And the patient, thoughtful, and I may say respectful, manner in which the subject was argued by my distinguished visitors made that conversation to me for ever a pleasant memory. The beautiful spirit of enquiry manifested on the part of Canon Westcolt especially impressed me.
The conditions of the Union desired, on the part of the Army as set forth, were simple as simplicity itself. Whatever might have been felt necessary on closer investigation to the maintenance of the Union, nothing was asked beyond an open recognition of our connection with the Church, and the regular attendance by each Corps at the Parish Church, or at an authorized service in some other consecrated building, say at regular intervals, wkly.
At such times it was remarked that it would be quite admissible for the Army to march up to the Church-doors with bands playing and banners flying, as was our custom to our own Barracks. Indeed, invited by friendly Clergymen in various parts of the country, our people were at that time actually attending different Churches in this fashion. I don't recollect whether the partaking of what is known as the ordinance of Lord's Supper at this service was named, but I think it is probable that it would be.
Anyway, I know there was the distinct understanding that we should be left at perfect liberty at all other times to carry on our own work in our own way. There was to be no interference with our Government or our Methods. We were to be the Salvation Army to all intents and purposes, as we were then, with this addition only--we were to be the Church Salvation Army. Here the difficulties likely to be experienced by our Soldiers in Churches where a High Ritual form of service was in force occurred to my mind, and I suggested that the bulk of our people would be found either totally ignorant of the supposed benefits flowing out of the use of images, candles, crucifixes, vestments, or of almost any of the numerous forms and ceremonials practised in many Churches, or they would be found very strongly opposed to them.
On my mentioning this difficulty, and asking how it could be met, Doctor Benson suggested for our imitation his own custom under such circumstances. He said that when in the performance of his duty he came to a church where the manner of the service was not in harmony with his own views on such matters, he simply did the work for which he was present to the best of his ability, regarding the responsibility for the surrounding furniture and usages as resting upon the shoulders of those who were responsible for that particular church.
The Ordinance of the Lord's Supper and our attitude towards it was talked over in a thoughtful, though summary manner. On my remarking that I did not hold the partaking of the Ordinance to be essential to Salvation, and that I believe no thoughtful Christian would shut us out of the Pale of Salvation here, or close the Gates of Heaven against us hereafter, because we had not been regular partakers of that Ordinance, his Lordship, while appearing to assent to this statement, remarked that, apart from that bearing of the subject, he thought that the sincere Churchman derived a great blessing from joining in that particular service.
To this I of course assented, but enquired whether this blessing was not consequent upon the exercise of faith in the sacrifice of the Cross which it set forth. To which it was again answered, that apart from any such special exercises on the part of the worshipper, God, he thought, had connected a special impartation of His presence and blessing with this particular service. What appeared to be the natural answer to this observation at once came to my mind, but perceiving that to pursue the conversation on this line would be likely to carry us into the region of controversy, I did not continue it.
On other difficulties being mentioned, one of my Visitors--I forget which--made the obvious remark that it was all but impossible to conceive that there could be any insuperable difficulties in the way of the Church extending her recognition to the Salvation Army, when she was able to comprehend the High Church, with its extravagant ritual on the one hand, and the Broad Church, with its semi-scepticism on the other. Much more passed--in which the spirit manifested by my Visitors was, I thought, very commendable--which I cannot call up at the moment, and I am sorry to be unable to lay my hand upon the record of the conversation which I must have made at the time; but I do recollect very well the conclusion to which I was compelled to arrive, and which I remember stating in something like the following words, at the close of the interview: That while appreciating the sympathy of my friends, for which I was deeply grateful, and their worthy wishes to avoid the establishment of another separate Religious Organization, with which I heartily concurred, I was afraid the Union we had been discussing was simply impossible at the present date.
