followed her imperial partner, Alexander, to the grave, in the still fresh years of womanhood, 50 years of age.

"During my second sojourn in St Petersburg, in 1849, for a period of ten weeks..... What the opinion was of the Emperor's health-what acts of his came to my knowledge, which bespoke eccentricity-what were the sentiments of his physician, Dr Mandt, who, homoeopathist as he is, and exercising a most peremptory influence over his master, leaves him, nevertheless, unrelieved, except by mystical drops and globules-what transpired of political doctrines and opinions, or, in fine, what I gathered afterwards at Moscow on all co-equal points, must be left to your Lordship's conjecture-not difficult, after all I have divulged. To go further would be like a breach of trust, and of that I shall never be guilty.

"In all I have related there is nothing that had been committed to me as a privileged communication; while the imperative requirements of the moment, calling for its immediate divulgement, I hesitate not to make it, under the firmest conviction that my fears and anticipations will be surely realized.

"If so, then the method of dealing with an all-powerful sovereign so visited must differ from the more regular mode of transacting business between Government and Government. For this purpose it is namely, to put her Majesty's ministers on their guard accordingly, that I have determined to place in your Lordship's hands the present professional information, which must be considered as so strictly confidential that I shall not sign it with my name.

"That I have selected your Lordship as the channel of my communication rather than the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to whom more properly it should have been addressed, will at once appear natural to your Lordship. In my capacity of once, and for some years your Lordship's physician (though not now honoured with that title), your Lordship has known me personally, and is convinced that what my pen commits to paper may be taken as coming from an honourable man, and your obedient servant."

N.B.-An acknowledgment of the receipt of this letter came by return of post, in Lord Palmerston's handwriting.

Memorandum.-At an interview with Lord Palmerston, February 23, 1854, on matters of a private nature, his Lordship was pleased to ask me before we separated whether I still adhered to my opinion and prediction. I replied, that before July 1855 (the Emperor would then be 59 years old), what I had anticipated would happen. "Let but a few reverses overtake the Emperor," I added, "and his death, like that of all his brothers, will be sudden." It has proved so. Alma, Inkermann, Balaklava, shook the mighty brain; Eupatoria completed the stroke, which has anticipated my prognosis only by a few weeks.

A. B. G.

AGASSIZ AND THE EDINBURGH CHAIR OF NATURAL HISTORY. THE Chair of Natural History, vacant by the death of Edward Forbes, still remains without an occupant. The patronage is vested in the Crown; but as on the occasion of the two last vacancies the Town-Council of Edinburgh prompted the Government regarding the selection of a professor, so at the present juncture they have attempted a similar movement, and have thereby threatened, in this quarter at least, a collision between science and theology. We all know how a privilege which is allowed to be exercised unchallenged soon comes to be claimed as a right; and in like manner precedents are supposed to be formed by the fortuitous occurrence of certain incidents. Because the Town-Council of Edinburgh (of which collectively we desire to speak with all deference) has twice, under peculiar circumstances, taken upon itself to suggest to her Majesty's advisers who should fill the Natural History Chair in the Metropolitan University, it seems to have been concluded that they should ex

ercise a similar liberty on a third, and probably on all subsequent occasions of vacancy. To this we demur. It might have been seemly to endorse the claims of a rising citizen in the person of Jameson; and it was a municipal compliment to Forbes, after it was known that he was to be appointed, that our civic rulers should step forward and intimate that the man whom the Queen had delighted to honour was also the man who would have been the choice of the patrons, had the election rested with them. But the present crisis does not furnish an analogous case. We have no indigenous claimant to professorial 1 honours; and in respect to exotic aspirants, the Crown has emitted no sign. The Council therefore has, in our humble opinion, stepped beyond its province, and has interfered with the patronage of Downing Street in a way that the dignitaries of the Royal Exchange would have resented, had Downing Street used a corresponding freedom with them. At a recent meeting of the Council | it was proposed that Government should be memorialized to present M. Agassiz to the chair-a movement which the result has proved to be unfortunate in more respects than one. In the first place, no steps appear to have been taken to ascertain if M. Agassiz would, at the call of the British Government, backed by the Edinburgh Town-Council, be willing to leave his adopted Transatlantic home. Indeed, the probability is that he would not accept a call from Scotland. And secondly, and still worse, no preliminary sounding was made as to whether even the Council itself would be unanimous in an invitation to Agassiz to become a member of our university. Two or three councillors, at least, hold that he is heretical in his opinions as to the descent of the human race, and the opposition of this minority led, at the first discussion, to the suspicious decision that further inquiry was necessary, and at the second, that the motion should be withdrawn altogether. For this conclusion Agassiz has to thank the proverbial discretion of friends.

