FIFTH day's sitting. 117 



that movement, ■without any apparent cause, indicated the 

 presence of some strange living agent, and no stranger had 

 a right to be on his territory." (Vol. i. p. 67.) 



Lord C. The fact you mention, Mr. Darwin, though in- 

 teresting, does not bear on the question before us. If you 

 could show that he reasoned himself into a belief of the 

 supernatural, it would be a case in point. But why should 

 you suppose that your dog " reasoned " on this occasion ? 

 Might he not simply have felt as if the parasol itself, 

 moving without any apparent cause, were some "strange 

 living agent ? " 



Homo. Will your Lordship allow me to quote here a 

 passage from an able review of Mr. Darwin's book, which 

 recently appeared in The Times, and which bears on the 

 point now before us : — " The nearest approach to reasoning 

 which Mr. Darwin can adduce is furnished in two analogous 

 stories respecting dogs. ' Mr. Colquhoun winged two wild 

 ducks, which fell on the opposite side of a stream ; his 

 retriever tried to bring over both at once, but could not 

 succeed ; she then, though previously never known to 

 ruffle a feather, deliberately killed one, brought over the 

 other, and returned for the dead bird.' The case is cer- 

 tainly remarkable ; but it appears to us a very hasty 

 conclusion that the act was rational. The retriever possesses 

 the instinct of not permitting a bird to escape as well as 

 the instinct of not injuring it, and her act would seem 

 simply an instance of one instinct overpowering another. 

 This interpretation is strongly confirmed by the other 

 story. In that case two partridges were shot, one being 

 killed, the other wounded. The latter ran away, and was 

 caught by the retriever, who, on her return, came aoross the 

 dead bird ; ' she stopped, evidently greatly puzzled, and 

 after one or two trials, finding she could not take it up 