In the earlier history of the Army it was a thing that might have been. A few years back, I strove hard and long to connect the Army with some existing Organization, but utterly failed. Now it seemed that the Providence of God, the convictions and feelings of our people which I was bound to regard , and the whole circumstances of the case, seemed to indicate that the spirit of union--which was the next best thing to actual Union itself--would be most effectually attained by the two Bodies continuing to live and work apart, their labours and influences flowing on side by side, like two distinct streams, with bridges connecting each at frequent intervals my figure here became a little mixed, I fear, but the meaning was clear , over which the leading spirits of both Organizations might often pass and repass with mutual sympathy, prayer, and co-operation.
On an occasion of some interest, I had the pleasure ol meeting the Archbishop again. To that interview I will not refer now. On earth I shall meet him no more. The time, however, may not be very far distant when the Union he desired may be consummated in another world. Benson impressed me as being before all else a Churchman. He believed in his own concern. Here, at least, we were on equal terms. I believed then, and more than ever I believe to-day, in mine. It may be said, we think, that the Church of England missed an almost priceless opportunity when she let those negotiations fall to the ground.
For, impossible as those negotiations were from the point of view of absorption or amalgamation, impossible too, as they were, from the point of view of an immediate alliance, they did undoubtedly present to the Church an opportunity for establishing a cordial understanding with the Salvation Army which might have developed with the evolution of time into a real alliance.
Unhappily, the Church stood upon doctrinal and ceremonial ground, and praising here, admiring there, but criticizing as a whole, made no movement of opening her arms to embrace and bless these simple apostles of the poor. Much good might have flowed from one annual Salvation Army Service in St. Paul's Cathedral, from constant consultation with William Booth in matters of evangelical concern, and from frank and generous recognition of the Salvation Army as an essential branch of the Christian Brotherhood, even if it were necessary to proclaim the fundamental difference in doctrine.
But the Army at that time was giving grave offence, judicious observers thought that it would not endure, and the Church herself was now sending out a rival army under ecclesiastical direction to cover the same field. In these circumstances, and as the General did not prosecute the negotiations, the Church allowed the matter to drop, and one more division was made in the suffering and dismembered body of Christendom.
That individual clergymen longed for some such recognition may be gathered from the following letter, which may be taken as an example of many others, to William Booth, written in by the Rev. Hankin, Vicar of St. Jude's, Mildmay Grove:. I was at the Prince's Hall Meeting on Tuesday morning and could only bow my head and weep for very shame--tho' at the same time I rejoiced at the glorious wave of spiritual power now issuing from the S.
But oh! I do so wish that you were in communion with the Church of England!!! Your liberty of action perfectly free and untrammelled--but your people on special occasions meeting in their own Churches! Canon Liddon, who disliked the excesses of the Army as much as any man, nevertheless lamented the failure of these negotiations. But the General had his growing Army to direct, and the Church had her thousand activities to pursue; the General had his autocracy to guard, and the Church had her dignity to preserve.
Negotiations, hopeless for any immediate benefit, but full of hope for future blessing, slid out of hands too busy for the patient work of diplomacy, and William Booth, protesting that he was no sectarian, continued to organize on his own lines and under his uncompromising government the most world-wide of all evangelistic agencies.
In he wrote to his wife from Bristol: "Their great point with outsiders is the old one which every one knows, that I am Pope. But that will wear out, because the continued success makes people think and feel that for me it answers and cannot be much condemned. He was not a diplomatist of the first order, and if he had been a diplomatist of any order at all it is perhaps doubtful whether he would have found men in almost every nation under heaven ready to give their lives for the message he commanded them to preach.
Booth had been greatly impressed in , as the reader will remember, by the work of the Midnight Mission, she did not take any steps to make the rescue of fallen women a particular labour of the Salvation Army. Nor was there much enthusiasm on the part of William Booth when his son Bramwell, in , almost forced the Salvation Army to take up this difficult work. Bramwell Booth, describing his first inquiries into what we now call the White Slave Traffic," I was like one living in a dream of hell.
The cries of outraged children and the smothered sobs of those imprisoned in living tombs, were continually in my ears. I could not sleep, I could not take my food. At times I could not pray. He had seen women on the streets as he came from the East End late at night; touched by their forlorn position he had spoken to them; in cases where there was an expression of genuine disgust for the life he had effected rescues; but it was not until after a dramatic visit to his office from a poor girl who had escaped out of a brothel she actually climbed down a rain-pipe from the room in which she was imprisoned that he came to study the trade in women, the trade which swindles and tricks young girls into a life of debauchery, the trade which destroys the souls and bodies of quite young children.