Without entering minutely into the circumstances, we submit that Agassiz is entitled to be fairly dealt with. If he were one of a class of scoffers such as the Encyclopædists whom Voltaire gathered round him at Ferney, and who would have attacked any doctrine of the Scriptures simply because it was declared in the Scriptures, there might be a preliminary case against him; but it is another thing when a naturalist understood to be devoutly disposed towards religion, fairly and dispassionately prosecutes his scientific inquiries and arrives at a finding which, as we are informed, he does not submit as incompatible with the Bible, but simply as opposed to the popular interpretation of certain passages in the Bible. That such a course is legitimate, the history of astronomy and of geology amply testify; and that it does not clash with certain schools of theology will be seen from the writings of Archbishop Whatley. In treating of this subject, that able divine informs us that

"Some persons have imagined that we are bound to take our notions of astronomy, and of all other physical sciences, from the Bible. And accordingly, when astronomers discovered, and proved, that the earth turns round on its axis, and that the sun does not move round the earth, some cried out against this as profane, because Scripture speaks of the sun's rising and setting. And this probably led some astronomers to reject the Bible, because they were taught that if they received that as a divine revelation, they must disbelieve truths which they had demonstrated.

"So, also, some have thought themselves bound to believe, if they receive Scripture at all, that the earth, and all the plants and animals that ever existed on it, must have been created within six days, of exactly the same length as our present days. And this, even before the sun, by which we measure our days, is recorded to have been created. Hence, the discoveries made by geologists, which seem to prove that the earth and various races of animals must have existed a very long time before man existed, have been represented as completely inconsistent with any belief in Scripture.

"It would be unsuitable to such a work as this to discuss the various objections (some of them more or less plausible, and others very weak) that have

been brought-on grounds of science, or supposed science-against the Mosaic accounts of the Creation-of the state of the early world-and of the Flood, and to bring forward the several answers that have been given to those objections. But it is important to lay down the PRINCIPLE on which either the Bible or any other writing or speech ought to be studied and understood: namely, with a reference to the object proposed by the writer or speaker.

"For example; suppose you bid any one proceed in a straight line from one place to another, and to take care to arrive before the sun goes down. He will rightly and fully understand you, in reference to the practical object which alone you had in view. Now, you perhaps know very well that there cannot really be a straight line on the surface of the earth, which is a sphere [globe]; and that the sun does not really go down, only, our portion of the earth is turned away from it. But whether the other person knows all this or not, matters nothing at all with reference to your present object; which was not to teach him mathematics or astronomy, but to make him conform to your directions, which are equally intelligible to the learned and the unlearned.

"Now the object of the Scripture revelation is to teach men, not astronomy or geology, or any other physical science, but religion. Its design was to inform men, not in what manner the world was made, but wнo made it; and to lead them to worship Him, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, instead of worshipping his creatures, the heavens and earth themselves, as gods; which is what the ancient heathen actually did.

"Although, therefore, Scripture gives very scanty and imperfect information respecting the earth and the heavenly bodies, and speaks of them in the language and according to the notions, of the people of a rude age, still it fully effects the object for which it was given, when it teaches that the heavens and the earth are not gods to be worshipped, but that "God created the heavens and the earth," and that it is He who made the various tribes of animals, and also man.

