entail disappearance of the society, is a power not to be included in an estimate of the feminine nature as a social factor.

"Of course it is to be understood that in this, and in the succeeding statements, reference is made to men and women of the same society, in the same age. If women of a more-evolved race are compared with men of a less-evolved race, the statement will not be true.

As the validity of this group of inferences depends on the occurrence of that partial limitation of heredity of sex here assumed, it may be said that I should furnish proof of its occurrence. Were the place fit, this might be done. I might detail evidence that has been collected showing the much greater liability there is for a parent to bequeath malformations and diseases to children of the same sex, than to those of the opposite sex. I might cite the multitudinous instances of sexual distinctions, as of plumage in birds and colouring in insects, and especially those marvellous ones of dimorphism and polymorphism among females of certain species of Lepidoptera, as necessarily implying (to those who accept the Hypothesis of Evolution) the predominant transmission of traits to descendants of the same sex. It will suffice, however, to instance, as more especially relevant, the cases of sexual distinctions within the human race itself, which have arisen in some varieties and not in others. That in some varieties the men are bearded and in others not, may be taken as strong evidence of this partial limitation of heredity; and perhaps still stronger evidence is yielded by that peculiarity of feminine form found in some of the negro races, and especially the Hottentots, which does not distinguish to any such extent the women of other races from the men. There is also the fact, to which Agassiz draws attention, that among the South American Indians males and females differ less than they do among the negroes and the higher races; and this reminds us that among European and Eastern nations the men and women differ, both bodily and mentally, not quite in the same ways and to the same degrees, but in somewhat different ways and degrees—a fact which would be inexplicable were there no partial limitation of heredity by sex.

NOTES TO CHAPTER XVI.

1 History of Greece, vol. i. p. 498.

2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 466.

3 Morning Post, May 15, 1872.

4 In the appendix to his republished address, Mr. Gladstone; in illustration of the views he condemns, refers to that part of First

Principles which, treating of the reconciliation of Science and Religion, contends that this consists in a united recognition of an Ultimate Cause which though ever present to consciousness, transcends knowledge. Commenting on this view, he says:-"Still it vividly recalls to mind an old story of the man who, wishing to be rid of one who was in his house, said, 'Sir, there are two sides to my house, and we will divide them; you shall take the outside.'" This seems to me by no means a happily-chosen simile; since it admits of an interpretation exactly opposite to the one Mr. Gladstone intends. The doctrine he combats is that Science, unable to go beyond the outsides of things, is for ever debarred from reaching, and even from conceiving, the Power within them; and this being so, the relative positions of Religion and Science may be well represented by inverting the application of his figure.

5 Since the first edition of this volume was issued, there has appeared, in the Contemporary Review for December, 1873, the following letter, addressed by Mr. Gladstone to the Editor:

"10, DOWNING. STREET, WHITEHALL, Nov. 3, 1873.

"MY DEAR SIR,-I observe in the Contemporary Review for October, p. 670, that the following words are quoted from an address of mine at Liverpool :

6

"Upon the ground of what is termed evolution, God is relieved of the labour of creation: in the name of unchangeable laws he is discharged from governing the world.'

"The distinguished writer in the Review says that by these words I have made myself so conspicuously the champion (or exponent) of the anti-scientific view, that the words may be regarded as typical.

"To go as directly as may be to my point, I consider this judgment upon my declaration to be founded on an assumption or belief that it contains a condemnation of evolution, and of the doctrine of unchangeable laws. I submit that it contains no such thing. Let me illustrate by saying, What if I wrote as follows:

66 6

Upon the ground of what is termed liberty, flagrant crimes have been committed: and (likewise) in the name of law and order, human rights have been trodden under foot.'

"I should not by thus writing condemn liberty, or condemn law and order; but condemn only the inferences that men draw, or say they draw, from them. Up to that point the parallel is exact: and I hope it will be seen that Mr. Spencer has inadvertently put upon my words a meaning they do not bear.

