16 HOMO V. DARWIN. 



in his own way. Of course, you are not bound by his 

 conclusions. 



Homo. But is it not necessary, my Lord, that the facts — so 

 called — on which he bases bis hypothesis, should be verified ? 

 Mr. Darwin says himself that " false facts are highly in- 

 jurious to the progress of science." (Vol. ii. p. 385.) Can 

 the unverified observations then, of two foreign gentlemen, 

 afford a suflBcient ground for the affirmation that the root 

 of human nature is to be found in a tadpole ; or that a 

 worm, by a numberless succession of improvements, has 

 developed into man ? 



Lord C. If, for the sake of argument, you will accept as 

 facts what Mr. Darwin advances as facts, we shall be the better 

 able to test the value of his hypothesis. Mr. Darwin, 1 am 

 sure, would not knowingly put forward false statements. 



Homo. I do not suppose he would, my Lord, for exposure 

 would be certain ; but it is quite possible that over-fond- 

 ness for his hypothesis, the child of his own brain, might 

 make him less careful than he should be in accepting the 

 statements of others. Indeed, he repeatedly errs in this 

 direction, as I could easily show your Lordship. But I am 

 quite willing to adopt your Lordship's suggestion. We shall, 

 for the sake of argument, suppose Mr. Darwin's facts to be 

 real facts. But I shall take the liberty, when I think it 

 needful, of pointing out their unsatisfactory character. 



Lord C. You will be quite right in doing so. To return 

 then to our argument. Mr. Darwin, it appears, maintains 

 that our line of descent, if traced backwards, as far as he 

 can reach, would lead us to creatures somewhat resembling 

 in shape the tadpoles of the present day. 



Darwin. What I say, my Lord, is this : "The most ancient 

 progenitors in the kingdom of the Vertebrata (to which 

 kingdom man belongs), at which we are able to obtain an 



