signs, of inferior animals, we can only judge of this want through presumptive evidence. Let no unphilosophical reader startle, or shudder, at remarks so bold, and, as he may think, se unwarrantable; but, rather let him look abroad, and apply to Nature for proofs -abundance of which he can scarcely fail to discover, if his views are impartial, and unclouded by prejudice.

In a discussion of this nature, the immortal part of man, that which ranks him. with the children of light, and promises him celestial inheritance, must be left entirely out of the question. The Christian reasoner has nothing to do with Brahminical, or Pythagorean, doctrines; and, therefore, he can have no desire to admit an immortal fellowship with inferior creatures, however he may be astonished at the powers of mind they severally display; powers admitting such, close comparison with his own faculties, that the distinctions are sometimes so faintly marked as scarcely to be perceptible.

When I speak of the immortal part of man, I mean, his claims to a superior state

of existence, and to eternal life; not any intellectual principle distinct from the physical faculties of what is termed mind, which I believe to be common to all animals having locomotion, and any peculiar destinies to fulfil; though man generally possesses them in higher degree than other animals, and, occasionally, in a supereminent degree above them. But the subject is curious, and worthy our deepest attention, since it must be from investigations of this nature that the designs of OMNIPOTENCE, respecting the animal creation, can at all be penetrated, for DIVINE WISDOM gives nothing in vain; -all things are adapted to their ends;— where faculties are found, corresponding effects must be looked for; and it is clear that the best means of discovering the utility of all animated beings, either in the great scale of creation, or merely to man, are to be obtained by ascertaining the nature and extent of their faculties.

The reasoning upon this subject which the celebrated COUNT de BUFFON has introduced into his dissertation

on the

"Nature of Animals*,” appears to me so extremely fallacious, and inconclusive, that I cannot avoid offering some kind of refutation + to those parts which more immediately bear upon the comparative merits in ques

tion.

To trace, and to ascertain, the different degrees of mental power which are pos

See his Nat. Hist. General and Particular, by Smellie, vol. iii.

:

+ BURFON is justly the pride and the boast of French Naturalists and he is certainly the most splendid, and the most eloquent, as well as the most voluminous and general writer on Natural History the world hath yet seen. But his works are so replete with error, that they are dangerous in the hands of young students; who, led away by the brilliance of his style, and the fascination of his eloquence, forget to exercise the necessary caution in perusing them. This celebrated man had, besides, a great and an unpardonable fault; which was an utter and a general contempt towards the Naturalists of other countries; and especially towards those of Britain. He carried this disdain so far, indeed, that he affected to despise the great LINNEUS, and even wrote a discourse purposely to cast ridicule on that celebrated man, whose name will probably survive that of the vain and speculative, though enlightened and splendid, author of the Histoire Naturelle, General et Particuliere.

sessed by the inferior animals, has long been to me a subject of much amusement and instruction; and, that some results of importance have been obtained, I hope will be made to appear in the "Memoirs and Illustrations of British Zoology," now preparing for publication. It is necessary, however, to say something in opposition to the doctrine of BUFFON, alluded to, on this occasion, as the subject is not only inseparably connected with the study of Natural History, of which, indeed, it forms an essential part; but, because my own opinions are in a great measure different from any that have hitherto been promulgated; or, at least, that have come to my knowledge -on this subject.

Although I dissent from the main doctrines attempted to be proved by the charming and popular writer to whom I have alluded, and which, I believe, are pretty generally held in this country, I must again observe, that it is by no means my desire to depreciate the intellectual character of man, or to exalt that of the brute, beyond the

limits of truth: my aim is merely to inculcate a nicer appreciation of the nature of the animals amongst which the lot of man is cast; and to point out to the young Naturalist, that he has something of more consequence to learn respecting them, than their mere external characters, and their appropriate names.

To follow the Count through all his curious, and ingenious, reasoning upon this subject, attacking the numerous absurdities as they occur, would be tedious, and uninteresting, upon an occasion like the present. I shall therefore confine myself to a few of what appear the principal objections to his doctrine. He attempts to prove, that a much greater difference exists between the mental faculties of man and those of other animals, than is really the truth. According to him, this difference is so great, as to admit of no comparison; that it is even infinite. He wishes to shew that these faculties differ in nature, or quality; rather than in measure, or degree. He, indeed, attempts to prove*,

*

Page 229, &c. vol. iii. Smellie's Edition,