On our Knowledge of the Causes of the Phenomena of Organic Nature. By Professor HUXLEY, F.R.S. London: Robert Hardwicke. THESE "six lectures" seem to have been delivered extemporarily to working men at the Museum of Practical Geology," by Professor Huxley, and to have been taken down in shorthand by Mr. J. Aldous May as delivered, and to have been allowed to go to press as reported, with no "alteration in them beyond the correction of any important error in a matter of fact." They are very spirited, lively, familiar, and interesting lectures, exceedingly readable, often forcible in expression, not unfrequently touched with the higher graces of style. They are a fair specimen of science popularized, and are well worthy of general perusal. They contain an "endeavour to put in a true light, or in what I might perhaps with more modesty call, that which I conceive myself to be the true light, the position of a book which has perhaps been more praised and more abused than any book which has appeared for some years-I mean Mr. Darwin's work on the Origin of Species." The summa doctrine of the book may be regarded as comprised in the following sentences, viz. :— "We have gradually traced down all organic forms—or, in other words, we have analyzed the present condition of animated nature-until we found that each species took its origin in a form similar to that under which all the others commence their existence," p. 26. "In passing from the surface to the lowest depths of the earth's crust, the forms of animal life and vegetable life which I should meet with in the successive beds would, looking at them broadly, be the more different the farther that I went down "" the farther we go back in time, the more difference exists between the animal and vegetable life of an epoch and that which now exists," p. 51. "The inquiry which we undertook resolved itself into two subsidiary inquiries: 1st, Whether we know anything, either historically or experimentally, of the mode of origin of living beings; 2nd, Whether, granting the origin, we know anything about the perpetuation and modification of organic beings. The reply which I had to give to the first question was altogether negative." I now take up the next question, p. 82. While, as a general rule, organic beings tend to reproduce their kind, there is in them, also, a constantly recurring tendency to vary-to vary to a greater or to a less extent. "Such a variety, having once arisen, might be perpetuated to some extent, and, indeed, to a very marked extent, without any direct interference, or without any exercise of that process which we call selection. And then I stated, further, that by such selection, when exercised artificially, if you took care to breed only from those forms which presented the same peculiarities of any variety which had arisen in this manner-the variation might be perpetuated, as far as we can see, indefinitely," p. 106. "Given the existence of organic matter, its tendency to transmit its properties, and its tendency occasionally to vary; and lastly, given the conditions of existence by which organic matter is surrounded-these put together are the causes of the present and of the past conditions of organic nature," p. 137. "It is perfectly demonstrable that the structural differences which separate man from the apes are not greater than those which separate some apes from others."-"There is not a single faculty, functional or structural, moral, intellectual, or instinctive, there is no faculty whatever, that is not capable of improvement; there is no faculty whatsoever which does not depend upon structure, and as structure tends to vary, it is capable of being improved," p. 152. "What is it but this power of speech, of recording experience, which enables men to be men-looking before and after, and in some dim sense understanding the working of this wondrous universe-and which distinguishes man from the whole of the brute world? I say that this functional difference is vast, unfathomable, and truly infinite in its consequences; and I say, at the same time, that it nay depend upon structural differences which shall be absolutely inappreciable to us with our present means of investigation," p. 155. Mr. Darwin's book is " as the embodiment of an hypothesis" "destined to be the guide of biological and psychological speculation for the next three or four generations," p. 156. Our readers of course know that an epitome cannot easily be epitomized. We have, however, been induced to quote these extracts that we might have the opportunity of saying, that if any of our readers feel curious to become acquainted with the reasons and grounds upon which the conclusions therein stated are based in a clear, terse, lively, popular, understandable style, Professor Huxley's book will afford him the means of doing so. We are sorry that the book has not been more authoritatively placed before the public, and that here and there an awkward phrase has not been amended, or a brief expression left unextended, in both of which ways the value of the book might have been enhanced. We would commend to the student's special attention the observations on the calculations of the age of the earth in lecture ii.; on the method of scientific reasoning, in lecture iii.; on Atavism and variability, in lecture iv.; and on the Darwinian hypothesis, in lecture iv. These portions will inform any student whether his views agree with those of the lecturer or not. We cordially commend the genial, homely, unassuming, plain, yet accurate mode in which the lecturer addresses his audience, and we particularly agree with his remark that there is real blasphemy in the attempt to limit that inquiry into the causes of phenomena which is the source of all human blessings, and from which has sprung all human progress; for, after all, we can accomplish comparatively little-the limited range of our