KEVIEWS. 
401 
difference that exists between man and the ape, as compared with the 
almost imperceptible structural variations between them ; whilst at the 
same time he affirms that all functions — intellectual, moral, &c. — are the 
result of structures. 
Here is the reply : — 
There is a great misconception as to the “ real relations which exist 
between structure and function, between mechanism and work.” Although 
one is related to the other, function being “ the expression of molecular 
forces and arrangements,” yet it does not follow that one must keep pace 
with the other ; and if it could be shown “ that a variation in function 
which follows on a variation in structure may be enormously greater than 
the variation in structure, then, you see, the objection falls to the ground.” 
But of course this is an “hypothesis,” and one which, it might be 
thought, could easily be proved by natural phenomena in the same 
manner as the Darwinian hypothesis. The author, however, prefers 
having recourse to the mechanical world for his evidence, and proceeds to 
tell his hearers that he will take two watches, “ made by the same maker, 
and as completely alike as possible, and, laying them side by side, will set 
them going.” He then, with the aid of a pair of pliers, * just lightly crushes 
together the bearings of the balance-wheel ” of one of them, and the watch 
so treated will cease to go. Thus, he says, a “ slight structural alteration” 
leads to “ an infinite difference in the performance of the functions of these 
two instruments.” 
Passing from mechanical art to the natural world, he says that it is the 
power of speech which makes man what he is ; that a slight imperfection 
or derangement in his organs of speech would make man dumb ; that 
“ a race of dumb men, deprived of all communication with those who could 
speak, would belittle indeed removed from the brutes ;” and that “the 
moral and intellectual difference between them (such men) and ourselves 
would be practically infinite, whilst the naturalist would not be able to 
find a single shadow of even specific structural difference.” 
The author has expressed such contempt for “ inductive and deductive 
philosophy” (and perhaps with justice, in speaking to the working 
classes), that we 'feel almost disposed to follow his directions and weigh 
his argument, as he endeavoured to test Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis — namely, 
by analogies in every-day life. But we have no more space for long 
stories, so we must be excused if we in this instance revert to the old 
system, and thus endeavour to ascertain whether the reasoning is sound 
and conclusive, and whether the propositions are based upon facts. 
This appears to be the author’s argument : — 
1st. Slight variations in structure may produce immense differences in 
the accompanying function, which is the expression of structure. 
2nd. Of two watches made exactly alike, you may stop the function of 
one (which function is its rate of going) by slightly altering its 
mechanism. And, again , speech is the function which distinguishes 
man from the brutes, and speech is the result of a slight structural 
attribute, which, being deranged or rendered imperfect, induces 
dumbness. 
3rdly. Therefore, a trifling difference in the structure of man (the im- 
