Miss Martineau had before this time rejected the personal God of the Bible and His providential control, help, or guidance. In 1850 she says: 'When I was younger, I believed in a Protector Who ordered me to do the work, and would sustain me under it. However much I now despise that sort of support, I had it then, and have none such now.' What she thought or felt in later life as to the Divine existence may be gathered from a few sentences: As to my present views, I feel a most reverential sense of something wholly beyond our apprehension.

Here we are in the universe. This is all we know. And while in this position, with obscurity before and behind us, we must feel that there is something above and beyond us......But there is really no evidence whatever of any sort of revelation at any point in the history.'

Miss Martineau's religious negations then, rather than positive opinions, are by herself distinctly traced and attributed to her reception of the Necessarian philosophy. For a universe built up and sustained by the necessary interaction of matter and force sets aside a personal Creator and all sense of duty growing out of responsibility and power of free choice. The notion that a man has no power to act otherwise than ' as he is impelled by that which determines his choice,' saps the foundation of all morality. In the case of Mr. Holyoake, the steps preliminary to his rejection of Bible theology and his profession of atheism are less apparent. From what he relates of his youthful training, and his being taught by his parents to regard God more as an angry Judge than as a loving Father, it may be inferred that when released from home control, he, by a mental reaction, sought in utter disbelief a refuge from parental rigour and from his own disturbing convictions. Do not both of the cases illustrate Isaiah xliv. 20: 'A de

ceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?'

But it may be fairly alleged that whatever steps led to the denial of a future life and consciousness, since the main fact that impending death has in some instances been regarded by unbelievers without disquiet, the main point for consideration is: In what respect is the Christian's peace superior to theirs?

In the first place, the infidel's peace has confessedly but a negative foundation. It does not pretend to be based on certain knowledge, but on a mere rejection of Scripture teaching, because of alleged insufficient evidence. In the next place, the unbeliever, in his declared mental tranquillity, resolutely shuts out from view all but the one possibility of no future existence. Both philosophy and common sense, independently of any evidence, must acknowledge the possibility-that we may live hereafter and be the subjects of judicial retribution. Though at variance with some of her utterances, this logical alternative is recognized by Miss Martineau. She says: So ignorant am I of what is possible in nature that I cannot deny the possibility of a life after death." Such being the palpable fact, the man who, expecting this future existence, lives in habitual preparedness for it, is safe in either alternative. Should there be no hereafter, he loses nothing; he is equal with the unbeliever. Should there be a future life, he is the inheritor of all the blessedness which the Bible portrays; while the unbeliever hazards the consequences of having neglected 'so great salvation,'-a 'fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation.' He who disbelieves existence after

death is, notwithstanding his banishment of fear, living, at the best, in a state of unstable equilibrium. It is possible for a man with one leg to

face with such phenomena. Often what has seemed to be explained by the first glance at the facts and their correlations has, on maturer thought, proved to be merely hasty and inaccurate inference. Few things have exercised the mind of man more than comets; and every accession, as the result of physical enquiry, has been so much added to the possibility of competent explanation of their erratic, stupendous, and inscrutable phenomena. But, in fact, we are entirely without the means of satisfactory explanation. The most interesting and the best known comet is Biela's; and, as M. Houzeau shows, what we know of it is in a high degree perplexing. The path of this comet cuts the orbit of our earth at a certain point: if the two bodies reached this point at the same time they would, of course, come into collision: The earth annually reaches this part of its orbit in November; and in 1872 the comet was almost in our immediate neighbourhood.

The last time it was seen was in 1852, and it should have returned in 1859, but it escaped all observers, and was missed on its return in 1866 and 1872; but this was not fatal to the calculations made: for it had similarly eluded observers in earlier returns, and yet was seen again in 1842.

In 1872, months of searching went on, with no result; but on the 26th and 27th of November in that year an unexpected and dazzling stream of meteors poured over our heavens, the vast majority of them coming out of the region indicated by the constellation Andromeda. The German astronomer Klinkerfues immediately suspected that this stream of gorgeous meteoric bodies was Biela's comet shattered, or disintegrated into meteoric fragments. It had long been known that certain streams of these bodies followed the track of different comets, and it had been supposed that certain phenomena of comets,

such as the transparency of the tail and even of the nucleus, justified the supposition that they were not solid, nor even, in the tail at least, wholly gaseous, but composed of clouds of grains, swarms of corpuscles; and that therefore the meteors were merely small swarms separated from the great mass. Hence the question came Were those unexpected meteor streams parts of Biela's comet, or even the comet itself, through which we were at the time passing? The difficulty that first presented itself was-that if it were so, the comet was not in the exact place which had been calculated for it; but this discrepancy could, it was thought, be met by the fact of possible perturbations. But if it were true, the comet must have passed into the Southern hemisphere and so be beyond the region of European observation. The consequence was that Klinkerfues sent a telegram to observers in the Southern hemisphere, thus: Biela touched earth on the 27th: look for it near the star Theta Centauri.' It was to the Madras Observatory that this remarkable message was sent, and scarcely had Mr. Pogson turned his telescope to the quarter named, when he perceived a small nebulous mass -a comet. The effect of this was wonderful in the world of science. It was at once concluded as inevitable that Biela's comet had partly broken up and been distributed as a fiery spray upon the earth.

But this conviction did not long hold its place in the minds of the competent. First, the path of the small nebulous body as observed was quite different from that which Biela's comet should have been traversing; and, second, its movement round the sun was in the very opposite direction. So it could not be the comet it was at first supposed to be; but what it was, and whether it bore any relation to the comet, is a profound mystery.

