FALSE PHILOSOPHY. 247 



As long, however, as we find naturalists, of name 

 and character, and, in many respects, philosophical 

 rather than otherwise, attributing to animals something 

 like a " reasoning upon cause and effect," when they 

 find a crow lifting a periwinkle up in the air, letting 

 it fall upon a rock, and descending again to eat the 

 fish from the broken shell, so long must there be " a 

 great gulf fixed' 7 between living nature and useful phi- 

 losophy ; because, there are very few of the habits of 

 animals, or even of plants, that do not display quite as 

 much " reasoning upon cause and effect." Man 

 reasons upon cause and effect, but he does not break 

 the shell of the periwinkle in that way, he lays it 

 down upon one stone, and gives it a blow with another; 

 and if the crow reasoned, it is probable she would do 

 the same, as by lifting up a stone, and letting it fall, 

 she would save a good deal of labour. By so doing, 

 she might, indeed, miss the periwinkle ; but that is 

 the very thing that is done by those who " reason upon 

 cause and effect;" whereas, the conduct of the animal, 

 in a state of nature, is never erroneous, simply because 

 there is no weighing of motives. The duckling that 

 waddles to the water, even when it has been hatched 

 by a hen, does not go there from any knowledge that 

 its webbed feet are well adapted for swimming, or that 

 there is food more suited for it there than upon the 

 land. 



In every thing, in short, that we can observe or ex- 

 amine in nature, whether it be organized or not, we 

 find that all is perfect, that nothing needs instruction 

 in order to adapt it for the circumstances in which it is 

 placed. If it be but a particle of water if the proper 