This trade, which few people in those days believed to exist, was, and still is, a highly organized business, with its ramifications in every country, and its curse over every nation. To Bramwell Booth the discoveries he made were so appalling that he felt he could consecrate his life "to stop these abominations. Catherine Booth was sympathetic to his proposal. William Booth was also sympathetic, but sceptical on the question of procedure. We must remember that thirty years ago people spoke with extreme disgust of the fallen woman. No religious society cared to associate itself with a definite work of rescue.
Religious people felt, and many still feel, an aversion almost like nausea at any mention of this subject. The unfortunate is most unfortunate in the universal disgust she inspires. Men of the world invent brutal and disdainful terms for her, religious people avert their faces as they pass her in the street, and shudder even to think of her. A fallen woman seems to carry with her into the pit of perdition all the horror of humanity for the desecration of the most sacred of its ideals.
It is owing, I think, largely to the quite heroic work of Mrs. Bramwell Booth that this attitude of the public has been modified. If this book were the life of Brainwell Booth, or a history of the Salvation Army, we should tell at length the moving and dramatic story of that work; but as our concern is the narrative of William Booth's history, we can but glance at the great Purity Campaign of , and can tell only in brief the story of the famous prosecution which threatened at one time to end the crusade and to cripple the Salvation Army in a very serious manner.
Bramwell Booth had married, in , Miss Florence Soper, the daughter of a physician practising in Wales. This lady had come under the influence of Catherine Booth, had joined the Army, and had been through some of the most stormful scenes in Paris which accompanied the Army's first efforts to establish itself on French soil. She was young, delicate, refined; her remarkable powers of grasp and administration had not been developed at this time; she was typical of the well-educated, rather shrinking and self-conscious girl of the English professional classes--perhaps the last person in the world to whom any one would have thought of committing so hazardous and dreadful a business as this rescuing of fallen women.
But she was moved by her husband's appeal, and, in spite of some doubt on William Booth's part, was appointed to take charge of the Salvation Army's first Rescue Home. The work was now launched--the work of rescuing repentant Magdalens and educating them in habits of industry and self-respect. But Bramwell Booth was not content. He had pity--because he suspected the devilries of the trade --for the unrepentant and the hardened woman who mocked at religion, who cursed God, and who went to her death drunken, scornful, and terribly diseased.
It did not satisfy him to rescue a hundred weeping Magdalens; he set himself to attack the trade which annually ruins both in body and in soul thousands of quite innocent girls and children. He chose for the man to help him in this work Mr. Stead, of The Pall Mall Gazette--perhaps the most enthusiastic journalist of his time. Stead would have read it unmoved. He was first and last a journalist, a man whose imagination never strayed from the columns of the passing hour to the bookshelves of posterity. He had no literary ambitions for The Pall Mall Gazette; he sought rather to give it a spirit which would permeate the national conscience.
He was a Puritan who loved his fellow-men. In those days he was narrower than he came to be, and yet more sensible. He boasted that he had never entered a theatre, but he had not fallen a victim to the most absurd delusions of spiritualism. His manner was eager, pleasant, and not without a touch of worldly humour. He made friends with men who shared none of his ideals.
He sought rather to encourage those whom he met to go a step farther on their own road than to cross over and march at his side. He was fanatical, I think, in the depths of his soul, but a diplomatist on the surface. He believed passionately in conversion and prayer, but he kept this conviction for those who were already persuaded.
He never intruded his religion, and he sometimes cloaked it. Perhaps it may be said, considering his work for the Royal Navy, that no journalist of his generation rendered greater services to the British Empire. William Booth, in my opinion, was never greatly attracted by Mr.
