I885.J 
Analyses of Books. 
175 
conteiii with murdering each other on the surface of the ground, 
ho P e soon to grapple with each other in the air and to struggle 
beneath the waves ? ” When, ndeed ? 4 u struggle 
Our Corner. No. 3. March, 1885. 
In the current number of this somewhat heterodox journal we 
hnd some very interesting matter. 
In the account of the trial of Mr. C. Bradlaugh and Mrs. A. 
Lesant, for selling the Fruits of Philosophy,” we are told that 
< u ’ ^rpenter “ rudely said that he was not responsible for 
Human Physiology by Dr. Carpenter,’ as his responsibility had 
ceased with the fifth edition.” It seems to us that the learned 
doctor s position is scarcely justifiable. In the paper before us 
it is, not unnaturally, pronounced “ a strange thing that a man 
ot eminence, presumably a man of honour, should disavow all 
responsibility for a book which bears his name on the title-pa°-e. 
dearly, if the ‘ Human Physiology ’ is not Dr. Carpenter’s, the 
public is grossly deceived by the pretence that it is, and if, as 
Dr. Carpenter says, the whole responsibility rests on Dr. Power, 
then that gentleman should have the whole credit of that very 
useful book. It is not right that Dr. Carpenter should have all 
the glory, and Dr. Power all the annoyance, resulting from the 
woi k, which it appears is given to young boys and girls as a 
prize in Government examinations. 
It appears that it was the intention of the defendants in this 
trial to subpoena Charles Darwin. He wrote to them, however, 
stating that in his opinion “ over-multiplication was useful, since 
it caused a struggle for existence in which only the strongest and 
the ablest survived.” 
\Ve need scarcely say that on this point, as on certain others, 
we disagree with Darwin. We doubt whether those who survive 
the struggle, in the present organisation of society, are “ the 
strongest and the ablest,” or rather those who are not completely 
dominated by greed. It is pradtically certain that though a 
struggle for existence may, up to a certain point, have beneficial 
effedts, yet, just as is the case with heat, light, or moisture, when 
too much intensified, it becomes destructive. 
Mr. Monoure Conway, in criticising O. Wendell Holmes’s 
“ Lif e of Emerson,” remarks that “ in estimating the relation 
of Emerson to Science he seems to have hardly done him full 
justice.” Certain lines of Emerson, printed in 1849, are pro- 
nounced to have anticipated the discovery of Darwin by ten 
years. * It is suggested that “ probably ” a ledture on the 