faculties bounds us on very side-the field of our powers of observation is small enough, and he who endeavours to narrow the sphere of our inquiries is only pursuing a course that is likely to produce the greatest harm to his fellow-men,” p. 54. The Topic. IS IT DESIRABLE TO PROHIBIT BY LAW THE SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAYS? AFFIRMATIVE. Ir is the duty of a government to promote in every possible way the interests and welfare of its subjects, as it is for this purpose alone that it is constituted, and its coercion submitted to by the people; and it is therefore the duty of the legislature to interfere with and to suppress anything which has a contrary tendency. General testimony and lengthened experience have shown that it is for the welfare of the nation at large, and of every locality in particular, that the moral and religious feelings of the people be cultivated and developed to the fullest extent, as they are the best guarantees of the safety of the nation, and the most certain preventive against immorality and crime. The sabbath is an institution which is eminently calculated to fulfil this object. Therefore it is the duty of Government to preserve the sabbath in its integrity, and to enforce its strict observance upon all its subjects. Such being the case, it will manifestly be their duty to prohibit or suppress anything which is calculated to destroy the universality of this national observance, or likely to prove a source of annoyance to the majority who do observe it. Now, all trade and commercial pursuits have a tendency to do this, and therefore they are as far as possible abandoned on the sabbath. The public-houses, though closed during the hours of divine service in the morning and afternoon, have still many attractions and temptations to the working man, and his sabbath evening is more frequently spent there than at the church or chapel. The effect upon the morals and character of the individual cannot be good, and it will not, therefore, have a beneficial ten dency upon the nation, or further its moral improvement, but the reverse. Besides its direct influence, the opening of the public-house is also frequently the source of annoyance and disquiet to the peaceable and respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, who have the quiet of the sabbath broken into by the boisterous mirth and unchecked profanity of its inebriated inmates as they issue forth, near the midnight hour, to their respective homes. Upon the face of it, then, it would appear that the legislature ought to interfere, and suppress the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sundays; it being adverse to the general interests of the people, and annoying to the well-disposed portion of the community. The only question remaining is, How far is such sale necessary? or rather, How far is the use of such liquors necessary? because, as they are more perishable, and do not bear keeping like articles whose sale is prohibited on the sabbath, if their use is necessary, it will be tantamount to an admission that they ought to be sold on the sabbath; though even this may be overruled by showing that the evil effects of the drinking which takes place in the public-house overbalances all the good, if any, which results from allowing them to be open; in which case it would be the duty of the Government to suppress the evil, even though in doing so it would suppress some good. We have no wish to enter on a discussion of the teetotal question, but will only say in conclusion that there is, as far as we can see, no necessity for public-houses to be open on Sundays for the general sale of intoxicating liquors; and for this reason, as well as for those mentioned above, it is de sirable that the sale of such liquors on Sundays be prohibited by law.-R. S. When we observe the deplorable extent to which drunkenness is indulged in on the sabbath, we generally attribute the fact to the facilities offered by the great number of liquor venders, also by the day being one not appropriated to ordinary labour. To many of the dissipated, the sabbath becomes a temptation too strong for them to resist, mainly because they are not inclined for attending to religious devotions, or even intellectual improvement, and accordingly they betake themselves to the tap-room in order to while away their idle hours. Should we not, then, endeavour to remove by law this source of temptation, and by prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors on the sabbath, thus give to our weaker brethren a chance of escaping from a course which their own moral courage cannot arrest? It is well known that very many (if not most) drunkards, when sober moments return to them, look upon their own conduct with not less regret than shame, and would feel thankful if the temptation which they find themselves unable to resist could be removed from their path. It may be said that such a prohibition would be unfair to temperate men, and inconvenient to the travelling classes. Now, in reply, the prohibition needs be no loss to the former, since they could easily provide on the previous day for what would be required at home; as regards the latter class, it might be arranged by allowing exemption in cases of bond de travellers. But surely, in a grave question like the present, we should act on the broad principle of sacrificing trifling benefits or paltry liberties, when we have in view the noble purpose of releasing some of the many thousands who are now held under a degrading thraldom, and thus raise them higher in the scale of humanity.