known to the Iranian division of the Aryan race as the country of the Seven Rivers.

With this notice of the above papers we are compelled by want of space to close what we had to say about the Liverpool Meeting of the British Association, and we will only add here a brief memorial of two or three scientific works published during the last year, to which more than usual attention has been called :"Other Worlds than Ours," by R. A. Proctor. The invention of the spectro scope, and the wonderful advances the Science of Astronomy has made during the last few years, fully warrant Mr. Proctor in the reconsideration of the curious questions involved in the discussion between the late Professor Whewell and Sir David Brewster, in their well-known volumes, the "Plurality of Worlds and "More Worlds than One." Mr. Proctor commences his work by an examination of the actual distribution of the inhabitants of the Earth over its surface, and points out the significant fact that there is still life, whether under the extreme colds of the Arctic zone or under the heats of the Torrid: he then discusses the possible cases of Mercury and Venus, whose orbits are within those of the Earth, and which have unquestionably atmospheres; our own Moon has not. Doubtless, the heat on the surface of Mercury would at first seem to be a fatal objection to the existence of any form of animal life; but we do not know what modifications of this heat may be produced by its atmosphere. Venus, again, has remarkable resemblances to the earth in size, density, seasons, and rotation, but it has no Moon, or rather none hitherto detected. Its atmosphere is much more extensive than ours, but of the composition of it we know nothing. "Yet," says Mr. Proctor, on the whole, the evidence we have points very strongly to Venus as the abode of living creatures, not unlike the inhabitants of the Earth."

66

When we come to the planet Mars, we see much to remind us of our own globe; indeed, Mars has been called, with some show of reason, the Earth in miniature. The Equator of Mars is inclined at nearly the same angle as our own, hence its seasons differ little from ours. Through a telescope, we discern, on his surface, greenish and ruddy tracts, and its poles are white, as must appear those of the Earth when viewed from a sufficient distance. The greens are not impossibly oceans and seas, the ruddy spots islands and continents. We have no reason to doubt that these oceans produce the clouds which often veil the surface of this planet, and that the leading features of our own scenery may be reproduced on the surface of Mars. Mr. Proctor seems justified in thinking we ought not to assume "in the face of so many probable arguments to the contrary, that Mars is a barren waste either wholly untenanted by living creatures, or only inhabited by beings belonging to the lowest orders of animated existence." With regard to Jupiter and Saturn, the evidence of life at all, like any of which we have cognizance here, is doubtless small; but we need not accept Davy's theory that the bodies of the "Jovials' are composed of " numerous convolutions of tubes more analogous to the trunk of the elephant than any thing else," or Whewell's idea that they must be "pulpy gelatinous creatures, living in a dismal world of water and ice with a cindery nucleus." Anyhow, Mr. Proctor's work may be safely studied as that of a man who has investigated for himself, and as one who has shown fair reasons for "the faith that is in him."

66

Another work of some interest, which may be fairly placed alongside that of

Mr. Proctor, is "The Interior of the Earth," by H. P. Malet; though we confess we are not converts to his views, and fear that grave men of science will deem him too much of a rash enthusiast. Still we must have enthusiasm, if we are to have progress; and there can be no question Mr. Malet has given in this volume good proofs of his ability to compose hereafter a far more satisfactory book. The subject is one of great difficulty, as the top of the highest mountain and the depth of the deepest sea barely give us a knowledge of one three-thousandth part of the thickness of the globe, and even the recent deep sea-dredging afforded scarcely any opportunities of more penetrating observations. Astronomy enables us to determine that the density of the globe's external crust is about two and a half times that of water, and the density of the whole mass appears to be about five and a half times that of water; but when we have stated so much, we have said nearly all which rests on solid and sure foundation.

Leroy's "Intelligence and Perfectibility of Animals" is a curious and somewhat fanciful book, recently translated, and translated exceedingly well. Leroy was himself ranger of the parks at Versailles and Marly, a contributor to the famous Encyclopédie, and the personal friend of Helvetius, D'Alembert, and Diderot. From this last circumstance, his views on many subjects may be easily guessed. His volume consists of letters addressed to Madame D'Augiviller, and treat of two different subjects; the larger number (eleven) of the intelligence of animals, the smaller (five) of the nature of man. The speculations on man are poor and shallow, as are, we think, many writings by followers of Locke, of whom, in France, Condillac was the most eminent. Assuredly, we do not require to be told, as Condillac has argued, that all thought is mere sensation, or, as Hobbes reasoned, that all human nature is reducible to selfishness; even laughter being, as that philosopher averred, but the result of a sense of superiority, while gratitude is only a lively expectation of future kindness.