"But as for astronomy and geology and other sciences, men were left-when once sufficiently civilized to be capable of improving themselves-to make discoveries in them by the exercise of their own faculties."- Whatley on Scientific Difficulties connected with Scripture.

Dr Whatley speaks on the general question of biblical interpretation in its bearings on scientific inquiry. On the special point of the unity of the human race, Mr Hugh Miller holds (see after quotation) that Agassiz may be scientifically correct and yet theologically wrong. But before quoting Mr Miller, we must refer to the more recent views of Agassiz himself (originally they were propounded in the Revue Suisse for 1845), as these are contained in Nott and Gliddon's" Types of Mankind." The object of the naturalist is to show that there is a "close connection between the geographical distribution of animals and the natural boundaries of the different races of man," a connection which he maintains" cannot be explained by any theory of the origin of life which claims to cover the whole of this difficult problem." "I do not pretend," he continues, "to present such a theory now, but would simply illustrate the facts as they are, to lay the foundation of a more extensive work, to be published at some future time." He groups man into eight realms, the Arctic, Asiatic, European, American, African, East Indian, Australian, and Polynesian, and points out how this geographical distribution of certain animals coincides with the human inhabitants of the "realms " specified. A few passages from the sketch may convey an outline of Agassiz' theory.

AGASSIZ' THEORY.

"The boundaries within which the different natural combinations of animals are known to be circumscribed upon the surface of our earth, coincide with the natural range of distinct types of man. Such natural combinations of animals circumscribed within definite boundaries are called faunce, whatever be their home--land, sea, or river. Among the animals which compose the fauna

of a country, we find types belonging exclusively there, and not occurring elsewhere; such are, for example, the ornithorynchus of New Holland, the sloths of America, the hippopotamus of Africa, and the walruses of the arctics: others, which have only a small number of representatives beyond the fauna which they specially characterize, as, for instance, the marsupials of New Holland, of which America has a few species, such as the opossum; and again others which have a wider range, such as the bears, of which there are distinct species in Europe, Asia, or America, or the mice and bats, which are to be found all over the world, except in the arctics. That fauna will, therefore, be most easily characterized which possesses the largest number of distinct types, preper to itself, and of which the other animals have little analogy with those of neighbouring regions, as, for example, the fauna of New Holland.

"The inhabitants of fresh waters furnish also excellent characters for the circumscription of fauna. The fishes, and other fluviatile animals from the larger hydrographic basins, differ no less from each other than the mammalia, the birds, the reptiles, and the insects of the countries which these rivers water. Nevertheless, some authors have attempted to separate the fresh water animals from those of the land and sea, and to establish distinct divisions for them, under the name of fluviatile faune. But the inhabitants of the rivers and lakes are too intimately connected with those of their shores to allow of a rigorous distinction of this kind. Rivers never establish a separation between terrestrial faunæ. For the same reason, the fauna of the inland seas cannot be completely isolated from the terrestrial ones, and we shall see hereafter that the animals of southern Europe are not bound by the Mediterranean, but are found on the southern shore of that sea, as far as the Atlas. We shall, therefore, distinguish our zoological regions according to the combination of species which they enclose, rather than according to the element in which we find them.

"If the grand divisions of the animal kingdom are primordial and independent of climate, this is not the case with regard to the ultimate local circumscription! of species these are, on the contrary, intimately connected with the conditions of temperature, soil, and vegetation. A remarkable instance of this distribution of animals with reference to climate may be observed in the arctic fauna, which contains a great number of species common to the three continents converging towards the North Pole, and which presents a striking uniformity, when compared with the diversity of the temperate and tropical faunæ of those same continents.