It

Nor is this all: up to 1846 this comet had appeared as a vague cloudy body to all observers, and it had a bright nucleus or centre. But at this time cloudy weather was universal over Europe and America for two months, and the comet could not then be seen; but when it was once more perceived, it was found that from some profoundly mysterious cause, it had two nuclei instead of one! next appeared in 1852, still travelling as a body with a double nucleus. It could not be seen on its return in 1859, nor in 1866, nor in 1872; so we cannot tell whether this curious body is still in the same state, or more divided, or again united; but this year he comes again to the region of our sun and will, it may be hoped, be visible. His return is, of course, looked for with the deepest interest, for it is known that one comet, at least (Gambert's), was definitively divided into two.

The question of the collision of the earth with comets, again, is very fertile in problems. What would be the result of collision? In May, 1861, astronomers followed with their telescopes a very beautiful comet which soon became visible to the naked eye. Its tail was enormously long; and it was ascertained, during the visibility of the comet, that the tail actually reached our earth, and extended beyond it. Thus the earth passed through a comet's tail on the 3rd of June, 1861: that is to say, the earth passed through the comet's tail just as a cannon-ball would pass through a cloud of dust. But what were the phenomena manifested as the result of this? Nothing of any remarkable character. There were observations of certain phosphorescent luminosities and certain aurora boreales, but nothing in any way alarming. So that we have, even as the result of this, no true light upon the question as to what is the actual effect of collision with a comet; but certain

phenomena have been noted that are very suggestive. In June, 1783, the atmosphere throughout Europe was suddenly invaded by a sort of dry fog of a very peculiar nature. It deposited no moisture, it did not affect the hygrometer; and it persisted when the wind rose and when the rain fell. It paled the lustre of the sun and lasted quite a month, and that which is most striking in it is— it was phosphorescent, and gave a soft light, like moonlight. At the end of 1821, a similar fog was observed in Western Europe, which continued twelve days. It very

materially affected the sun's light, and gave it a bluish tint; but twilight was very unusually bright, causing the day to be much prolonged; and it was affirmed that the light at midnight was so strong that one could read.

There was a similar fog in 1822, with similar phenomena. The only explanation is, that the luminosity arose from the presence in the air of a cometic substance, or that the earth was passing through some cosmic body. Still, it is manifest that our knowledge in such matters is most imperfect, so that we dare not dogmatize. Science teaches us much, but it also shows us that we have yet much to learn. Our danger is lest we be unduly uplifted by the former, and do not sufficiently consider and weigh the latter.

The Yellowstone National Park in America has been very steadily explored and scientifically studied for some time. Many remarkable facts and phenomena have been brought to light concerning this wonderful region. Mr. Norris describes the discovery of a mountain of glass, which rises in columns and immense masses countless in number, and hundreds of feet in height, from a hissing and seething hot spring, forming the margin of a lake, a barrier,

the main mass of which was three hundred feet high and sloped at an angle of 45° to the surface of the lake; its glistening surface being impassable, neither an Indian nor even a game track being found upon it. It was therefore necessary to make a road; and to do this, huge fires were made against the glass so as to thoroughly heat and expand it, and then cold water was suddenly thrown upon it, causing huge fragments to break off by sudden contraction; and by breaking these into smaller fragments, a road was constructed for the purposes of the explorers, over which wagons could be drawn. Thus a road constructed wholly of volcanically produced glass-perhaps the only one in the world-is amongst the curiosities of the Yellowstone Park. It is said that there are large quarries in the mountain which have evidently been worked by the Indians to get materials for arrows, spear-heads, and other instruments. The glass is of great hardness.

We have on several former occasions pointed out instances of the remarkable relations that may exist between plants and insects. An account was given some little time since of an Acacia-tree, which grows thorns containing food and providing shelter for ants, which ants protect the tree from the leaf-cutting ants which attack it, cutting off the leaves and putting them down to decay, so as to obtain a small fungus which grows upon these leaves in decay, and of which the predatory ants are fond. It is now known that certain birds build their nests and rear their young in this tree to secure protection for their unfledged brood, which on ordinary unprotected trees the ants attack and devour.

Another instance is now before us. The Trumpet-tree, a South and Central American plant, is also protected by a standing army of ants; but it

grows, for the sole use of its protectors, small food-bodies containing oil. It does not secrete nectar, however, of which ants are extremely fond; but to supply this lack, it harbours a small insect (a coccus), whose sweet secretions the ants greatly affect.

There is another plant, a parasitic plant, growing like the mistletoe in England, which is plentiful upon the trees of Borneo. The seedling-stem grows to about an inch in length, and remains in that condition until a certain species of ant bites a hole in the stem, which then produces a gall-like growth that ultimately constitutes a home for the ants. If the plant is not so fortunate as to be bitten by an ant, it dies; but if it becomes an ant city, they protect the tubers from all comers, and the plant becomes crowned with stemless flowers.

We presume that the ghost raised by the Edison 'subdivision of the electric light,' and the supply of electric force as an illuminator, a motor and a cooking agent, through the pipes and other conveniences laid down by the gas companies, is now at an end. The Times, in recording the

character of Mr. Edison's latest patents, sees sufficiently into their value to observe: 'It seems tolerably certain that the proprietors of gas shares may possess their souls in peace.'

Professor Roscoe, at the Royal Institution, has given a most interesting account of a new chemical industry. It arises out of the manufacture of Beetroot sugar. Seventy thousand tons of this are now annually manufactured in Europe. For this purpose the beet is crushed and the sugar is obtained by expression, the juice being refined, boiled, and allowed to crystallize. There is. molasses or syrup left behind. After