1876.] Biological Controversy and its Laws. 225 
apparently done. Agassiz, further, was no “Agnostic,” no 
Darwinist, no believer in Evolution, but a champion of the 
dodtrine of individual creation. No one can accuse him of 
seeking to under-estimate the difference between man and 
other animals from any sinister motive. 
The Rev. J. G. Wood, in his recent interesting work 
“ Man and Beast,” — without, as far as we can perceive, 
accepting Darwinism, or even Evolution, and certainly 
without seeking to demonstrate our kinship with apes,— 
arrives at conclusions closely resembling those of Professor 
Agassiz, and even produces no contemptible evidence in 
favour of animal immortality. The like has been done by 
Bishop Butler. Nor can it be denied that some at least of 
the strongest arguments advanced in favour of man’s im- 
mortality tell in favour of a hereafter in store for lower 
animals. If the life of man is a drama, of which the fifth 
adt, with its compensations and retributions, is reserved for 
another stage, surely the same should hold good with brutes, 
among whom also there prevail those differences of destiny 
which have perplexed man. 
There are on record fully authenticated instances of ani- 
mals feeling ashamed of actions they have committed. We 
may refer to the case observed and described by Mr. G. J. 
Romanes.* This case, which we think no one will attempt 
to ignore as the exaggeration or the mistake of an incom- 
petent observer, is very significant. To escape ridicule X is 
tempted to tell (or not) a falsehood. Detected in this the 
said X feels much more distressed and ashamed than when 
merely ridiculed for his blundering. Now if for X we read 
John Nupkins, all will admit that John Nupkins knew that 
falsehood was wrong, and will call his subsequent distress 
the adtion of a guilty conscience. But if, instead of John 
Nupkins, X happens — as in this case — to stand for a terrier, 
where is our right to put any different interpretation on the 
same set of fadts ? 
Among certain birds— -e.g., rooks— careful observers have 
detedted distindt traces of criminal law. Thievish birds, 
who persevere in stealing sticks from the nests of their 
fellow-citizens, have been seen banished from the commu- 
nity, severely chastised, and even killed, by a general assem- 
blage. “ But law necessarily pre-supposes the notions of 
right and wrong, and could never, therefore, have arisen 
among beings incapable of drawing this distinction.” 
We shall add one more case to prove in the lower animals 
* See Quarterly journal of Science, v®, 485., and p. 153 of present number. 
VOL® VL (N.S.) 2 B 
