70 
Gregariousness in cattle, combined with the struggle for 
existence, tends, according to Mr. F. Galton, to check 
independence of character. 
“We have seen that it is the cattle who graze apart, as well as 
those who lead the herd, who are recognised by the trainers of 
cattle as gifted with enough independence of character to become 
fore-oxen. They are even preferred to the actual leaders of the 
herd, because, as they dare to move alone, their independence is 
the more conspicuous. Now the leaders are safe enough from 
lions, because their flanks and rear are guarded by their followers; 
but each of those who graze apart, and who represent the super 
abundant supply of self-reliant animals, have one flank and the 
rear exposed, and it is precisely these whom the lions take. 
Looking at the matter in a broad way, we may justly assert that 
wild beasts trim and prune every herd into compactness, and tend 
to reduce it into a closely united body with a single well-protected 
leader. The development of independence of character in cattle is 
thus suppressed far below its healthy natural standard by the influence 
of wild beasts, as is shown by the greater display of self-reliance 
among cattle whose ancestry, for some generations, have not been 
exposed to such danger.”—{Macmillan's Magazine, vol. xxiii.,p.jg6.) 
But all this is perfectly irregular from the point of 
view of the survival of the fittest, and the advocate of the 
theory ought to be as much surprised at such a phe 
nomenon as the Northern farmer was when he found that 
he had to die, while senseless old Jones and thriftless 
young Robins were permitted to live. 
Do godamoighty knaw what a’s doing a-taakin’ o’ mea? 
I beant wonn as saws ’ere a bean an’ yonder a pea; 
An’ Squoire 'ull be sa mad an’ all—a’ dear a’ dear ! 
And I’a managed for Squoire coom Michaelmas thutty year. 
A mowt ’a taaen owd Joanes, as ’ant a aapoth 0’ sense, 
Or a mowt ’a taaen young Robins—a niver mended a fence.” 
—(Tennyson. The Northern Farmer. Old Style.) 
The evidence cited above will surely afford some ground 
for supposing that it is not an absurd superstition to 
believe that there is such a thing as accidental death. 
Mr. Huxley—as we have seen in a passage quoted on 
page 27—is indignant that Mr. Darwin “ should have been