32 HOMO V. DARWIN. 



also numerous other chains connecting the various monkey 

 and other tribes, now living, with some common pro- 

 genitor, not only does Mr. Darwin fail to produce those 

 chains, he cannot produce even a fossil link of one of them. 

 Now, my Lord, I submit that this can be accounted for only 

 on the supposition, either that these chains of descent are 

 entirely imaginary and never existed, or that the creatures 

 composing them were cannibals, and so devoured one 

 miother bones and all 



Lord C. A7e come, then, to this conclusion, Mr. Darwin ; 

 that as to " the ape-like progenitors of man," connecting 

 him with this " hairy quadruped," not only is the chain of 

 descent missing, but all the links of the chain as well. You 

 are unable to produce any one of those links. But further,- 

 according to your hypothesis, every distinct species of 

 animal now existing is descended from the same primary 

 stock with man. There must, therefore, have been " a 

 series of forms graduating insensibly " from the primary 

 creature, whatever it was, to each distinct kind of animal 

 now existing. In short, there must have been chains of 

 des ent as numerous as present living species. If you could 

 produce some of these chains of descent, or even one of 

 them, it would go so far towards rendering it probable 

 that man, also, has his chain of descent, though, un- 

 fortunately, every link of it is missing. But, as in the 

 case of man, so in the case of all other species you cannot 

 {how the chain of descent of one of them, or produce fossil 

 evidence that it ever existed. 



Darwin. As I have already remarked, my Lord, " no one 

 will lay much stress on this fact, who will read Sir Charles 

 Lyell's discussion." 



