INSTINCT. 



Individuals and continuing the kind, in other words, a pre- 

 djfpofition to pc-rform certain adions neceirary for thefe 

 ends, when incited by certain feehngs or fenfafions, that 

 its accommodating itfelf to ciicutnilances and iituations ii 

 no argument agaitift its exiilcnce, nor a good proof, that 

 it is tlip rcfult of rcafoning ; liiice He, who made it a 

 jjart of tiie conllitution of his creatures, knows, that the 

 lame ends mull be often fought by dift'erent means, par- 

 ticularly when times, places, and circumilances are altered ; 

 and only manifefts his wifdom and goodncfs the more, by 

 conllituting this principle of fuch a nature, as to vary when 

 requifite, and to change only when fuch a change is necef- 

 fary. Let us add to this, that did He not impart this ac- 

 commodating property to inltinft, it would not produce the 

 effefts for which it feems intended ; as we know it to be 

 impoffible, that limilar means fhould produce fimilar effeiSts, 

 when circuullanecs, climates, and fituations, are different. 

 Indeed this accommodating peculiarity, fo far from being a 

 good argument againll it, is a ncceffary conftquence of m- 

 Itiiidl. The abettors of this principle do not maintain, that 

 the accommodating variations will take place on every occa- 

 fion. They will occur only where the difadvantages exift, 

 againft which the inltinft is intended to provide. Inilinftive 

 aftions take place when certain fenfations exill, and when 

 thefe do not exift, we cannot wanrier that the actions do 

 not occur. In tiic following remarks we folbvv the learned 

 author of "Ancient Metaphyfics," a work, in «hich we 

 find a juft view of the fubjeft of in(lin6t. Before we po- 

 sitively conclude, that no accommodation to circumlhmces 

 can take place without rcafoning, or a comparilon of ideas, 

 it may not be irrelevant to confider fo;ne of the appear- 

 ances which the vegetable and inanimate worlds exhibit. 

 If, becaufe the operations of fome animals are fo artificial, 

 and becaufe they fometimes accommodate their aftions to 

 circumilances, we muft fay, that they reafon and compare 

 ideas, we muft contend, that vegetables and inanimate bo- 

 dies do fo likewife : we know, that a vegetable reared in a 

 dark cellar, if fome light be admitted, will bend itfelf to- 

 wards the light : or, if made to gro.v in a flower-pot with 

 its head downwards, that it will turn its head upwards, ac- 

 cording to the natural pofition of a plant. Can it be main- 

 tained, that the plant in either cafe dues what it does from 

 any judgment or opinion, that it is belt, and not from a 

 iiecelTary determination of its nature ? The facis taken from 

 the inanimate world are equally in point. How fhall we 

 account for the phenomena of eleftive attractions ? when 

 one body unites with another, and then, if a third is pre- 

 fented to it, quits the firft and unites itfelf with the other, 

 fhall we fay that this is the effed of reafoning and of a com- 

 parifon of ideas, and fuppofe, that this preference of the 

 one to the other proceeds from any predileClion or opinion, 

 that it is better to cleave to one than to the other ? What 

 fiiall we fay of the cryftallizations and configurations of 

 falls exhibited to us bv the microfcope, fo various and yet 

 fo conllant and regular ? Mull we fay, that their minute 

 particles reaion and compare ideas, becaufe their operations 

 are fo various, and, at the fame time, fo regular and con- 

 ilant ? Or, if nobody affirms this, why ftiould we think, 

 that the aclions of animals, not more various and furprizing, 

 not more conllant or regular, than thefe motions of the falts, 

 fliould be the rcfult of rcafoning and of a dedudion of in- 

 ferences ? Should we not rather affirm, as thofe inanimate 

 fubllances arrange thcmfelves fo retrularly, and yet fo va- 

 rioufly, upon different occafions, in confequence of an origi- 

 nal law of nature, that the benevolent Author of all fuch 

 laws, intending to difplay his providence and wifdom Hill 

 more confpicuouily in his animal kingdom,' beftowed upon 



his creatures this accommodating inftinft, without wnich; 

