v MR. DARWIN S CRITICS 183 



process, the laws of which are for the most part 

 unknown), aided by the subordinate action of 

 natural selection,&quot; it seems to me that I enunciate 

 a proposition which constitutes the very pith and 

 marrow of the first edition of the &quot; Origin of 

 Species.&quot; And what the evolutionist stands in 

 need of just now, is not an iteration of the funda 

 mental principle of Darwinism, but some light 

 upon the questions, What are the limits of varia 

 tion ? and, If a variety has arisen, can that variety 

 bo 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 

 questions. Formerly, he seems to have inclined 

 to reply to them in the negative, while now his 

 inclination 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- 

 wit h an assault on the fortress. 



In some- respects, finally, I can only characterise 



the Quarterly Reviewer s treatment of Mr. Darwin 



dike unjust and unbecoming. Language of 



this strength requires justification, and on that 



ground 1 add the remarks which follow. 



The Quarterly Reviewer opens his essay by a 



