dentally deprived of the power of giving it verbal expression (the verbum oris). As to Morals, we have found that not only are all races possessed of moral perception, but even that their fundamental moral principles are not in contradiction with our own.

Concerning Religion, we have seen that religious conceptions appear to exist universally amongst all races of mankind, though often curiously aborted or distorted, and often tending to extreme degradation after periods during which a higher level had been maintained. Respecting Community of Nature, we have been able to quote from Mr. Tylor assertions of the most unequivocal character. Finally, as to Progress, we have found cause to believe that 'Retrogression' may have been much greater and more extensive than our authors are disposed to admit; but that however that may be, and even if their views on this subject are correct, as to existing races, such views, if established, would not constitute one iota of proof that the Christian doctrines as to man, his origin and nature, are erroneous.

From the absence of any positive proof as to a brutal condition of mankind, and from the absence of even any transitional stage, a presumption, at the least, arises that no such transition ever took place. This absence, also (there being at the same time so much positive evidence of essential community of nature amongst all men), clearly throws the onus probandi on those who assert the fact of such transition in the past. At the least they must betake themselves to philosophy, which is alone able to decide as to the abstract possibility or impossibility of such a process, and show by it that the asserted transition is not only possible but also probable; and both demonstrations, we are confident, are beyond their power.

It seems, then, that in the sciences we are considering, namely, ethnology and archæology, the most recent researches of the most trustworthy investigators show that the expectations of the supporters of the dualistic hypothesis are fulfilled, while those of the favourers of the monistic view are disappointed.

The final result therefore is that ethnology and archæology, though incapable of deciding as to the possibility of applying the monistic view of evolution to man, yet,, as far as they go, oppose that application. Thus the study of man past and present, by the last-mentioned sciences, when used as a test of the adequacy of the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, tends to show (though the ultimate decision, of course, rests with philosophy) that it is inadequate, and that another factor must be introduced of which it declines to take any account-the action, namely, of a DIVINE MIND as the direct and immediate originator and cause of the existence of its created image, the mind of man.

Such

Such being the result of the inquiry we have undertaken, the assertors of man's dignity are clearly under no slight obligations to Sir John Lubbock and Mr. Tylor for their patient, candid, and laborious toil. But if such is the case with regard to these writers, how much greater must be the obligation due to that author who has so profoundly influenced them, and whose suggestive writings have produced so great an effect on nineteenth-century Biology. A deep debt of gratitude will indeed be one day due to Mr. Darwin-one difficult to over-estimate. This sentiment, however, will be mainly due to him for the indirect result of his labours. It will be due to him for his having, in fact, become the occasion of the reductio ad absurdum of that system which he set out to maintain—namely, the origin of man by natural selection, and the sufficiency of mechanical causes to account for the harmony, variety, beauty, and sweetness of that teeming world of life, of which man is the actual and, we believe, ordained observer, historian, and master.

But the study of savage life has taught us much.

Our poor obscurely thinking, roughly speaking, childishly acting, impulsive cousin of the wilds, the Homo sylvaticus, is not a useless tenant of his woods and plains, his rocks and rivers. His humble testimony is of the highest value in supporting the claims of his most civilised brothers to a higher than a merely brutal origin.

The religion of Abraham and Chrysostom, the intellect of Aristotle and Newton, the art of Raphael, of Shakespeare, of Mozart, have their claims to be no mere bestial developments, supported by that testimony. Through it these faculties are plainly seen to be different in kind from complex entanglements of merely animal instincts, and sensible impressions. The claims of man as we know him at his noblest, to be of a fundamentally different nature from the beasts which perish, become reinforced and reinvigorated in our eyes, when we find the very same moral, intellectual, and artistic nature (though disguised, obscured, and often profoundly misunderstood) present even in the rude, uncultured soul of the lowest of our race, the poor savage-Homo sylvaticus.

ART. III.-The Book of Carlaverock. 2 vols., large quarto. Edinburgh, 1873 (not published).

COLLECTIONS of family papers have of late years much

increased in both size and numbers. Even where no one of the name has risen to historical importance there are chests

full

full of documents and letters that are lavishly poured forth. At present it not unfrequently happens that the records of a single not always very eminent house take up as many printed pages as would have been deemed sufficient thirty years ago to instruct a young student in the whole history of England or almost of Europe.

We are far, however, from complaining of this abundance. Even when a man was not himself distinguished, he may have had companionship or common action with those who were. By such means a thousand little traits of character may come unexpectedly to light. Still oftener there may, nay, there must, be reference to the domestic economies, the modes of living and the manners and customs of past times. Thus, when family papers are selected with care and edited with judgment-as was eminently the case, for example, with the Caldwell Collection,' comprised in three quarto volumes, and printed for the Maitland Club in 1854-they scarcely ever fail to yield fruit of price to the historian.

In the collection now before us are contained the records of the Maxwell family, belonging to Lord Herries, the present head of that ancient house, and confided by him to Mr. William Fraser for arrangement and annotation. The result has been a truly splendid work. These are two quarto volumes of the largest size, almost, indeed, rising to the dignity-as they certainly exceed the usual weight-of folios. The one volume is of 604 pages, the other of 590:

'Vix illud lecti bis sex cervice subirent,

Qualia nunc hominum producit corpora tellus.'