A. T. Jones
He was more or less suspicious about this thrusting, eager, and headlong journalist, who did much to help the Salvation Army and who was a brave champion from early days of its innovating General. William Booth used Mr. Stead, and was grateful for his assistance, but he never greatly warmed to him, never wholly trusted his judgment, and was sometimes disposed to regard him as one who shilly-shallied with the great decision of Christian life. Stead was perhaps aware of thls, for in The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon he speaks of the help he received from the Salvation Army--"from the Chief of the Staff"--that is, Bramwell Booth--"down to the humblest private.
On the other hand, Bramwell Booth--at that time young and ardent--not only admired Mr. Stead as a journalist, but felt for him a generous affection. He thought first of all of Mr. Stead when the idea of publicly exposing the traffic in women occurred to his mind, and he never once questioned the wisdom of this inspiration. Stead listened incredulously to the evidence presented to him.
When he was persuaded of its truth he struck with his fist the table in Bramwell Booth's room and vowed himself to destroy this most damnable work of the Devil. A few weeks after that conversation the country was in a blaze. In the columns of The Pall Mall Gazette Stead exposed the hell of child-harlotry with a force and energy never before known in journalism. The nation was staggered. For weeks scarcely any other subject was discussed. These articles, full of heart-breaking narrations and disclosures which took away the breath of respectability, roused the whole country, but divided it into two very unequal camps.
On one side were the few selfless people, like Mrs. Josephine Butler, who passionately longed to save women from the degradation of vice; on the other, a multitude who lived vicious lives, and a still greater multitude, composed of the religious and indifferent, who wanted society to exist without disturbance. But with Stead in the field, and Bramwell Booth using the organization of the Salvation Army to create a public opinion on this subject, apathy was broken, and the conscience of the world was profoundly stirred.
A monster petition, organized by the Salvation Army in seventeen days, and bearing no fewer than , signatures, was presented to the House of Commons on July 30, , praying that the age of consent should be raised to sixteen. Meetings were held up and down the country. The Salvation Army, basing itself upon the revelations of Stead, sought to lead the nation in a campaign against flagrant iniquity.
Stead, foreseeing that the disclosures of The Pall Mall Gazette would be regarded as merely sensational journalism, either grossly exaggerated or entirely untrue, conceived the idea of himself buying a young girl, ostensibly for the purposes of seduction. It was his business to prove that a young girl could be bought from her parents for a few pounds--a possibility which many absolutely refused to believe. He went to Bramwell Booth for assistance. After considerable thought a plan was arranged. A woman who had once been a procuress, and who was then living under the care of the Salvation Army and later with Mrs.
Josephine Butler, was pressed into service; a lady in France connected with the Army was linked up with the mechanism of this strategy; and Bramwell Booth stood ready to do his part. The girl, Eliza Armstrong, an illegitimate, was purchased by the ex-procuress, Rebecca Jarrett. She was taken to a brothel, she was drugged, and Stead entered the room. She was then taken to a railway-station and sent under excellent protection to Madame Combe in France. Thus Stead's contention was proved, and a child who might have been ruined was saved to society.
Josephine Butler gives us a moving account of Stead's condition of mind during the period of these disclosures. Stead is publicly known only as a brave and enterprising reformer. But to my mind the memory is ever present of a dark night in which I entered his office, after a day of hand-to-hand wrestling with the powers of Hell.
We stumbled up the narrow dark stairs; the lights were out, not a soul was there, it was midnight. I scarcely recognized the haggard face before me as that of Mr. He threw himself across his desk with a cry like that of a bereaved or outraged mother, rather than that of an indignant man, and sobbed out the words, "Oh, Mrs. Butler, let me weep, let me weep, or my heart will break. Well might he cry, "Oh, let me weep!
But in his eagerness to prove his contention, in order to convert public opinion to his view, Stead had broken the criminal law. The purchase of Eliza Armstrong was a crime. That is to say, the reformer in his zeal for truth had technically broken the law of abduction.
