i87o— 1882] DESIGN 395 



I entirely agree with what you say about " chance," except Letter 307 

 in relation to the variations of organic beings having been 

 designed ; and I imagine that Mr. Graham must have used 

 "chance" in relation only to purpose in the origination of 

 species. This is the only way I have used the word chance, 

 as I have attempted to explain in the last two pages of my 

 Variation under Domestication. 



On the other hand, if we consider the whole universe, the 

 mind refuses to look at it as the outcome of chance — that is, 

 without design or purpose. The whole question seems to me 

 insoluble, for I cannot put much or any faith in the so-called 

 intuitions of the human mind, which have been developed, as 

 I cannot doubt, from such a mind as animals possess ; and 

 what would their convictions or intuitions be worth ? There 

 are a good many points on which I cannot quite follow Mr. 

 Graham. 



With respect to your last discussion, I dare say it contains 

 very much truth ; but I cannot see, as far as happiness is 

 concerned, that it can apply to the infinite sufferings of 

 animals — not only those of the body, but those of the mind — 

 as when a mother loses her offspring or a male his female. If 

 the view does not apply to animals, will it suffice for man ? 

 But you may well complain of this long and badly-expressed 

 note in my dreadfully bad handwriting. 



The death of my brother Erasmus is a very heavy loss to 

 all of us in this family. He was so kind-hearted and affec- 

 tionate. Nor have I ever known any one more pleasant. It 

 was always a very great pleasure to talk with him on any 

 subject whatever, and this I shall never do again. The 

 clearness of his mind always seemed to me admirable. He 

 was not, I think, a happy man, and for many years did not 

 value life, though never complaining. I am so glad that he 

 escaped very severe suffering during his last few days. I 

 shall never see such a man again. 



Forgive me for scribbling this way, my dear Farrer. 



To G. J. Romanes. 



Romanes had reviewed Roux's Struggle of Parts in the Organism in 

 Nature, Sept. 20th, 1881, p. 505. This led to an attack by the Duke 

 of Argyll (Oct. 20th, p. 581), followed by a reply by Romanes 

 (Oct. 27th, p. 604), a rejoinder by the Duke (Nov. 3rd, p. 6), and 



Letter 30S 