"The arctic fauna extends to the utmost limits of the cold and barren regions of the North. But from the moment that forests appear, and a more propitious soil permits a larger development of animal life and of vegetation, we see the fauna and flora, not only diversified according to the continents on which they exist, but we observe also striking distinctions between different parts of the same continent; thus, in the old world, the animals vary, not only from the polar circle to the equator, but also in the opposite direction-those of the western coast of Europe are not the same as those of the basin of the Caspian Sea, or of the eastern coast of Asia, nor are those of the eastern coast of America the same as those of the western.

"The first fauna, the limits of which we would determine with precision, is the arctic. It offers, as we have just seen, the same aspects in three parts of the world, which converge towards the North Pole. The uniform distribution of the animals by which it is inhabited forms its most striking character, and gives rise to a sameness of general features which is not found in any other region. Though the air-breathing species are not numerous here, the large number of individuals compensates for this deficiency, and among the marine animals we find an astonishing profusion and variety of forms.

"In this respect the vegetable and animal kingdoms differ entirely from each other, and the measure by which we estimate the former is quite false as applied to the latter. Plants become stunted in their growth or disappear be

fore the rigours of the climate, while, on the contrary, all classes of the animal kingdom have representatives, more or less numerous, in the arctic fauna.

"Neither can they be said to diminish in size under these influences; for, if the arctic representatives of certain classes, particularly the insects, are smaller than the analogous types in the tropics, we must not forget, on the other hand, that the whales and larger cetacea have here their most genial home, and make amends, by their more powerful structure, for the inferiority of other classes. Also, if the animals of the North are less striking in external ornament-if their colours are less brilliant-yet we cannot say that they are more uniform, for though their tints are not so bright, they are none the less varied in their distribution and arrangement.

"The limits of the arctic fauna are very easily traced. We must include therein all animals living beyond the line where forests cease, and inhabiting countries entirely barren. Those which feed upon flesh seek fishes, hares, or lemmings, a rodent of the size of our rat. Those which live on vegetable substances are not numerous. Some gramineous plants, mosses, and lichens, serve as pasture to the ruminants and rodents, while the seeds of a few flowering plants, and of the dwarf birches, afford nourishment to the little granivorous birds, such as linnets and buntings. The species belonging to the sea-shore feed upon marine animals, which live, themselves, upon each other, or upon marine plants.

"Though I still hesitate to assign to each [of the three distinct races within the boundaries of the East Indian realm] an independent origin (perhaps rather from the difficulty of divesting myself of the opinions universally received than from any intrinsic evidence), I must, in presence of these facts, insist, at least, upon the probability of such an independence of origin of all nations; or, at least, of the independent origin of a primitive stock for each, with which at some future period migrating or conquering tribes have more or less completely amalgamated, as in the case of mixed nationalities.

"Before closing these remarks I should add, that one of the greatest difficulties naturalists have met with, in the study of the human races, has been the want of a standard of comparison by which to estimate the value and importance of the diversities observed between the different nations of the world. But (since it is idle to make assertions upon the character of these differences without a distinct understanding respecting the meaning of the words constantly used in reference to the subject), it may be proper to ask here, What is a species, what a variety, and what is meant by the unity or the diversity of the races ?

"In order not to enter upon debateable ground in answering the first of these questions, let us begin by considering it with reference to the animal kingdom; and, without alluding to any controverted point, limit ourselves to animals well known among us. We would thus remember that, with universal consent, the horse and ass are considered as two distinct species of the same genus, to which belong several other distinct species known to naturalists under the names of zebra, quagga, dauw, etc. The buffalo and the bull are also distinct species of another genus, embracing several other foreign species. The black bear, the white bear, the grizzly bear, give another example of three different species of the same genus, etc. etc. We might select many other examples among our common quadrupeds, or among birds, reptiles, fishes, etc., but these will be sufficient for our purpose. In the genus horse we have two domesticated species, the common horse and the donkey; in the genus bull, one domesticated species and the wild buffalo; the three species of bear mentioned are only found in the wild state. The ground upon which these animals are considered as distinct species is simply the fact, that, since they have been known to man, they have always preserved the same characteristics. To make specific difference