continually settles from it; and that 'what authors have supposed 'to be ova are only grains of fæcula, or sand, or chalk, which are 'abundantly found.* And even if they were there, he disputes, as we have already seen, their power of revival.

A very superficial consideration indicates a striking analogy between the general history of the microcosm of which we have been treating, and that of the macrocosm, or general history of our earth. As in the one case we see successions of various forms of life accompanying each geological epoch, so we can mark distinct epochs in any organic fluid, each of which is characterized by its especial fauna. As fishes marked the paleozoic period, reptiles the succeeding one, then birds, and lastly, the quadrupedal mammalia, in the perfected or latest state of the earth's history; so, in any collection of decaying or decomposing fluid, we find a period marked by the minutest, and, so far as we can see, the most elementary organisms, which are succeeded by higher and higher forms, until the power of production seems to be lost. Thus, in the earliest stage we perceive only monads, and after these the vibriones appear; to these succeed the kolpodas and keronas; and to these again, the podophrys and the oxytricha; and perhaps, in some cases, the terminal link in the chain may be the comparatively highly-organized rotifera. Each succeeding generation seems to be founded upon the ruins of the former one; and, if not formed actually from them, as M. Pouchet asserts, yet dependent upon them for a nidus and appropriate nourishment. The analogy is suggestive of thought; whether we are sufficiently advanced to make it instructive as well as suggestive may be a matter for doubt. Our author does not doubt, but upon this analogy founds a system of cosmogony and biology which we shall attempt briefly to sketch; from which it will be seen what are the inevitable consequences of a theory of heterogenesis' and 'development;' and that we have not been fighting with shadows in attempting to show the fallacy of the reasoning by which the first steps of these theories are supported.

The fundamental positions stated by M. Pouchet are two in number; first, that any given generation is but the corollary of that which has preceded it; and second, spontaneous generation produces animals low or high in organization and bulk, in proportion to the mass of decomposing matter around it! Lest we should misinterpret these views and their consequences, we will give a few extracts:

"The creations which appear seem to present themselves with proportions which are in relation to the mass of the elements present; so

* Hétérogénie, p. 458.

that if in our laboratories we only obtain puny proceeds (de chétives productions), in nature, where so many animal and vegetable particles are found in fermentation, the generations which arise have a very different power.' (Heterogenie, p. 141.)

Speaking of the cataclysms which are supposed to have marked the successive geological epochs, he says that the animals and plants which succeeded have been formed from the ruins of the preceding races, just as are formed the protozoa in our infusions, the only difference being that

'Now, we have no longer in fermentation those immense masses of dead matter, the result of so many cataclysms and burials of animals; therefore, instead of those gigantic races which sprung up in the midst of these agitated elements, we see only the production of the lowest attempts of organization (d'infimes essais d'organisation). (p. 492.)

And again:

"The effervescence which is manifested in this [decomposing] matter being in direct relation to its mass, the greater this is, the more advanced in organization will be the creatures that arise from it. It is for this reason that when, torn by cataclysms, the entire organization perishes in the same shipwreck, there is engendered from the débris a population more numerous and more varied than before. America, less extensive than the old continent, produces a fauna and flora much less rich. Australia and Madagascar, still more contracted, have their vegetable and animal types still more restricted in proportion.

After these considerations, is it necessary to say why, in our experiments, always made upon so small a scale, we only see the lowest protozoa appear? Our infusions and our phials only represent an almost metaphysical point in space, in comparison with the incalculable masses of organic matters which enter into fermentation after the great cataclysms of the globe. This idea, that the productive forces should be in direct ratio to the mass of matter in action, presents itself naturally to the mind. And thus many men of high intelligence, such as M. Guépin, have conjectured whether, if, instead of being produced in a narrow vessel, the act of genesis took place in a lake, warmed, and containing abundant organic materials, there would not be produced beings infinitely more elevated.' (p. 494.)

Doubtless there would; and equally without doubt, whatever appeared there would be attributed to spontaneous generation. But having established (i.e., asserted) this principle, our author proceeds to construct therefrom a cosmogony. We need not follow him step by step through the carlier periods of our earth's history before it became a habitable globe. When this period arrived, the earth brought forth spontaneously its first-born fauna and flora, ' vegetables, polyps, molluscs, and crustaceans.'* Then

* `Hétérogénie, p. 461.

M. Pouchet's Cosmogony.

225

Nature labours' silently in the depths of the earth, only revealing ' herself to our eyes by the lowest forms, until the moment when, 'breaking her bounds, she covers with debris an entire fragment 'of the globe. Thus succeeded each other the great telluric " creations. On each occasion an exuberance of force and life was manifested; and in the intervals, as though exhausted by 'her efforts, Nature only proceeded with a timid hand. In the 'moment of effort appeared mammifera, and reptiles of colossal 'stature; during repose only, the almost invisible animalculæ.*

M. Pouchet is a firm believer in a multiplicity of centres of creation, and accepts implicitly the great antiquity of the human race, at least fifty thousand years. Creation has gone on wherever a mountain chain or a continent has arisen from under the waters; and of this, irrefragable evidence is produced in the fact of the living creatures differing in each section of the globe (vide chap. vi. passim). He then proceeds to illustrate the point particularly:

