MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 183 
ss, the laws of which are for the most part 
own), aided by the subordinate action of 
atural selection,” it seems to me that I enunciate 
2? proposition which constitutes the very pith and 
ow of the first edition of the “ Origin of 
ies.’ And what the evolutionist stands in 
need of just now, is not an iteration of the funda- 
mental principle of Darwinism, but some light 
é “upon the questions, What are the limits of varia- 
tion ? and, Ifa variety has arisen, can that variety 
be perpetuated, or even intensified, when selective 
_ conditions are indifferent, or perhaps unfavourable 
to its. existence? I cannot find that Mr. Darwin 
has ever been very dogmatic in answering these 
sf "questions. Formerly, he seems to have inclined 
to reply to them in the negative, while now his 
Sinclination i is the other way. Leaving aside those 
broad questions of theology, philosophy, and 
ethics, by the discussion of which neither the 
Quarterly Reviewer nor Mr. Mivart can be said to 
have damaged Darwinism—whatever~else they 
have injured—this is what their criticisms come 
- to. They confound a struggle for some rifle-pits 
with an assault on the fortress. 
In some respects, finally, I can only characterise 
the Quarterly Reviewer’s treatment of Mr. Darwin 
| as alike unjust and unbecoming. Language of 
this strength requires justification, and on that 
¢ ground I add the remarks which follow. 
_ The Quarterly Reviewer opens his essay by a 