No expense, we may add, has been spared in the beautiful types, in the facsimiles of ancient autographs, and the engravings of family portraits or family seats. The book is not for sale; and the impression, we observe, has been limited to 150 copies, so that we should consider it beyond our sphere, and printed only for private circulation, had not Lord Herries made it publici juris by presenting a copy in July last year to the Library of the British Museum.

Mr. Fraser, as editor of this collection, seems to us to have done his part with-we may say at least-perspicuity and candour. We have only to complain that, in the first half, at all events, of the eighteenth century, to which in these volumes our attention has been exclusively directed, he has made himself but very slightly acquainted with the other writers of the time. From this cause, as we conceive, he has left in obscurity some points which a wider reading would have enabled him to clear. To

give only one instance-for we should take no pleasure in any long list of minute omissions-Mr. Fraser, in Lady Traquair's letter of January 1724, has failed to see, or certainly, at least, has failed to explain, that the 'Sir John' therein mentioned was one of the cant names for the Chevalier de St. George, or the Pretender, as we used to call him. Nor has he observed that the document there discussed is a letter of that Prince, dated August 20, 1723, and printed by Mr. Fraser in one of his preceding pages.

Of the many personages who in these volumes are presented to us, there is only one that we shall here produce. We desire to give our readers some account of that lady who saved her husband's life from the extremest peril, by the rare combination of high courage and inventive skill, a determined constancy of purpose, and a prompt versatility of means.

Lady Winifred Herbert was the fifth and youngest daughter of the Marquis of Powis; himself descended from the second son of the first Herbert Earl of Pembroke. The exact year of her birth is nowhere to be found recorded. The Marquis, her father, was a zealous Roman Catholic, and, as may be supposed, a warm adherent of James the Second. He followed that Prince in his exile, held the post of Lord Chamberlain in his melancholy Court, and received from him further the patent of Duke, which was never acknowledged in England. He died in 1697, but his wife and daughter continued to reside at St. Germains under the protection of the Queen, Mary of Modena.

William fifth Earl of Nithsdale had been left a minor by his father's untimely death, but was brought up by his surviving parent in the same principles of devoted attachment to the house of Stuart and to the Church of Rome. On attaining his majority he repaired to St. Germains, and did. homage to the Prince, whom he continued to regard as his rightful King. A more tender motive arose to detain him. He fell in love with Lady Winifred Herbert, who proved no inexorable beauty. They were married in the spring of 1699, and he bore away his bride to his house and fair gardens of Terregles. Since her noble exploit in the Tower these gardens have been examined with. interest for any trace of the departed heroine. But, as Mr. Fraser informs us, they have been greatly changed since her time. Only some old beech hedges and a broad green terrace still remain much the same as then.'

6

We may take occasion to observe of the new-married pair that there was some diversity in the spelling of their name. English writers have most commonly inserted an i, and made it Nithisdale; but the Earl and Countess themselves signed Nithsdaill.

The

The Countess bore her lord five children, three of whom, however, died in early childhood. At the insurrection of 1715 they had but two surviving,-a son, William Lord Maxwell, and an infant daughter, Lady Anne. And here in ordinary course might close the record of her life, but for the shining events of 1715, which called forth her energies both to act and to endure.

It need scarcely be related even to the least literary of our readers how, in 1715, the standard of the Chevalier- James the Third,' as his adherents called him—was raised, by Lord Mar in the Highlands and by Mr. Forster and Lord Derwentwater in Northumberland. Lord Kenmure gave the like example to the Scottish Peers of the southern counties, setting out to join Forster with a small band of retainers. Considering the principles of Lord Nithsdale in Church and State, his course could not be doubtful. He, too, at the head of a few horsemen, appeared in Forster's camp, and shared the subsequent fortunes of that little army. To Lord Kenmure, who was a Protestant, was assigned the chief command of the Scottish levies. But, as Mr. Fraser tells us, the Earl of Nithsdale, from his position, and from the devotion of his family to the House of Stuart, would have been placed at the head of the insurrection in the north of Scotland had he not been a Roman Catholic.' But though Mr. Fraser has printed north,' he, beyond all doubt, means 'south.' There was never any question as to either Kenmure's or Nithsdale's command beyond the Forth.

We need not relate in any detail the well-known fate of these hasty levies. They found themselves encompassed at Preston by a regular force under General Wills, and were compelled to surrender without obtaining any better terms than the promise to await the orders of the Government and protect them from any immediate slaughter by the soldiery. It was only a short respite that most of the chiefs then obtained. They were at once sent off as prisoners to London. The painful circumstances of their entry are described as follows in the journal of Lady Cowper, the wife of the Lord Chancellor :

'December 5, 1715.-This week the prisoners were brought to town from Preston. They came in with their arms tied, and their horses, whose bridles were taken off, led each by a soldier. The mob insulted them terribly, carrying a warming-pan before them, and saying a thousand barbarous things, which some of the prisoners returned with spirit. The chief of my father's family was amongst them. He is above seventy years old A desperate fortune had drove him from home, in hopes to have repaired it. I did not see them come. into town, nor let any of my children do so. I thought it would be an insulting of the relatives I had here, though almost everybody went to see them.'

The