pable of a peaceful solution, may "get accomplished" by means of "a prolonged and frightfully tragic conflict," is necessitated, as we understand Mr. Stuart-Glennie's statements and reasonings, by the existence of "the three great social institutions-Marriage, Property, and Government," and the fearful amount of human misery their existence and influences have caused. Those institutions have their basis in the "Christian ideal;" therefore, to remedy the evil, the cause must be uprooted. Thus "the facts of human misery that underlie all our fair seeming civilization," are imputed to Christianity : 66 "I will but recommend," says Mr. Stuart-Glennie, 'the comfortable and misery-uncrediting reader to get and reflect on the statistics of the number of paupers, criminals, prostitutes, bearing in mind, with reference to the latter especially, that official returns give only the numbers of public and avowed prostitutes a very small proportion of those who get, or eke out, their miserable living by prostitution. Next let him obtain and consider the returns of bankruptcies and compositions with creditors; of trade-tricks and adulterations (for these are generally but the effects and signs of the difficulty of making a living), and of strikes and lock-outs; obtain also and consider the reports of the condition of the agricultural, mining, and artisan classes; and obtain and consider the estimates formed by persons of experience as to the number of those of the middle and professional classes whose lives are the bitterest struggle to keep up appearances. Finally, let him get and reflect on the statistics of physical and mental disease, of untimely death and suicide. . . . Such, then, as these statistics, reports and estimates reveal, is the immensity of Human Misery; and can it be wondered at that there is something of a change in the temper with which it is borne, seeing that so widely discredited is now that Christian theory of its origin in forbidden knowledge, and of its end in an angelic heaven, of which the corollary is submission; so widely credited that scientific theory of its origin in necessitated ignorance, and of its end in a reconstructed human society, of which the corollary is revolt."-Pp. 373, 374. All this may be sound philosophy to the transcendentalists who have been favoured by participating in the superior enlightenment of the humanitarian school, but, to an ordinary capacity, it appears most irrational, illogical, and exceedingly shallow. It is not our purpose, however, to discuss Mr. Stuart-Glennie's opinions, but rather to put them fairly before our readers in justification of the views we have already expressed concerning them. The Christian idea!, according to Mr. Stuart-Glennie, is responsible for all the human misery he has enumerated-in fact, for all that is in the world, and thus the vexed problem as to the origin of evil is at once conclusively solved. No wonder, then, that Mr. Stuart-Glennie should long for that happy time when the destruction of the Christian will be followed by the establishment of the Humanitarian Ideal, and human misery shall have ceased to exist! All hail, then, to the bloodstained flag of the Revolution! "Let me, then," says Mr. Stuart-Glennie, "venture to say that the flag of the Revolution, associated as it may be in our minds only with anarchy and blood, is to others the flag of justice dipped and dyed in the blood of the victims of ages of injustice. It is the flag which-recalling to them the bloody intolerance and tyranny which, in proportion to the power of its priests and its kings, has distinguished the social order of Christianity-is the flag of avenging memorythe flag, devotion to which is the fulfilment of the sacred oath that the martyrs of humanity, who have perished on the scaffold and at the stake, or worn-out chained lives in the dungeon and the mine; or when these last extremes were impossible, had, at least, all the joy taken out of their lives-shall not, shall not have suffered in vain. "And both for those of them who have, with uncrushed souls, suffered injustice, and seen it to be not an accident, but a necessity of the Christian social system; and for those of them who if they have not themselves suffered, can sympathize with suffering, and burn against injustice from which themselves have been exempt-it is the Flag of Brotherhood with the Outcast."-Pp. 376, 377. Thus, according to the sublime theory and profound philosophy of Mr. Stuart-Glennie, all the injustice, all the misery humanity has suffered during the last eighteen centuries, has not been "an accident, but a necessity of the Christian social system." Therefore, down with such a system-for, says Mr. Stuart-Glennie (p. 384), is not "the very basis of Christianism falsehood and delusion?" Such being Mr. Stuart-Glennie's views concerning the "origin of evil," the cause of human misery, the calamities that necessarily flowed from the Christian social system, and the desirability of substituting for the Christian Ideal his Humanitarian idol, and his devotion to "the flag of the revolution," by the triumph of which all his Utopianism is to be realized, it need excite no surprise that he tells us "the dispute now is no more as to doctrines or as to miracles, but as to the existence of the supposed Being whose acts miracles would be, were the occurrence of them established-as to the existence, that is, of a supernatural, prayable to God."-P. 369. A "fabled heaven" has no charms for him. "Life, I thought, even with but human capacities, and even on but this little planet, might, indeed, be happier even than that of any fabled heaven."