Leroy believed in the existence in man of a principle of benevolence now innate, but possibly acquired in the lapse of many generations; and, as Condillac ascribed all human progress to the use of language, Helvetius to the superior organization of the human frame, and especially of the hand, so Leroy attributed it chiefly to the art of writing. On the other hand, Leroy's account of animals is exceedingly interesting. Himself, evidently, a keen sportsman, he seems to us, in other respects, to represent, remarkably for a Frenchman, some of the best characteristics of our own White of Selborne. With the ways of birds, of deer, of hares, of the wild boar, the wolf, and the fox, he exhibits an intimate knowledge, and he fights for his wild friends against the speculative theories of Des Cartes and Buffon, with all the enthusiastic pleading of an advocate who knows he has truth on his side. What too, is of great importance is this, that, though many years have elapsed since these letters were first penned, the later and more profound researches of Owen and Huxley have failed to detect any important errors in the views he has put forward, most, if not all of which, indeed, were based on his own personal experience. Thus he points out with singular force, that the intelligence and disposition of animals vary greatly; and also, that among specimens of the same genus great differences may be detected. Thus dog differs from dog, fox from fox, and wolf from wolf. From the fact, that the old fox and old hare baffle the hounds, while the old wolf is the chief terror of the peasant, Leroy argues

for the gradual intellectual improvement of animals: wild animals who live long in the neighbourhood of man, becoming, as he urges, from year to year, and from generation to generation, the more cunning and the more crafty. He further believes that animals do think and reason; moreover, have also a certain limited language of their own. That animals with so much in their favour have not progressed, he thinks is not difficult to understand; for it is want which leads to progress-not the actual possession of the thing wanted. Man, however savage, remembers the gratification of some new pleasure, and wants it again, but the brute, with wants simpler than those of any savage, does not as certainly remember his want. The difference between the reasoning of the man and the animal is probably no more than this-both reason; but the one, from the greater amount or organization of his brain, is able to carry on from year to the new year material he has acquired by thought, and to store up this new gain for the acquisition of still further results.

"Primitive Man;""Mammalia: their various Orders and Habits," are two very nicely executed little works by M. Louis Figuier, though we may be permitted to differ, and to a considerable extent too, from some of the views he has advanced. Thus we are quite ready to value his labours for what they are worth, but think he had better have avoided, compiling-as he professes to be compiling-popular books, such disputed questions as the development of species. We do not much object to one of his sentences-"Show me an ape who can speak, and then I will agree with you in recognizing it as a fact that man is nothing but an improved ape;" but we do not accept "the pre-historic period of the polished-stone age" as an adequate definition of the great Megalithic monuments of Europe, such as Stonehenge or Carnac. Further, we think the illustrations of his books are too fanciful—indeed, are not seldom for this reason useless, and that some must be amended in a future edition: the woodcut of the Menhirs at Carnac is simply ridiculous.

"On some Defects in General Education," by R. Quain, F.R.S. The Hunterian Oration by such an able medical man as Dr. Quain, is sure to attract general attention, and will be accepted by many with little judgment, beyond a general appreciation of his ability. It behoves us, therefore, to be sure that, when Dr. Quain deviates from his own special pursuits, he does so with any advantage to his hearers or pupils. We beg, therefore, to express great doubt of his judgment when he questions the value, as a discipline for youthful minds, of the study of Latin. Had Dr. Quain asserted, that the mode of teaching Latin in England, indeed, of almost all languages, is far from what it ought to be, and that there is a crying want of teachers better acquainted with even the most elementary principles of Philology, we should quite have agreed with him. It is not so much the thing to be taught, as a sound method of teaching, that we really want The value of Latin, as the key to so many of the current languages of Europe, and as the foundation of so much of what is best and greatest in English literature, can hardly be overestimated. Moreover, as a dead language, we can reason about it, and use it in the investigation of the laws of comparative Philology, with the same certainty with which Dr. Quain would reason from the bones of extinct to those of living creatures in lectures on comparative anatomy. While, however, we differ from Dr. Quain on the question of the value of teaching Latin, we cordially endorse all he urges on the evils of competitive examinations and on the abuse of athletic sports at College, and more especially at Schools.

"When," says he, "athletic exercises become the principal occupation, when they take the place of intellectual labour instead of being its auxiliary, then no thinking man can do otherwise than object to their excess and misuse, and object very earnestly. . . . There is a natural inclination, in early age, to active out-door occupations. Young people rush, not unnaturally, from the irksome drudgery of the school to the play-ground; for in the school there is little to engage the faculties of the mind then most active. The gratification of another instinct possesses the mind."

PART II.

CHRONICLE

OF REMARKABLE OCCURRENCES

IN 1870.

JANUARY.

4. THEFT OF COLONEL HICKIE'S CHILD AT MAIDENHEAD.-At the Berkshire Epiphany Quarter Sessions, held at the Assize Courts, Reading, Elizabeth Barry, aged 39, nurse, was indicted for unlawfully and by force taking away a female child, of the ageof seventeen months, named Amelia Maria Victoria Hickie, the daughter of James Francis Hickie, with intent to deprive the said James Francis Hickie of the possession of the said child, at Maidenhead, on the 8th of October, 1869. The Court was crowded in every part to hear the trial of this extraordinary case.

The prisoner, who had rather a prepossessing appearance, pleaded guilty to taking the child, but denied the latter part of the indictment, that she did it to deprive Colonel Hickie of his child; and she expressed a desire to defend herself from this charge before the jury.

Colonel Hickie stated that he was in Ireland at the time of the abduction of the child. The prisoner was a nurse in his employ, and he left her at home with his wife at Kidwell Park, Maidenhead. On hearing of the loss of his child, he immediately offered a reward for its discovery. It was his youngest child at the time of its abduction, and was aged seventeen months. On the 17th of October he received a telegram, in consequence of which he went direct to Liverpool, and received his child from the hands of Major Greig, the Chief Constable of Liverpool. The child's hair had been cut, it was looking pale and bad, and there were marks of bruises on its body. The child's clothes had also been altered.

Louisa Cooper, cook in Colonel Hickie's service, said she saw the prisoner leave the house at Maidenhead, on the afternoon of the 8th

A