To the astonishment of a great many people a Government prosecution was set on foot and, with Stead and Rebecca Jarrett, Bramwell Booth was placed in the dock. It is interesting to find that while Catherine Booth was immediately filled with an angry indignation and was ready to fight for her son's honour to the very last, William Booth--thinking of the Salvation Army--was chiefly concerned because the action of Stead, in dragging Bramwell Booth into this business of a prosecution, had dragged the Salvation Army into a questionable position.
Then he referred to the forthcoming trial, which he regarded as a supreme attempt of the Arch Enemy of Souls, and the earthly enemies of the Army, to destroy our work and our fair name. Then with his whole frame quivering with holy passion he said--as well as I can remember, 'If they imprison my son Bramwell, I will go round this country and stir up the people from one end to another.
The case itself, the whole question of white slavery, did not so much concern him as the honour of the Army, which he felt might be impugned by this incident in its career. The enemies of Stead were not so much allies of the prostitute as the foes of the Army--that is to say, foes of God and allies of Satan.
His letters at this period are of great value. They demonstrate quite clearly that however much he longed, and long he certainly did, to sweep away vice, the Purity Crusade of the 'eighties owed little to his initiative. They also prove, I think, that he foresaw nothing of the glory which has since come to the Army for its heroic lead in this matter--a narrative which should one day be told in full; and they help one to realize how exclusively and intensely his life was centred upon the work of spiritual religion.
He was a man, as we shall see presently, who wanted to help the fallen woman, but not in the sensational manner which Stead felt was essential to a national awakening. It was a saying with him at this time that Stead must not carry the Army into sensationalism. It was greatly strengthened by W. Stead's and Bramwell Booth's influence. It concerned boys as well as girls, but its chief provision was the raising of the "age of consent. That the Government should move against her son and against Mr. Stead, infuriated the heart of Catherine Booth.
The wicked and the adulterous hated Stead for his disclosures, the worldly-minded and the hypocrites loathed the Salvation Army and longed for its injury; these might have joined forces and sought to ruin the apostles of purity without arousing the wrath and indignation of Catherine Booth. But that the Government of Christian England should take up the first stone, that the Ministers of Queen victoria should seek to shut the mouth of Stead and to cover the Salvation Army with infamy, this was more than that very logical good woman could suffer.
Booth had excellent ground for her indignation:. Your Memorialists desire to call the attention of your Most Gracious Majesty to the fact that a noted procuress, a Mrs. Jeffries, resides in Church Street, Chelsea. This slave-dealer has kept twelve immoral houses, which houses, the evidence showed, were mainly frequented by noblemen and gentlemen in the upper classes.
In May, , this notorious woman was brought to trial; her complicity with the home and foreign traffic in girls and women was well known; twenty witnesses were ready to give their testimony, and yet because of her wealth and position the trial became a travesty of justice. Your Memorialists believe that a more grave miscarriage of justice never took place. For more than twenty years this buyer, seller, and exporter of English girls and women has carried on her criminal traffic.
One can better understand the fiery indignation of Mrs. Booth than the calm and watchful annoyance of the General. But in reading the following letters the reader will bear in mind that William Booth had gone unwillingly into the side-issue of a Purity Crusade, that he had the Salvation Army to think about, that the Salvation Army was more to him than wife or child, that he never suffered the most precious of his personal affections to come between him and the interests of this Army, and that he was sharply conscious of enemies on every side watching for an opportunity to attack and destroy his Army.
It should be clearly borne in mind that he was not without sympathy for the harlot. He was not in the least self-righteous; he had no element of that detestation for the public woman which characterizes the attitude of so many very pure people to this whole question; but he did not feel that it was the business of the Salvation Army to lay an exceptional emphasis on this matter; he did not want the Army to be mixed up with a public scare; he held that the warning of the Salvation Army to repent must be addressed indiscriminately to the whole world.
Still I believe that if they are committed to-morrow, which we all expect, he will feel much better. Rebecca [Jarrett] is all right they say, and has consented to some evidence coming out which blacks her. The cross-examination on Saturday showed up Mrs. Broughton as a very low bad woman. But Ranger and all think they are certain to commit whether the matter ever comes to a real trial or not, very doubtful in the estimation of Russell and others. They think that the Government has felt so bespattered with these Revelations that they have felt compelled to discredit them before the world, consequently they have fallen upon this case.