"Using the parallel thus far for the sake of clearness, I carry it no

farther. For while I am ready to give in my adhesion to liberty, and likewise to law and order, on evolution and on unchangeable laws I had rather be excused,

"The words with which I think Madame de Staël ends Corinne, are the best for me:-Je ne veux ni la blâmer, ni l'absoudre. Before I could presume to give an opinion on evolution, or on unchangeable laws, I should wish to know more clearly and more fully than I yet know, the meaning attached to those phrases by the chief apostles of the doctrines; and very likely even after accomplishing this preliminary stage, I might find myself insufficiently supplied with the knowledge required to draw the line between true and false.

"I have then no repugnance to any conclusions whatever, legitimately arising upon well-ascertained facts or well-tested reasonings: and my complaint is that the functions of the Almighty as Creator and Governor of the world are denied upon grounds, which, whatever be the extension given to the phrases I have quoted, appear to me to be utterly and manifestly insufficient to warrant such denial.

66

I am desirous to liberate myself from a supposition alien, I think, to my whole habits of mind and life. But I do not desire to effect this by the method of controversy; and if Mr. Spencer does not see, or does not think, that he has mistaken the meaning of my words, I have no more darts to throw; and will do myself, indeed, the pleasure of concluding with a frank avowal that his manner of handling what he must naturally consider to be a gross piece of folly is as far as possible from being offensive.

"Believe me,

“Most faithfully yours,

66

"W. E. GLADSTONE."

Mr. Gladstone's explanation of his own meaning must, of course, be accepted; and, inserting a special reference to it in the stereotypeplate, I here append his letter, that the reader may not be misled by my comments. Paying due respect to Mr. Gladstone's wish to avoid controversy, I will say no more here than seems needful to excuse myself for having misconstrued his words. 'Evolution," as I understand it, and "creation," as usually understood, are mutually exclusive: if there has been that special formation and adjustment commonly meant by creation, there has not been evolution; if there has been evolution, there has not been special creation. Similarly, unchangeable laws, as conceived by a man of science, negative the current conception of divine government, which implies interferences or special providences: if the laws are unchangeable, they are never traversed by divine volitions suspending them; if God alters the predetermined course of

things from time to time, the laws are not unchangeable. I assumed that Mr. Gladstone used the terms in these mutually-exclusive senses; but my assumption appears to have been a wrong one. This is mani

fest to me on reading what he instances as parallel antitheses; seeing that the terms of his parallel antitheses are not mutually exclusive. That which excludes "liberty," and is excluded by it, is despotism; and that which excludes "law and order," and is excluded by them, is anarchy. Were these mutually-exclusive conceptions used, Mr. Gladstone's parallel would be transformed thus:

66

Upon the ground of what is termed liberty, there has been rebellion against despotism: and (likewise) in the name of law and order, anarchy has been striven against."

As this is the parallel Mr. Gladstone would have drawn had the words of his statement been used in the senses I supposed, it is clear that I misconceived the meanings he gave to them; and I must, therefore, ask the reader to be on his guard against a kindred misconception.

[In the earlier-sold copies of the second edition of this volume, there here followed a paragraph, one part of which was based upon an absurd misconstruction of the second sentence contained in the first of the two passages quoted from Mr. Gladstone-a misconstruction so absurd, that, when my attention was drawn to it, I could scarcely believe I had made it, until reference to the passage itself proved to me that I had. I am greatly annoyed that careless reading should have betrayed me into such a mistake; and I apologize for having given some currency to the resulting misrepresentation.

In a letter referring to this misrepresentation, Mr. Gladstone expresses his regret that his letter to the Contemporary Review did not explicitly embrace both the passages I quoted from him; and he adds that in his opinion, there is “no conflict between the doctrine of Providence and the doctrine of uniform laws." My description of his view as anti-scientific, the reader must therefore take with the qualification that Mr. Gladstone does not regard it as involving the alleged antagonism.]

INDEX.