-Justus. Yes; for various reasons. First, it is desirable to prohibit Sunday trading generally. Secondly, it is specially desirable to prohibit Sunday trading in alcoholic drinks. The writer of this is not a teetotaller, yet he can but view the ample facilities which are afforded for obtaining intoxicating drinks as one of the chief curses of the nation. To prohibit their sale on Sundays would be to lessen two evils-Sunday trading, and the excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The prohibition would also be a step towards the abolition of other evils. The writer of this has witnessed in one of the chief towns of England a fearful amount of sabbath-day desecration. Public-houses and gin palaces open with music playing in them; the shops of newsvenders, fruiterers, and tobacconists also open; while many of the artisans were standing on the sabbath evening in their shirt-sleeves at the entrance of alleys and passages, very little cleaner (if any) than when they left their work on the previous day. A fearful amount of demoralization is connected with the alehouse and liquor-shop system, and an effectual blow at the latter would also be a blow at the former. Most persons who really require alcoholic drinks on Sunday can obtain them on Saturday as they do other articles which are not obtainable on Sunday, and will do so when they are not to be procured on the sabbath day. Any amount of inconvenience that may be incurred by such articles not being procurable on Sundays will be more than counterbalanced by the amount of good effected. Many may raise an outcry against the grievances attending the prohibition here referred to; but let such a prohibition become law, and it will be found that these grievances are very small in amount. Many would exclaim against the prohibition of tobacco-smoking, and would enlarge on its benefits, not because they derive any benefit from it, but because the practice accords with their inclinations. So with the sale of intoxicating drinks on Sundays. As to any infringement of the liberties of the people which the prohibition referred to would involve, it is the duty of a government to exercise a parental care over the people; and when their habits are plainly injurious to themselves, to abolish those habits in a constitutional manner.-S. S. If we would have the sabbath rightly enjoyed, and preserved in its integrity as a Divine institution, we must seek the prohibition of the Sunday liquor traffic by legislative aid. There are some persons who deprecate any State intervention in this matter, and tell us that such interference would be unjust and oppressive, and contrary to the spirit of English law. But surely it is not oppressive to prohibit public drinking on Sunday. There can be no consistent sabbath observance so long as publichouses are allowed to keep open for traffic during any portion of the Lord's day. Sunday is indeed a day of rest and refreshment; but it is a day of holy and sacred rest, and as such should be protected by the law from the profanation of public drinking. "The religious consecration of the sabbath, as a day of holiness to the Lord is the only principle that can be safely trusted for its preservation as a day of rest and refreshment." But even viewing the question secularly, we think the suppression of the liquor traffic on Sunday would be most beneficial, especially to the working man. often do we see a man get intoxicated on Sunday, who would never think of tasting were the temptation to drink not before him! Now we believe that a day's drinking exercises a more exhaustive and depressing influence, and causes a greater waste of the tissues of the body, than the hardest day's work a man could perform. Thus many a hard-working man is deprived of his Sunday's rest, and goes to work on Monday more fatigued than if he had been working on Sunday. In conclusion, we beg to state our earnest conviction that the entire legal prohibition of the Sunday traffic in strong drink would be promotive of the religious, moral, and physical well-being of the community.-R. M. L. How Yes; for it cannot be denied that there is a large and most influential portion of the people of this country who desire to see public-houses closed on Sundays, although we would not say that the majority of the people think so. The people of Liverpool, however, are going to take a step in the right direction, and see what the opinion of the people really is upon the question of Sunday traffic in intoxicating drinks. The committee have prepared three forms to be filled up:1st. Those in favour of Sunday closing. 2nd. Those opposed to Sunday closing. 3rd. Those in favour of keeping open for one or two hours. Seventy-one thousand and eleven houses in Liverpool will be canvassed, and it is hoped that the Government, magistrates, and licensed victuallers of the country will be influenced by the results of this and similar canvassing. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy," is a commandment which is very far from being adhered to. No man who has the least particle of morality and religion in his breast will think that the keeping of these houses open for even an hour is keeping holy the sabbath day. The English nation being professedly a Christian nation, it is the bounden duty of Government to interfere, and for once aid the christian minister in promoting the cause of Christ. For the good effects of the closing of these places on the Sunday, we would point to Scotland. In conclusion, we hope that the measure which Mr. Tomes, of Hull, brought forward in the House of Commons may pass, and eventually become law. The chief feature in his bill is, to close all public houses and beerhouses from eleven on Saturday night till six on Monday morning.-FELIX. It is most desirable that the law should interfere to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sundays. Sunday should be a day of rest to all, and sensual enjoyment should not be allowed to disturb it. If the law prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors, men would at least be in possession of unclouded faculties, and, on returning from church, would, in all probability, remain at |