timate receives a secondary accent; in májesty, provident, tówering, the ultimate does the same. Applying this rule to the word madwoman, we shall find that it can be scanned as amphimacer mádwomán, or in other words, that the second part of it, the word "woman" can change its original accent from that of a trochee to that of an iambus. XIV. V., i., 24— “Jessica. I am never merry, when I hear sweet music." It is worth while to inquire what is the precise meaning of merry." Surely, Jessica cannot mean to say that music makes her sad. She speaks in general of "sweet music," not of solemn adagios, only, that melt the heart, and produce that sweet, softening melancholy, so soothing and delightful. To get at the true meaning of "merry," we must widen the enquiry, and compare the opposite of "merry," viz., “sad.” There is an obvious connection between "sadness and attention," "thoughtfulness" and "reflection;" and between "mirth," and "thoughtlessness," and "inattention." Thus, in "Midsummer Night's Dream,” IV., i.— د, Here, as Warburton observes, sad signifies only grave, sober. Blackstone quotes a statute-3 Henry VII., c. xiv., which directs certain offences, committed in the king's palace, to be tried by twelve sad men of the king's household. Here we have the judex tristis of Latin phraseology, who is not a sad melancholy judge, but one composed to serious attention and gravity, the very opposite quality of that which characterises the reveller and the merry-maker. This connection between mirth and thoughtlessness is exemplified in Goldsmith's "Deserted Village," 122 "And the loud laugh that spoke the vacant mind,” and 255 "Spontaneous joys, where nature has its play, and, on the other hand, how closely correlative are sadness and thought is shown in the same poem, v. 136— "The sad historian of the pensive plain " 66 where pensive" evidently means mournful." Jessica, therefore, in saying she is not merry when she hears sweet music, means to imply that she cannot think of anything else -that she is riveted by music-that she must listen and attend to it; and this is precisely the sense in which Lorenzo takes it, and which he fully explains by saying— 66 'The reason is, your spirits are attentive." NINTH ORDINARY MEETING. ROYAL INSTITUTION, 18th February, 1861. The Rev. H. H. HIGGINS, M.A., PRESIDENT, in the Chair. Dr. THOMSON having resigned his seat in the council, the Society was informed that Mr. MOORE, curator of the Free Public Museum, had been elected in his place. Mr. MOORE exhibited a very fine specimen of a seal (Callocephalus vitulina), lately caught in the Canada Dock. The specimen has been well stuffed and mounted, and is about to be placed in the Museum, to which it was presented by Mr. Hulse, of Dale-street. Mr. Moore also exhibited a very beautiful and interesting series of forty-four Canadian woods, lately presented to the Free Public Museum by Mr. Richard Reid Dobell. Dr. IHNE having taken the chair, the PRESIDENT proceeded to read the paper of the evening, ON "DARWIN'S THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES" (CONTINUED). "SPECIES NOT TRANSMUTABLE." BY DR. BREE. (Athenæum, Nov. 3, 1860.) AFTER a short, but, on the whole favourable notice, of the above-named work, by Dr. Bree, the reviewer proceeds to give his own reflections, consequent upon a second perusal of Mr. Darwin's theory. These reflections seem to have been much influenced by the tone of Dr. Bree's work, from which the following is an extract: "I cannot conclude without expressing my detestation of the theory, because of its unflinching materialism; because it has deserted the inductive track, the only track that leads to physical truth; because it utterly repudiates final causes, and thereby indicates a demoralized understanding on the part of its advocates." The question, can there be any just ground for such charges as these? if it be worth asking at all, seems necessarily to take precedence of every other inquiry on the subject. Are we then really, under the guise of philosophical inquiry, discussing whether or no there be a final cause? The theory, it is said, utterly repudiates final causes; then must its supporters be regarded as atheists. Details of natural history, however interesting, sink into insignificance if the controversy can reasonably be viewed under this aspect; for let it be remarked that the theory is accused of inconsistency, not with the Mosaic account of the creation, but with any belief in an Almighty Creator; and, in this respect, the accusation differs. entirely from that which was brought against what was, not very long since, the geological theory, but which is now geological science. It is well known how various have been the accommodations by which geologists have satisfied themselves of the consistency of the Mosaic account with their science; some have extended the six days into as many geological periods; one distinguished author considers the narrative of the creation to be an account of a vision seen by the sacred writer. In one way or in another, those who think it desirable to reconcile the letter of the Mosaic account with the "Testimony of the Rocks," succeed in doing so, at least to their own satisfaction. But against the theory of the derivation of species, we have a charge which admits of no possible accommodation; which must be either false or fatal. Now, even if we are ready at once to pronounce it false, it is by no means uninteresting to inquire what is the gravamen in Mr. Darwin's theory on which is founded so solemn an indictment. It is to be hoped that the charge of repudiating a final cause is not brought against the theory because of its discrepancy with the Mosaic account of the creation. All real friends of the cause of revealed truth will deprecate its advocacy by any such means. We must, then, look to some more general view of creation, such as is supposed to be essential to the idea of a Creator, and examine if, with this, Mr. Darwin's theory can be shown to be incompatible. It seems, then, to be essential to any reasonable view of a Creator that the very existence of things should be regarded as having emanated simply from His will, without the employment of means of any kind, for such means would have to be created, and we are now speaking of the first origin of things. It seems also essential that the continuance of things should be regarded as the result of His approbation and constantly sustaining power. And as these seem to be essentials, so they seem to be the only essentials to the reasonable acknowledgment of a Creator. I am not aware of anything in Mr. Darwin's theory opposing the reception of these propositions. But it has been very generally held that at whatever period of the history of the world any kind of living thing has first appeared, it has been the immediate result of a purely creative act, and we are now told that to question this is to question the existence of a final cause. Now, if we turn from the organic to the inorganic world we shall there find no traces whatever of anything analogous to the successive acts of creation by which, as it is supposed, species were first produced. From the very beginning there has been one uniform course; not a trace can be found of any second touches. The laws of motion, of gravitation, of chemical affinity, of the distribution of light, heat, and electricity, have undergone no changes since the inconceivably remote ages of the Silurian formation. I see no reason for regarding this as inevitable. It is quite possible to conceive a course of things entirely different. The Will that at first worked without means could, at any subsequent time, have dispensed with them, and there might have been a world and an universe in which the phenomena of matter might have constantly presented the immediate results of supreme volition, just as species are supposed to have presented such results when first created. But who does not see that in such a world the position of man would be very different to that which he now occupies? Nature would wear an aspect wholly impenetrable. All material changes springing directly from the one great cause would, equally with that great cause, be inscrutable. Man's mind might be heaven-taught, but from earth he would learn nothing. From such a state of things the first exception, if it should please the supreme will to make one, and to employ a simple means to bring about a simple end, would be like the first beam of light; and just in proportion as these exceptions became more numerous, and the |