man-of-war within a mile of her squadron. Though Te Deums were sung in the churches of Paris, Malaga was a drawn battle; not a ship was sunk or captured on either side; but the French retired, and finally disappeared when the English assumed a menacing attitude, both fleets being really too disabled to continue the struggle; for a private letter says, "All the time we were daring the enemy, we went on to careen by turns, to stop our shot-holes, so that had they engaged a second time, we must have engaged them board and board, and either have carried them or sunk by their side." Rooke's friends, the "addressers," magnified the action into a triumph, and regarded it as a set-off to the Whig victory at Blenheim, and toasted him by the title of "The Church admiral." Irritated by this, their opponents intrigued against him he was laid aside, and Shovel was left supreme. At this time the question arose of leaving part of the fleet to winter in the Mediterranean. But at Mahon the men would starve, Naples had no defences, and Messina was too small, so they fell back upon Lisbon.

The following year Shovel took the Archduke Charles and the Earl of Peterborough to Spain, and in concert with the latter effected the capture of Barcelona, at one time deemed an impossibility with the forces at their command. He was the heart and soul of this expedition; to him Charles applied when distressed by his wants or vexed by the Earl's humours, and to him also the Earl applied for advice in his difficulties. In 1707 he sailed for the last time to the Mediterranean. He was just coming out of the Tagus when the forts fired at his fleet and stopped it. They had previously served Sir John Leake in the same way as he was hurrying out to attack a Plate fleet. Of course it was a "regrettable mistake," but the spirit of the Admiral flamed up and he threatened that should another shot be fired he would not stop for orders from his mistress but would "take satisfaction from the cannon's mouth." At Leghorn he was again moved to wrath by receiving a salute of only five, instead of the royal salute of eleven, guns which he insisted upon. He next co-operated with the Duke of Saxony and Prince Eugène in an attack upon Toulon. At the river bar the passage was barred by a French fort supposed to be impregnable. However, Shovel made his way up the river, silenced the forts, landed Sir John Norris and a company of men, who climbed up the hill and "scampered" over the enemy's works. Toulon proved to be much too strong for them, but they had at any rate the satisfaction of knowing that the cautious enemy had sunk twenty line-of-battle ships in the harbour. Before the hopeless attack began, Shovel entertained the Duke and the

Prince on board his ship, and though no courtier like Rooke, his reception of them was so magnificent that the Duke said, "If your Excellency had paid me a visit at Turin, I could scarce have treated you so well." Somewhat chagrined at the failure of the siege, he turned his face homewards. The Scilly Isles were a great stumblingblock in those days. Only a short time before an obstinate old Dutch admiral, who was confident as to his course, had been within an ace of driving his ship upon the rocks. It was hazy weather and the wind was blowing strongly from the S.S.W. as Shovel drew near them on October 22, and he wisely brought to. But the officers and seamen were making merry with plentiful bowls of punch in honour of their safe arrival, and the large number of gentlemen volunteers on board did not conduce to the maintenance of discipline. At 6 P.M. Shovel set sail again, but at 8 o'clock the Association struck on some rocks known as "The Bishop and his Clerks," and in two minutes went down with every soul on board-900 in all. Sir George Byng's ship was only saved by the presence of mind of the officers and men, who in a moment's time, when the rocks were almost under the main-chains, set the top-sails and weathered the reef. Walpole quotes a pertinent saying of Sir Cloudesley's to the effect that "an admiral would deserve to be broken who kept great ships out after the end of September, and to be shot if he kept them at sea after October." According to one account, the more probable one, his body was found under the rocks of St. Mary's and robbed of a fine emerald ring by the fishermen ; according to another, he reached the shore alive, but was murdered for the sake of the ring by an old woman. So perished at the early age of fifty-seven this fine old English admiral.

W. A. FOX.

A

SEPARATE CREATION.

PAPER of the kind I am about to write requires some prefatory remarks. My object is not to attempt to prove or disprove anything, but merely to try to bring forward such facts and theories as seem to point in a direction opposed to the views held by so many of the scientists of the day. I have attempted to work out my facts, and the theories I have deduced from them, in as forcible a manner as I possibly could, and I am not at all sure that they do not strengthen the views ordinarily held by evolutionists. With these views I have already expressed concurrence in the Gentleman's and in other magazines. In such a manner I venture to suggest may evolutionary study be assisted, and I am therefore arguing from the other side. I do not think the strongest opponent of the Darwinian theory can advance many more powerful arguments against it than I have produced. The power of resisting attack shows the strength of the foundations.

Does the tale of the earth's life history, as evidenced by the tabulated statistics of the stratified rocks, form a chain, the links of which are the incontestable facts of the story of evolution? So it has seemed to me. Are, however, the facts that have been so far observed proofs of anything more than the evolution of individual species, the evolution of separate creations?