Perhaps they may never push the thing to the extremity of a trial; if they do, nothing very much can possibly come of a conviction if any Jury can be gof together that will say "Guilty. My opinion is that any way the Army cannot suffer very much. We shall have after the trial, whichever way it may go, a splendid text for an appeal to the Country.
If they convict, we can show up the injustice of the thing--if they acquit, we can show the infamy and groundlessness of the prosecution. Have faith in God, Lucy has written across her breast. Oh let us have it written across our hearts, and act it out. I hardly see how you can be wrong in a few words bearing upon what has led up to the Revelations, and on the wisdom of the Government prosecuting those who for the national weal made them.
Bramwell believed this girl had been parted with by her parents in such a manner as convinced him that they had no concern to have her back under their care, and as such made Stead her natural guardian; he took her and believed he was doing her, the child, and God service in trying to keep her from going back to misery and perdition. You must be careful--there's some sort of a threat to bring an action for libel and damages against all concerned for asserting that Mrs. Armstrong sold her child. Now there are a lot of scoundrels who would find money for anything to get at our throats, so we must be careful.
I hate this litigation. The time it consumes is awful. I can't make out why it should be so. But it goes to the heart direct. We must at once get up some sort of Counter-demonstration in the shape of a big influential defence Committee. You will see the card Railton has got out--I enclose a rough proofI don't see much in it--he thinks it will attract attention and associate us with the prayers every time people read them at Church.
It can't do any harm. We shall send them to the Queen, Cabinet Ministers, Bishops, etc. Our People will buy them--this is a rough proof. An effort is to be made to get some down to Bradford. My darling. If I could always be assured of your welfare and that you don't worry or care, I should be comparatively reckless about the other things. Let us cast our care on Him who cares for us--all our care--our care for those who are dearest and nearest and weakest in our circle. All seem well here. Florrie [Mrs. Bramwell Booth] has done well to-day. I do think she helps Bramwell much.
I am sure she will prove a great power for good and a helper of our joy and usefulness beyond what some have feared. My heart's love to Herbert. His telegram cheered the Chief. Could you get a simple vote of sympathy with the Chief of Staff [Bramwell Booth] and Stead in this prosecution on Monday night and wire it in time for War Cry on Tuesday morning? Indeed, there must be a Press telegram if you have a good go. Keep within the law, and we will have counsel's advice as to how far we can go when the Committal has taken place. Jesus Christ is a Brother born for adversity.
We suffer in the Name for His sake and through His Spirit in us. Let us bear it like the Saints; be strong; "we'll be Heroes. God bless and keep my beloved. He thinks that explanations are beneath us; but would advocate the pushing forward of our Rescue Work, the showing up of what we are doing in this direction, bringing out the case, and then remarking that this is the sort of thing for which they are attacking our Chief of the Staff. There is something in all this. Anyway it does not seem dignified for an Army meeting to sympathize with the Army. The proper thing to do is to get up a great Defence Committee outside of us and let them speak.
I am sure the best answer we can make to the whole affair is to go on with our own work, keep our heads up, and keep on with the song of victory. The lasses went past here this morning from Tottenham, singing "Victory. We have always had safety and success in going on with our own work. If you and the friends make a spiritual impression on Bradford it will do more to answer the slanderous lies than any explanation that can be given at this stage of the affair.
The enclosed is Stead's account of things, which appears in to-night's Pall Mall Gazette. It is such a throwing up of the sponge and leaving us all in the lurch that I cannot go any further on in the agitation. To soap anybody down in that fashion is to me disgusting.
I understand all the way through that the Attorney-General was hard upon our people, and on Sat. And here is Stead, abandons poor Rebecca, and said that the verdict is just, etc. Let us go back to our own work. I could say much more, but I never feel sure that my letters will reach you or not, or be seen by others after I have sent them. If I could only be assured of this I should write much more freely. The English Dialect Dictionary gives many examples. We shall see what is done to-morrow. Stead won't be put in prison, in my opinion, but will drop back into his old role of journalist, and leave us smeared with the tar of this affair to fight it out with blackguards and brothel-keepers all over the world.
