100 HCMO V. DARWm. 



other animals to possess these faculties ; then, why not 

 the lafc ? 



Lord C. Mr. Darwin speaks of the dog having "pro- 

 gressed in affection, trustworthiness, temper, and probably 

 in general intelligence." Does he try to show that the 

 dog of to-day is in advance of the dog of a thousand years 

 ago in these qualities ? 



Homo. Mr. Darwin, my Lord, does not attempt to show 

 that the dog has advanced. I believe it would be impossible 

 for him to show that any animal whatever, from the Ascidian 

 up to the ape has advanced, unless it be those that have done 

 BO through the skill and care of man himself, or by their 

 otherwise coming into contact with him. 



Lord G. On this point, then, we come to the conclusion 

 that, while certain of the lower animals are capable of 

 improvement in some of their instincts or faculties, within 

 a certain limited range, we have no proof that any of them 

 are capable of indefinite j^rogressive improvement as man is. 

 What is the next point ? 



Darwin. "The Duke of Argyll remarks," my Lord, 

 " that the fashioning of an implement for a special purpose 

 is absolutely peculiar to man ; and he considers that this 

 forms an unmeasurable gulf between him and the brutes. 

 It is no doubt a very important distinction, but there 

 appears to me much truth in Sir J. Lubbock's suggestion, 

 that when primeval man first used flint stones for any 

 purpose, he would have accidentally splintered them, and 

 would then have used the sharp fragments. From this step 

 it would be a small one to intentionally break the flints, 

 and not a very wide step to rudely fashion them." (Vol. i. 

 pp. 52, 53.) 



Lord G. Granting what you say to be true, Mr. Darwin, 

 it neither closes, nor bridges over, the gulf between man 



