considered, 
compared with that of many species; the extremely small develop- 
ment of most ; and still more, how rarely the faculty of observation 
was found directed to such subjects as the appearance, variation, 
and extinction of any form of life, it was not surprising that such 
things had not been noticed. He asked if it was not probable 
that natural selection by variation of species and consequent de- 
velopment was continually going on around us, though unrecognised 
by reason of the extreme slowness of the process, and the close 
observation needed to perceive it. As no one had ever witnessed 
the development, certainly no one had ever witnessed the creation 
of a new species, and therefore the objection was not worth much, 
and seemed very much like a begging of the question. Mr. Huxley 
had said of Darwin that it was his misfortune to know more of his 
subject than any other man, and this was possibly the cause, in 
part at least, of the number of ignorant critiques upon his works. 
With regard to the ultimate truth of his theory, three things were 
necessary to prove it—firstly, to show that the phenomena referred - 
to really existed in Nature ; secondly, that the assumed causes of 
the phenomena were sufficient to produce them ; and, lastly, that 
no other causes were sufficient. He thought that Mr. Darwin had 
shown good reason to believe that the phenomena really existed in 
Nature, and that the assumed causes were sufficient to produce 
them ; but in the third requirement he had not, perhaps, as yet, 
quite succeeded, though he had accounted satisfactorily for most of 
the phenomena which were seen around them. It must be re- 
membered, however, that Mr. Darwin’s theory was, in the very 
nature of things, incapable of logical proof, as the alleged facts 
were of so wide and comprehensive a nature, and embraced such 
enormous periods for their accomplishment, that all that could be 
done was to reason by induction in the matter. There was, however, ” 
another difficulty. In order to prove the truth of his theory, Mr. 
Darwin ought to be able to show that it was possible to produce 
from a particular stock, by selective breeding, two forms which 
should either be unable to cross with one another, or whose cross- 
bred offspring should be infertile with one another. This had not 
_as yet been done. It would, however, be rash to say that it could 
not be done, as so little was known of the laws which rendered 