-P. 442. Then the worship of an Almighty Creator-God is placed on the same level as devil-worship. "This single fact," says Mr. Stuart-Glennie, "of the Buddhists' religious striving for an extinction of existence is, I think, sufficient, not only to silence Optimism, but to stand as such an indictment an Almighty Creator-God, as makes of the worship of such a being -devil worship!"-P. 443. We might safely, we think, rest our justification on the extracts already given, as fully warranting us in having said that Mr. StuartGlennie "talks of marriage, property, and government as institutions of questionable utility, and destined to speedy destruction," because he represents them as the offspring of a "Christian ideal" that ought to be destroyed, an ideal that is, responsible for an incalculable amount of human misery, and which it is most desirable should be superseded by the Humanitarian ideal that is to be established under the glorious auspices of the flag of the Revolution. But it puzzles us amazingly by what process of reasoning Mr. StuartGlennie culminates all the evils of modern "human misery Christian institution of marriage. He says: on the "If the reason of the contemporary facts of revolutionary intellectual antagonism is evident when we consider the utterly different character of the views that, according as men endeavour, or not, to bring their theories into accordance with the facts of our later knowledge, they take of the world, of life, and of history; no less evident will the reason be of the contemporary facts of revolutionary social antagonism, when we consider how intimately connected with each other are the forms of all the three great social institutions-Marriage, Property, and Government-and how fundamentally the first of these-the established law of sexual relations-is dependent on the Christian theory and ideal of life. For if that theory and ideal is utterly discredited, then the present form of that social institution, which is the basis of all, loses at once the authority and sanction which conformity with an accepted theory and ideal affords. "Whether the substitution by Christianity of an indissoluble religious sacrament for a dissoluble civil contract is, or not, the best form that can be given to the law of marriage, thus becomes a question to be tried simply by a comparison, and balancing, of the good and evil effects of such a law-among the latter of which will then specially be considered its apparently necessary concomitants of widespread adultery, seduction, and prostitution. "It is not, however, necessary that a man should be a jurist in order to see that any considerable change in the law of sexual relations necessarily brings with it similar change in the laws of industrial relations, and even also in the law of State relations. "And hence, opposed as a man may himself be to organic changes, it is mere uncandid folly not to acknowledge that the facts of human misery under existing social institutions, and the discrediting of that Christian theory and ideal, to the influence of which the present form of the most fundamental of these institutions (viz., Marriage) is chiefly due, does give a reasonable justification to those who think that any considerable lessening of that misery is to be accomplished only through organic changes in the institutions under which it exists." Pp. 374-76. Now, if there be any meaning in the above words, do they not represent "the three great social institutions-marriage, property, and government," under which the terrible amount of human misery already depicted has been engendered, "as of questionable utility, and destined to speedy destruction." text. But Mr. Stuart-Glennie refers us to a note of seven lines at the end of the chapter, in which he seeks to modify or neutralize the poison of his He says, "it is by no means the institution of Monogamy itself, but the historical Christian form of that institution of which the expediency is questioned;" and he says he goes no farther than Sir Henry Maine and Mr. Lecky. In one, however, who aspires to be not only a philosophic thinker and writer, but a prophet also, Mr. Stuart-Glennie commits the unpardonable offence of confounding the use with the abuse-of attributing to au institution in the purity of its ideal, the evils caused by its debasement. What has marriage, in the purity and simplicity of its institution as a covenant, to do with marriage as manipulated by an ambitious spirit of sacerdotalism, and regulated by the canon law of the Papacy? Sir Henry Maine says, "that the expositors of the canon law have deeply injured civilization," and Mr. Lecky deprecates the evil influence of "special dogmatic theology" as applied to the relations of the sexes, but this is very different, indeed, from questioning the utility of marriage celebrated with a Christian ceremonial. Mr. Stuart-Glennie talks of marriage as "an indissoluble religious sacrament, referring of course to the dogmatic theology of the Papacy; but he overlooks the notorious fact that marriage never was held indissoluble by the Popes, who, in the plenitude of their assumed power, abrogated the marriage contract whenever it suited their purposes. It is now for the reader to judge whether the observations of which Mr. Stuart-Glennie complains are justified or not. We think we have supplied ample evidence that he not only "talks of marriage, property, and government as institutions of questionable utility, and destined to speedy destruction," but that he writes very rashly, loosely, and