REVIEWS. 
397 
are expressions in the work before us which are calculated to bring it 
into connection with an “ ism ” of a most unenviable kind, and the author 
and our readers shall judge for themselves whether or not we are right in 
saying that they are ill-chosen , in addressing the “ working classes.” In 
speaking of the limits of human inquiry,* he saj r s, that all our knowledge 
and all our investigation cannot take us beyond the limits set by the finite 
and restricted character of our faculties (a declaration, by the way, 
hardly in accordance with what he has said of man elsewheref), “ or destroy 
the endless unknown which accompanies, like its shadow , the endless pro- 
cession of phenomena.” 
Let it be clearly understood that we do not, even by inference, desire to 
bring the grave charge against our author, which is so thoughtlessly 
bandied about by the ignorant or bigoted, a proceeding which we have 
ourselves deprecated in another ; but we repeat, that this and similar ex- 
pressions are ill-chosen in an address to the working classes. 
And now, turning again to facts. Mr. Darwin has very properly said 
that there are “many and grave objections” which may be advanced 
against his theory ; but we must add that there are also many striking 
facts which point to the special formation of new species from varieties — 
hut not under the conditions and through the agencies attributed to Nature 
by Mr. Darwin. 
In treating of the origin of varieties, Professor Huxley speaks of the birth 
of a six-fingered human being, and also of the production of a remarkable 
variety of sheep. These cases the author refers to “ spontaneous vari- 
ation,” but he is so wedded to his adopted theory, that they do not suggest 
to him anything beyond chance. They are “accidental variations.” This 
may he so, or it may not ; but we will grant that it is so. Is there nothing 
to be learned from the first appearance of these “monstrosities?” If 
“ Darwinism ” be unable to account for these mysterious apparitions 
in nature, may they not serve as a clue to something higher than 
“ Darwinism?” 
Apparently the six-fingered man is really a monstrosity — and his 
appearance proves nothing more than that an unprecedented and appa- 
rently inexplicable change may take place in nature, and what the author 
would call an abnormal feature may appear to be perpetuated. 
Of the long-bodied, bow-legged sheep, it can hardly be said that it was a 
monstrosity , — if so, it was a most convenient one to its owner, for it was 
just as useful to him as if he had designedly made such a sheep ! 
Monstrosity or not, it was a very useful variation in the breed, with 
which (as far as evidence shows) neither atavism, variability (strictly 
speaking), nor the conditions of existence, had anything to do ; yet it was 
remarkably adapted to the requirements of its owner and to the conditions 
in which he found it, and he therefore proceeded at once to perpetuate its 
peculiarities and form a new race. If we are to reason from art to nature, 
* P. 135. 
t “Natural History Review,” No. I. (1861), p. 67, line 22, “The only 
earthly being of practically unlimited powers.” 
VOL. II. — NO. VII. 2 E 