'Australia is also the result of one of the latest overthrows (bouleversements) of the globe. And this fifth quarter of the world, by its extraordinary fauna and its vegetation, seems to be a defiance hurled by Nature against the genius of the learned. This new country being peopled by special organisms, these can only have been produced by generations subsequent to those which have stocked the other parts of the globe! [The logic is worthy of notice.] There can be no doubt of this, so far do its plants and animals differ from all that are known elsewhere. Such are the apteryx, the kangaroo, the echidna, and especially the remarkable ornithorynchus, with its mammalian body, and its duck's beak and feet, so long the object of the disputes of naturalists. To THAT MAY NOT WE ADD THAT DISINHERITED RACE OF THE GREAT HUMAN FAMILY, WHICH IS FOUND SPREAD OVER ITS SURFACE?'t

Thus man, like the rest of the animals, is but the product of 'fermentation,' more or less perfect, according as the mass fermenting is great or small! But the position is more distinctly stated in the sequel. On this view it would appear that, for countless ages, Nature has been blindly working, trying her ''prentice hand,' and slowly struggling to the light, sometimes doing great and wonderful deeds, and sometimes forming creatures which bear in their ridiculous aspect the stamp and seal of imperfect constructive experience. At other times, Nature is exhausted with her efforts; for the ages have enervated this 'plastic force and this vital exuberance which we observed when the earth was younger; and it is to its incessant fecundity, 'perhaps, that she owes her exhaustion. §

Hétérogénie, p. 467. + Ib. pp. 476, 477.
NO. LXV.

Q

Ib. p. 484. § Ib. p. 516.

But throughout the whole series there has been, it would seem, a struggle between inert matter and something called intelligence, how and whence originating does not appear. Sometimes the one has the advantage, and sometimes the other; but, on the whole, intelligence has advanced in creation until, ultimately, man appears as the living manifestation of the last effort of 'mind against the pre-eminence of matter; but this supreme 'effort has, as yet, only reduced the two powers to an equilibrium. . . . . In the succession of organisms which appear, and are 'extinguished at each telluric revolution, we see constantly the 'intellectual supremacy advancing; and if, after an immense 'series of observations, we recognise that mind tends constantly to dominate over matter, and to attain, in the case of man, to 'the sublimity of genius, we are forced to admit that, if new cataclysms are one day to reconstruct the surface of the earth, it is evident, also, that new and more perfect creatures will appear to 'people it!' * And so, by the elevation of mountain chains and a few earthquakes, the earth will doubtless be peopled by angels.

6

These later sentiments are given by M. Pouchet as those of Bremser, but are highly approved and endorsed by himself, as the ideas of exalted intelligence,' guided by inflexible logic.'t It is also only right to mention, that M. Pouchet does occasionally mention a Supreme or Divine power, but apparently only as a polite recognition of a popular prejudice; the phenomena require no such intervention, and it can but be a verbal embodiment of the various laws of creation, as chemical and electric forces, which are all sufficient to account for our universe with all its wondrous harmony and order.

Such parts of this work as admit of being considered argumentative we have endeavoured to treat as such; this later part, consisting of mere assertion and transcendental mystification, requires only putting in plain language to carry its own refutation with it. In conclusion, we cannot too strongly express our disapproval of that form of science, too frequent in the present day, which, prostrating itself at the shrine of a pantheistic philosophy, elevates second causes to the power and dignity of Him by whose word the heavens and the earth were called from nought, and by whose benevolent omnipotence they are ever sustained.

Hétérogénie, pp. 522, 523.

† Ibid. p. 523.

ART. VIII.-Liber Albus: the White Book of the City of London. Compiled A.D. 1419 by JOHN CARPENTER, Common Clerk. Richard Whittington, Mayor. Translated from the original Latin and Anglo-Norman, by HENRY THOMAS RILEY, M.A., Barrister-atlaw. Richard Griffin and Co. 1861.

TRULY old Troy-nouvant may claim a venerable antiquity, even if, deducting some ten centuries, we begin at the times of the brave old Romans; for, without going back to the days when Brutus, grandson of Eneas,' wandered along the pleasant banks of the Thames, and, struck with their beauty, 'did there found, build, and construct New Troy;' without referring to Mulmutius and his famous code of laws; without even recalling King Lud, who gave his name to the rising city, and so long after his death still presided over it, enclosed in that brazen statue above his own gate; passing over all that pleasant, but apocryphal History of the British Kings so dear to our forefathers, we shall still find that London boasts full eighteen centuries as her own.

It is difficult to realize an antiquity so high as eighteen centuries when we pass along the crowded streets of busy, improving London-difficult to grasp the thought of the many generations who have trodden the self-same ways we are now passing-the mighty stream of existence that has swept by for nearly two thousand years! In the decayed old cities of France and Flan ders, thoughts of ancient days are pressed upon us by the ruins on every side; but, passing along new-built Gresham-street, strange is it to remember that the old meeting-place of Saxon London stood hard by, and that there King Athelstan nine hun. dred years ago put forth the Dooms of London ;' strange, when looking upon the stately buildings of East and West Cannonstreet, to bear in mind that we stand upon the very line of the Watling-street, that old Roman way which so often echoed to the tread of the Imperial legions. Few indeed, remember, fewer perhaps are aware, that London is almost the oldest of European capital cities. Where were all the present northern capitals-save, perhaps, Moscow-when the Norway merchant brought his white falcons to our Saxon Kings, as they held high state at their castle of London? Where were nearly all the capitals of modern Europe when Londinum Augusta, stately with temple, and palace, and forum, mirrored herself, the fair city of the waters,' in the broad expanse of Tamesse Estuarium.

And a venerable antiquity, too, can London boast for her municipal records. Beginning with the 'Dooms of London,' we may