I am sure the S. We shall see tremendous things. We are deciding for our International Council in June next, and shall have Soldiers from all parts of the world and 2, Officers. This will wipe out the very memory of Eliza Armstrong. I like the telegram to Her Majesty. They will have wired you the Queen's reply, which I think is very good.
Of course the torpid people will say you should have waited until the trial was concluded. Altho' I have not heard any say so yet. I don't think so! You have let them see beforehand what they have to expect. It will no doubt have a salutary effect. I don't believe they intend to send Stead to prison. We shall see! Surely the next trial will not last long.
Somebody said they thought it would be over in two or three hours. You will have seen something of the papers this morning, I suppose. The Daily News is bitterness itself, only a sentence or two against Bramwell; but of course we are implicated in its sweeping, scathing sarcasm. The Standard I hear is bad, and I fully expect they will all be alike.
I have not a hope from any newspaper in the land except the religious ones, and only partially from them. However, this is just what we expected, and although I feel it at the moment, our turn will come by-and-by. It is no use anticipating evils. I shall not allow myself to do so.
The matter will for the season drop out of sight in consequence of the election strife, and it is quite possible the verdict may be reversed on appeal, the thing will work round Do be restful and get some strength. We have a lot of fighting yet before we go to rest, I hope. You will have got our wire with reference to the trial this morning. So far as we are concerned now the trial is at an end. I understand that the Judge remarked this morning that Mr. Bramwell Booth was justified in believing that Mrs.
Why didn't he say so on Saturday? Perhaps he has had some new light. The trial of Stead and Jarrett and she or their's for the indecent assault is now going on. Bramwell is in courtof course, wanting to be as near Stead as he can when the sentence is pronounced. But I don't believe that Stead will go to prison; and I don't think that very much will be done to Rebecca.
If there is, I think we can get a remission of the sentence. We will try, but beyond that I don't see any way clear of fighting on those lines; I am sure our work has materially suffered by our attention being taken from it to give the other; we may have been paid back to a certain extent, and in the long run much good may be done, but I thoroughly believe in "Salvation" being a panacea for the world's sins and sorrows, and that while there are other medicines that look in the same direction, the largest amount of good can be accomplished, with the least expenditure of time and money, by simply getting the people's souls saved and keeping them saved.
I had a long talk with Mr. Railton's brother last night, and so far as I can see from what he says, and my own observation, the hope of the nations is really in the S. Let us spend our strength upon it. I hope you won't strongly object to it, but I propose that we are content with Thanksgiving Meetings throughout the country on Monday next I have been writing a column for the Cry this morning, and have made a very decent flourish.
Of course, with what the Judge said this morning, we come out of the thing with flying colours. And if as I fully expect some further evidence will be got in vindication of Rebecca the tables will be turned altogether yet. Butler is fast at Winchester with bronchitis, working on a pamphlet on Rebecca Jarrett. When the thing is quite over, the probability is that Stead will kick out again, and renew the fight.
Anyhow, we can lend a hand, along with our other duties, to the good cause You rest--there's a darling. They will take care of Stead--of course it will make him. We must do something now. I am woke up again and in for fighting. Still I am sure it is not our business. I am sorry the matter should so grieve you, although I expected you would be very much disappointed with Stead's article, as I was myself; but we can't expect people to go beyond themselves, although we are always doing it!
After mature deliberation on the subject, I have come back to my impression formed before I heard the sentence, that we ought not to involve the Army in any great struggle on the subject. To begin with, Stead has innumerable friends who worship him, and who will agitate the country, and do so far better without us mixed up in it, than with us. Indeed, it is a great relief to them, I have no doubt, for us to be out of it, so that they can ask for a favour to Stead, or justice, if you like to call it, without having to ask for us at the same time.
