1884.] 
Analyses 0} Booh. 
165 
note the author adds, “ Could it be believed in any civilized 
r ^ p f aable i our nal would publish a programme 
like that of the Salvation Army ’ ? This is an instance, I think 
of the point so instructively brought forward by the late Mr' 
Darwin as to the peculiarities of the flora and fauna of islands. 
the inhabitants are of course included. Therefore this mav 
account for the extraordinary anomalies and mixtures of the 
human mind that one finds in this country, great geniuses and 
great tools (it a too coarse expression be excused). What conti- 
nental journal of the character of the Review alluded to would 
have published, among papers sometimes filled with the highest 
contributions to Science, the screamings of ‘ Hallelujah Bill’ and 
ot Salvation Sal,’ as they have been aptly termed ? ” This is 
doubtless sad ; but it is no less sad to see a journal which poses 
as the highest organ of Science— at least of official Science— in 
this country insert advertisements of life-pills and of “ nick 
me-ups ” ! * 
In a note on pp. 32, 33 we find a statement on which issue 
may be fairly joined. Says the author “ But then every com- 
petent judge knows that what evidence there is points over- 
whelmingly against an eternal existence, especially the °- reat 
principle of Evolution which correlates man with the rest of the 
living world, which are admitted not to have a future life but to 
give up life at their decease.” Mrs. Grundy doubtless' makes 
this admission concerning the lower animals. Bishop Butler 
does not. For our part we cannot help feeling that the evidence 
tor animal and for human immortality is identical. The two 
cases, in legal phrase, run on all fours together. 
The third essay treats of the “ Scientific Basis of Personal 
Responsibility, or the Mode of reconciling Personal Responsi- 
bility with the Principle of Strict Causation in Nature,” and is a 
development of the author's paper in the “Journal of Science ’ 
tor 1880, p. 457. Mr. Preston opens the discussion with an oft- 
mentioned difficulty : — “ The criminal may retort ‘ My actions 
being the result of natural causes, why should I be punished for 
what I cannot help ? ’ ” John Stuart Mill is also quoted as 
saying, in like strain, “ The Owenite invokes the admitted prin- 
ciple that it is unjust to punish anyone for what he cannot help.” 
1 0 us this difficulty, if any, seems to have been needlessly ma°-- 
mfied Not to mention that Society may reply to the criminal, 
oy tne very same natural causes we cannot help hanging you I” 
there is a fallacy in the word “punishment.” The first of our 
natural rights, that of existence, involves the right of eliminating 
fi possible whatever attacks us, be it assassin, ruffian tme? 
wolf, cobra, disease-germ, flood, or conflagration. We do not 
punish the man-eating tiger; we eliminate it. We do not punish 
disease-germs ; by drainage and disinfection we aim at their 
extirpation. Just in like manner with the assassin or the 
burglar : if the instinct of self-preservation is not dead within 