 (fuppofing that they aft inllindively on anyoccafion) the 

 great purpofes of their propagation and prcfervalion could 

 never be attained ? This objcdion, upon which we have been 

 commenting, is contained in the " Syftcm of Natural Hif- 

 tory" already mentioned in this article. The compilers of 

 that work have been carried much too far in their zeal to 

 do away Mr. Smellie's very unphilofophical notions con- 

 cerning inftintt : and, although we have read over their opi- 

 nions with much attention, we are ftill at a lols in fome 

 parts to comprehend their me?.ning. Their differtation on 

 the fubjed is but fliort, and yet, we think, they often con- 

 tradict 'themfelvcs. One time you would fuppofe, that they 

 admit fuch a principle as inftinft in the lower animals ; at 

 another they feeni to rejeft it altogether. This latter, in- 

 deed, f-em.s to be th? fairefc account of their opinions. 

 What theory they had in view, when they called inftind a 

 rr.echar.lcal principle, we know r.ot. It could not be the 

 exploded dodrine of Des Cartes, nor the equally unphilo- 

 fophical theory of Buffon, which has been fo fully and fo 

 ably refuted by Condiil.ic. Periiaps they referred to Dr. 

 Reid's, who, as we have already obferved, calls inftind a 

 mechanical principle. We are equally at a lofs for their 

 allufions, when they call brutes irfenjlble injlrummts under 

 the influence of inftind, which they denominate a " myile- 

 rious influence." None of the advocates for inftind, fo 

 far as we know, have ever held this abfurd opirion. On the 

 contrary, they all allow them not only fmfbiUty, but even 

 fpontanctty, in their inftinftive operations. And, when they 

 are allowed to poffefs thefe, we cannot deny them conjciouf- 

 ntfs, by which they muft know that they are ading. I'he 

 fupporters of inftind afTert no more than this, fince fome of 

 the natural operations of animals are fo complicated, and 

 yet fo perfcd and invariable, that it is irrational, with fuch 

 evidence as we poffefs, to fuppofe them acquainted with the 

 rules of the arts which they pradife, or the ends fcr which 

 they operate. Thefe, however, are known to Him, and 

 perhaps to Him only, who im] lai;ted fuch principles 1:1 

 their conftitutions, as d.red them unerringly in all their ways. 

 Befides thofe now mentioned, there are ion-.e other n.iiiake* 

 and errors in this work on the fubjeCt under difcufEon. 

 Thefe, however, with one exception, we fhall pafs unnoticed. 

 The error we mean, and which, indeed, is not peculiar to 

 thefe writers, is their fuppofing, that the advocates of in- 

 ftind deny reafon altogether to the brutes. But this opi- 

 nion is wholly groundlefs. That fome animals difplay won- 

 derful fagacity and docility, that they even reafon on fevc.-ai 

 occafions, is, we think, clear from the moft fatisfadory cvi- 

 dence. We fhall mention a few lads in fugport of this 

 opinion. On the northern coaft of Ireland a fneiid of Dr. 

 Darwin's faw above a hundred crows at once preying upon 

 mufcles : each crow took a mufcle up into the air twenty 

 or forty yards high, and let it fall upon the ftonef, and thu.s, 

 by breaking the lliell. got poffelEon of the animal. A few 

 years ago there was (hewn at Exeter Change, London, an 

 old monkey, who having loft his teeth, ufed, when nuta 

 were prefcnted to him, to take a flone in his hsnd, .-"Ld 

 crack them with it one by one ; thus, ufmg mears, like 

 the crows in the preceding inftance, to accomplifc his pur- 

 pofes as well as we do. We are told by Linnsrs, 

 that the martin dwells on the outlide of houfes in Eu- 

 rope under the eaves; R-d that, when it has built lU 

 iicft, the fparrow frequently tr.kfs poffefuon of it. The 

 martin, unable to diiiodge his ir.tri'dirg enemy, convokes 

 his companions, fome of v.hom guard the captive, whiiii 

 others bring clay, completely cTofe up the entrance of 

 the neft, and then fly away, leaving the fparrow to be fuffo- 

 ' C c 7. catedj 



