74 HOMO V. DARWIN. 



Lord G. I quite think so, though I am glad to find Mr. 

 Darwin's system recognizes the Creator. 



Darwin. " With respect to development," my Lord, " we 

 can clearly understand, on the principle of variations super- 

 vening at a rather late embryonic period, and being in- 

 herited at a corresponding period, how it is that the embryos 

 of wonderfully different forms should still retain, more or 

 less perfectly, the structure of their common progenitor." 

 (Vol. i. p. 32.) 



Lord C. You speak of " variations supervening at a rather 

 late embryonic period, and being inherited at a corresponding 

 period," but what proof have you that such variations ever 

 either supervened or were inherited ? Are you not here in- 

 troducing a new hypothesis to sustain your old one ? 



Darwin. " No other explanation," my Lord, " has ever 

 been given of the marvellous fact that the embryos of man, 

 dog, seal, reptile, &c., can at first hardly be distinguished 

 from each other." (Vol. i. p. 32.) 



Homo. My Lord, why should Mr. Darwin make anything 

 of this " marvellous fact," when it results from another yet 

 more marvellous fact, which he would have us accept, viz., 

 that the germ from which man is developed " differs in no 

 respect from the germs of other animals." If the germs 

 " differ in no respect," this would lead us, d priori, to 

 expect that the embryos proceeding from those germs, 

 instead of being hardly distinguishable from each other, 

 would not be distinguished from each other at all. But 

 this is only another of the reckless statements put forth by 

 Mr. Darwin. Your Lordship has seen in the drawing he 

 has supplied to us, that the embryos of man and dog, at an 

 " early stage of development," present differences which 

 might be pointed out by a child. Besides this, the ten- 



