AMUSEMENTS.

Evening Star, Issue 4174, 13 July 1876, Page 2

AMUSEMENTS.

THE PRINCESS'S THEATRE.

Boucicatilt's drama "Formosa," which was originally produced here some two years ago under Mr Hoskins's directions, was revived at the Princess's last evening to a capital downstairs attendance. The piece was well placed upon the stage, some new scenery having been painted by Mr Williams, while the Punch and Judy show which was introduced in the race-scene appeared to give infinite amusement to the juvenile portion of the audience. Miss Colville sustained the rdle of Formosa in a very creditable manner, acting with considerable feeling, where she is discovered by her parents leading a fast life. Mr Hoskins appeared fn his old character of Major Jorurii, and his. representation of the pat t was as enjoyable as ever. Mr Burford was not "well cast as Compton Kerr; but Tom Btirrottghs, stroke of the Oxford crew, lured to dissipation by Formosa's charms, found an able representative in Mr Douglas. ' Old Boker,.the4ffize-fighter, is a character which Mr Musgrave has frequently sustained with credit. Of the female parts, Miss Vernon deserves some praise for her. natural acting as Edith Burroughs. MiBS Howarde was sufficiently garrulous as Mrs Boker. The performance appeared to give general satisfaction, and there were calls before the curtain at the close of each act. We notice that "Formosa" will be repeated this evening. . . '

MR TALBOT AT THE QUEEN'S.

At the Queen's Theatre last evening Mr Henry Talbot made his re-appearance after seven years' absence from Duuedin. His great successes on the occasion of his previous visit are remembered by many, as was proved by the large audience that assembled last evening to again welcome what we so seldom have an opportunity of seeing in Dunedin—a tra gedian of sterling merit. "Richard the Third" was selected as the piece for the opening, and the choice was a good one, for thattragedy shows Mr Talbot's powers to the greatest advantage. We have not in this issue space to enable us to give a lengthened notice of the performance of last evening. Sufficient to say that Mr Talbot gave a most powerful delineation of the character of the Duke of Gloster. His appearance was suitable, his dresses (always a great point with Mr Talbot) magnificent, and his rather harsh voice was eminently fitted to speak the words of the bloodthirsty tyrant. Mr Talbot's by-play was at all times expressive and his action striking without being overstrained—the change in his demeanor on being left alone after he has been offered the crown of England was electrical in its effect upon the audience. An effective innovation ,was made by Mr Talbot introducing a laugh full of triumphant revenge after the words " Off with his head," following it up with a perfectly contemptuous delivery of "so much for Buckingham." We must bring our remarks to a close by saying that Mr Talbot was, on the whole, well supported by the members of the company, Mrs Hill ably tilling the trying part of. Queen ELizabeth. This evening '' Hamlet" will be played.

Fpoaking of danci g, a e'ergyman hits the nail on the head with the remark that "ptojJe usually do more evil with their tongues than with thtir toes."

THE ETHICS OF EVOLUTION.

The first of the Athenaeum series of lectures Was given by the Rev. Mr Fitchett in the Temperance Hall last evening, before a large audttuCe, Mr H. S. Chapman occupied the chair. The CiHAiHMAS said tie subject of the lecture for that evening was one which had attracted a great deal of attention lately. The question v.aa not only was there any harmony between Evolution and Christianity, but between Evolution and natural religion. As so.ne doubts existed on these subjects, no doubt the lecture would be productive of considerable interest.

The Rev. Mr Fitchett said: Every person present had no doubt a general knowledge of what the scientific dogma of Evolution was, but did not comprehend how far-reaching it was. Whatever people might think about the truth of it, they could not deny that it was a magnificent generalisation. Some would ask upon what proof it rested, and a great many people were not a little incredulous in regard to it. The proof of its truth could not be furnished in a breath no more than could the truth of certain problems in Euclid. He proceeded to mention the proofs upon which Evolution rested, saying firstthere was the invariable tendency to vaiy; secondly, these variations would accumulate from generation to generation; then there were the considerations that animals increased in geometrical ratio, and also the struggle for existence, or the elimination of the weaker forms. Having read an extract from Darwin as to the origin of man, he said that some people complained that the theory assigned a bestial origin to man, and that it was degrading to be linked in a family relation with beasts. But how could they get rid of facts ? He asked them to take into consideration facts with which they were already familiar—namely, their actual structural affinity to brutes. Each had the same bonyframework and limbs. In respect to respiration, nutrition, and the arterial system, man differed less from apes than apes did from each other. Every mental faculty of man was traceable in a rudimentary form in the brutes, and, according to some, the latter had also a rudimentary conscience. It was said that Evolution was atheistic and pushed God out of the Universe, and the teaching of many of the German expositors of Evolution was atheistical; but its English expositors were not open to that reproach. There was, he admitted, a tendency in some quarters for Evolutionists to place it in antagonism with theism; but there were fanatics in'sciance as well as religion. Those who gave Evolution a theistical turn departed from the true scientific spirit. Those who rejected Evolution because some evolutionists were atheists, were simply acting like persons who would refuse imported goods be--cause the captains of the vessels which brought them were addicted to profane swearing. It had been said that the doctrine of Evolution was irreconcilable with Scripture, and he sympathised profoundly with the logic of the heart, which said that if Evolution does not agree with the Bible, then it cannot be true. What he foresaw was a great smashing of ecclesiastical chinaware, and the levelling of many a scholastic house of cards, , and the brushing away of cobwebs spun put of ecclesiastical brains; but the Bible would emerge with a firmer hold, upon the trust | and veneration of the world than it ever had. The first chapter of Genesis contained a cosmogony that was a history of the universe and of man. But it was written for a nation of slaves, who were "merely, .so to speak, in a state of childhood, and in such terms that-it might be comprehended by. those, for whom it was written. The truth was there, but the history was written for a nation of children, for the pur«se of giving them their first elementary fson in the origjui of the world. If they tried to reconcile it with science on the supposition that it was a literal history, tney could only succeed,- in doing so by torturing the writing and themselves. The Bible said that man was created in the image of God. The child, though in a state of was in the image of its parent and t>f God too. They were also told .that Evolution' was inconsistent with the doctrines of Incarnation and Immortality; but no one sup-' Sosed that Evolution* intended to prove a irect negative. The doctrine Of the Incarnation: of Christ was one which would havje to stand or fall upon its own merits. The lecturer concluded by saying that he had tried to show that~Evolution did not degrade man, that it was not atheistical, and that it was not nnscriptural or unchristian.. Capt. Hutton moved a-vote of thanks to the lecturer, which was carried amid great" applause,, and the customary vote of thankß to the chairman concluded the proceedings. '