204 Biological Controversy and its Laws. [April, 
must admit that, were [the theory of Natural Selection 
superseded to-morrow, to Darwin would still belong the 
merit of effecting in Natural History a transformation as 
signal as that wrought in astronomy by Galileo, Copernicus, 
and Kepler, or in chemistry by Lavoisier ; of bestowing 
upon zoology and botany a definite purpose and a direction 
for research such as before were wanting. His works would 
still remain a treasury of observations and of suggestions, 
and the impulse he has given to the Science would never 
die away. In England, Germany, America, naturalists 
have sprung up as if by magic in obedience to his spell, and 
Mr. Mivart himself can hardly be excluded from their 
number. 
We need scarcely add that a critic unjust to persons will 
not be much more trustworthy as regards their discoveries 
and their dodtrines. The evidence in favour of Natural 
Selection — and indeed of Evolution altogether — -is stridtly 
cumulative, and as such, whatever weight it may carry to 
the patient and dispassionate enquirer, it is peculiarly open 
to the attacks of an opponent at once skilful and unscrupu- 
lous. We do not, of course, mean to accuse Mr. Mivart of 
deliberate unscrupulousness. We all know the words 
—in themselves literally reeking with' hypocrisy — in which 
“ the Church ” pronounced sentence of death on Giordano 
Bruno \—Ut quam clementissime et citra sanguinis effusionem 
puniretur .” Yet even on that occasion we should be reludtant 
to declare that the judges were sinning against better light 
and knowledge. Just so here : Mr. Mivart doubtless be- 
lieves and feels what he says, and considers his own line of 
criticism fair and honourable. We know that man is an 
adept in self-delusion, and of all men the metaphysician who 
has cultivated the art s’egarer avec methode is most likely to 
go unconsciously astray. 
We come now to a most painful subjedt, which, indeed, 
we would gladly pass over were not its consideration abso- 
lutely imperative. Mr. Mivart complains that in one parti- 
cular instance Mr. Darwin departs from his ordinary courtesy 
to opponents. We are therefore justified in assuming that 
he regards courtesy to opponents as a duty — at least in 
others. Bearing in mind this circumstance we turn to 
page 144, and read : — “ It is in one respedt a calamity of our 
time and country that unbelievers, instead of, as in France, 
honestly avowing their sentiments, disguise them by studious 
reticence — as Mr. Darwin at first studiously disguised his 
views as to the bestiality (!) of man, and as the late 
Mr. Mill silently allowed himself to be represented to the 