From the Primary to the Quaternary epoch, through the Laurentian to the most recent system, there is apparently most steady advance, a progress of organisms through the least complex to the most complex structure-of seaweeds through ferns to conifers and palms, from conifers and palms to trees, shrubs, and existing species; a progress of the earliest known animal forms through fishes to reptiles, from reptiles to birds, from birds to mammals and to man. Where intermediate forms are wanted to link the chain together they are found, and scarcely a gap remains. There are gaps, it is true, but subsequent investigations are to fill them up. The probability of this is great. These difficulties removed, the evolutionist

naturally believes that the tale, already a very powerful one, will be placed beyond the pale of argument. Are such facts as I have mentioned proofs of a Darwinian theory of evolution, or are they the proofs of a Separate Creation? The evolution (or may be the extinction) of species is still advancing. It has been advancing through all time since the earliest age that we can recognise. Possibly what many of us have been regarding as the connecting points of the story are simply the truths of the interrelation of everything, and of a universal plan distributed over the whole creation.

We are forced to the conclusion that there was a period in the earth's history when existing species could not survive, that is to say, that the conditions then were incompatible with "life." No one can deny the workings of the laws of Nature. The laws of Nature are absolutely unvarying. The highest reasonings, the largest intellects that we have knowledge of, did not make these laws, cannot control or alter them. Some force, the immense power of which is outside our comprehension, does control them, and with unswerving decree. This potentiality is hardly to be expressed in a single name, yet it is what we mean by God, or for the matter of that, what some of us mean by Allah or Buddha, and what is vaguely meant by the Creator, and what even the dog worships through his

master.

It is most unreasonable to assume that the Creator of all things would place organisms, species, amongst surroundings fatal to their survival. It is perhaps not unreasonable to suppose that species evoluted from a lower existence evolved into what they are through each other, as the surrounding conditions became favourable. We must accept then one of three hypotheses: A Darwinian evolution, or a single separate creation of species, or species being created at different periods together with the advent of suitable surroundings.

Before going into any argumentative details I would suggest consideration of such an axiom as this: Our first real knowledge of animate existence is learned from the study of beings already stamped with their own permanent peculiarities.

The paucity of man's remains, the fragility of his skeleton—these are very patent facts in the tale of our descent. This fragility explains why man's skeleton is indiscoverable at the earlier periods of his existence. His whole body, skeleton included, is made up of material too inflammable to resist for epochs the ravages of time. As the species evolved, I mean the species homo, his works appeared. The earth history shows his works without his remains: if he existed, as we know he did exist, in periods of time which retain proofs of his

works, but not of his remains, how can we say that he has not lived from the very first period of time that offered suitable surroundings? Through the immense periods of his earliest evolution his works would be recognisable no more than would those of many of the brute creation, during either the later or earlier epochs. It was only as his species evolved that his works became of such superior importance that they outlived his time. Not, of course, that the fact of men's doings outliving them is a proof in itself of men's position in the Creation-man, for instance, does not build up coral reefs. The difference here seems to be this, that the coral insect evolved quickly; its life work is, and always has been, comparatively simple, although the total results are so large and lasting man, on the contrary, has evolved slowly; his life work is, and always has been, varied and progressive, and there seems no possibility of his reaching or finishing any of his labours. Man, then, may, from the commencement of his being, have been man, for aught that the earth history can tell us, and reasoning also guides us in such a supposition. Presently I propose to analyse in a little more detail what paleontologists have to say against such a supposition.

Repeating, again, that we apparently advance through the strata from the simplest to the most complex type, I emphasise at the same time a truth which stands out very prominently, together with this apparent advance from a lower to a higher grade-I mean that the simplest forms, many of them, persist through all recognisable time; from the absence of inflammable material they appear indeed to be practically indestructible. The adaptability of the lower types of ferns to their surroundings is most remarkable. Remove them into the tropical heat and care of the conservatory, and they flourish exceedingly; remove them after this treatment to the open ground, and they feel the effects of the change, but they survive, and in due time appear again bereft of none of their original characters.

"Living fossils" form the most tangible connecting links that the pure evolutionist has to glory in. Take in this connection the duckbilled platypus-it has webbed claws, it lays eggs like a bird, it is billed like a bird; yet it has mammæ, and is said to suckle its young. What is it reptile, bird, mammæ, living fossil, or connecting link? It appears to be the duck-billed platypus, just purely and simply this particular animal and nothing else. It invariably reproduces its kind, nothing more reptilian, more bird-like, or more mammal than itself. And this leads me to still further discuss what I think may be one of the most convincing proofs of a separate creation. The giraffe, lion, rabbit, sole, man, reproduce themselves through generation