wildly on other topics. Ir may be supposed that the scanty sources from which information upon this subject can be drawn have been already drained, and the last word said as to this extraordinary institution. It is not, however, the case; neither this nor any other prehistoric subject of inquiry can ever be laid finally at rest, in these days in which so many labourers are at work in so many fields of archæological investigation, in which so many invaluable relics of ancient times are being perpetually brought up into the light of day, out of those subterranean regions, where hundreds of patient and single-minded men are at their noble and unseen toil. From time to time the lecturer or the litterateur must come forward, and lay before the world the sorted treasures which have been brought to light, compared and collated with what has been handed down from preceding generations. This is the case with almost every subject of scientific interest, not so much on account of the new facts discovered by those who are OStensibly engaged in that particular branch of investigation, as on account of the light which is reflected upon it by the discoveries of those working other veins of inquiry: but history, and especially that of the so-called pre-historic times, require more often than other departments of research new and still new popularizations of the accumulated information, on account of the greater number of sources from which fresh facts may be drawn to elucidate it, and the great importance of this science when compared with those which treat of inorganic things, or of the lower animals. What, then, is the body of information on the subject of Druidism which has come down to us, and what the nature of the sources from which we derive that information, and what the countries in which this institution flourished? We have no evidence of a perfectly trustworthy nature to show that Druidism flourished in any other countries but Gaul, Britain, and Ireland. For Gaul and Britain we have, among others, the testimony of Cæsar; for Ireland, evidence preserved in the internal history of the country. Now all these were Celtic countries, and from this we would naturally infer that Druidism was of Celtic origin, and was brought by them from the east in their pre-historic progress towards the west Europe. of But here we are met by the results of the cave-searching Mr. Dawkins, whose conclusions are identical with those of Professor Huxley, and which show that when the Celts, in their progress from the east through Germany, or, as is most probable, through the Baltic, reached Gaul and the British Isles, these countries were inhabited by a people of a wholly different character, differing radically both in physique and in language from the Celts, or any portion of the great family of whom the Celts were the most remarkable branch. The people who then inhabited the countries which were afterwards called Gaul, Britain, and Scotia (Ireland) were small in stature, but symmetrically made, with oval countenances and regular features, their complexion swarthy, and their hair and eyes black. Professor Huxley has shown that the Celts were a tall, fair-haired blueeyed race, and that they did not differ materially from the Teutons, the Norse and the Sclaves; that in fact they were but one branch of a great fair-haired race that overspread the whole of the north of Europe and Asia. On the other hand, the dark-haired aborigines of Gaul and the British Isles-their language preserved to-day only in the Basque provinces of Spainwere but a branch of a great race of dark-haired people, who stretched from Hindostan to the pillars of Hercules, and, as has been shown, tended also over the north-west of Europe. Now the whole analogy of history teaches us that when there occurs an invasion of a southern country of Europe by a band of the fair haired northerns, the latter melt away into the body of the popu lation amongst whom they have fallen, and in a few centuries lose those physical characteristics which we have noted as peculiar to the north; on the other hand, being the conquerors, and the aristocracy of the country upon which they descend, they have generally succeeded in impressing their language upon that people. For instance, Latin is an Aryan language; it is akin to the Celtic and Teutonic tongues, and bears no resemblance to the Semitic or Euskarian, which latter is the name given to the language still spoken by the inhabitants of the Basque provinces in Spain. On the other hand when the Gauls invaded Italy in the time of Camillus, what seemed to the Romans most characteristic and peculiar in them was their large frames, blue eyes, and yellow hair. The inference from all this is clear; the Celts, who at some period invaded Italy, probably about the time of the founding of Rome, had succeeded in impressing their language upon the Euskarian aborigines; but being few in numbers, or from the influx of surrounding Euskarian peoples, had melted away amongst the swarthy-complexioned races of the south. We would therefore be inclined to suppose that something of this nature had occurred in Gaul, and the conclusion to which the preceding facts incline us is that to which French savants have from different evidence arrived, namely, that the Gauls of the time of Cæsar, though they spoke a Celtic tongue, were in general a swarthy-complexioned people, exactly as they are at the present day, in spite of the still further admixture of the Frankish and other Teutonic elements. Now as this dark southern race overspread Gaul, France, and |