We shall therefore embarrass them by mixing ourselves up with it, so that on his account it will be better for us to remain separate. Again, there are things in the thing that are very discreditable to us, that is in the way the thing was done. The jury have absolved us from blame, and all the Judge could rake up to say was, "that we ought to have given up the child," which had we known what he knows now we would have done. If we could help Stead we ought to do so, and we will help him by petitioning or holding meetings on our own lines.
Then as to Jarrett, the sentence is not a heavy one; she has no hard labour, her disease will get her all manner of attention; it is possible that she will be treated as a first-class misdemeanant, and on the whole it may really be better for her to be in than out. Then again, she has behaved badly in some respects, perhaps we could not expect anything else from her; still when we remember what she was, and the notice that has been taken of her, she was under very great obligation to us.
It may do her soul good; she says it will, and that she will come out and spend the rest of her days working for God I know what can be said with regard to a great deal of this, and will talk it over with you. You say there is nothing to be done. Well, the independent party will have a meeting in Exeter Hall and try and get a Bishop in the chair; but they won't want us there, and we can have our meetings, send up our petitions; and with regard to Jarrett, I think we may use some private influence.
A letter from you to the Home Secy. I shall see you to-morrow. The following letters from Mr. Stead, addressed from prison to his friend Bramwell Booth, reveal in a rather remarkable way the influence of religion upon his mind, and in particular the influence of the Salvation Army. William Booth never understood, perhaps, the ambition of Stead to work for the salvation of the State. He did not believe in saving humanity by machinery or in the lump; he was unfalteringly convinced that salvation is a single and individual transaction:.
Don't be down in the dumps. I tell you my imprisonment is a great blessing and will be a greater. It would be a thousand pities to get me out. Don't be savage or indignant or contemptuous or anything, but joyful and grateful and willing to do God's will. Poor 'Becca, I would offer to change places with her, but it would be no use and the people would think that the proposal was merely made for theatricality, so I must just hope and pray that God may be with her where she is. It is no use you troubling to come up to Holloway. The rule is in cast-iron.
Waugh, Mrs. Fawcett, George Russel, and Bunting have all been peremptorily refused. I see no one, only Wife, Talbot, and Stout. I am very sorry to see that the Glasgow bailies have sent the Freethinker seller to gaol for six days for your caricature. It will do harm, and I wish I could get him out. I am happier in prison than ever I have been out of it, and you poor people who are free are plagued with iil health and all kinds of afflictions.
I am in a little Heaven 15 feet square, wonderfully uplifted and jubilant. A wonder with all who come to see me for my exceeding high spirits and almost riotous joyfulness. I am working like a slave, in first-rate health and full of themes and plans and hopes and faiths. I wish you could come and see me for half an hour. It would do you good, only it might make you envious and sad that you were not in gaol.
I have never in all my life felt such a strong presentiment and conscious foreknowledge of coming power and influence all over the world. How it is to come to pass I don't know. But it is coming soon. Then I shall be glad to get to gaol again to be saved from a mob that will try to kill me, and then after a further period the mob will clutch me before I can get to such a safe shelter as this; my work being done, the mob will kill me and my memory and death will raise up far more workers than my life has done, so the good work will go on.
All this is very present to me. But altho' I am as ever strongly drawn to the Army and more than ever penetrated by the thought that I am not fit to tie the shoe-laces of the humblest of your cadets, I am not going to join the Army. My work lies otherwhere. A great idea and luminous has dawned upon me in the solitude here that my work, that is to say the work God wants me for, is to raise up a band of men and women who will labour to save England and collective humanity and the kingdom of this world with--say a tenth part of the same zeal and devotion that you Army people show in saving individuals.
We want a revival of civic virtue, of patriotic religion, of the Salvation of the State and its political and collective action. You look after the individual. It is right, it is the root of all. But I look after the composite and collective individuals. I want to organize a Salvation Army of a secular sort with a religious spirit in it, and if God wants it done and He thinks that I am the man for the job "I'm game," as the saying is.
I have just read The Salvation War for through at a sitting. I think you had better send me all your "Wars. Pray for me--not in generalibus--there are lots doing that, but that in writing about the Army in the third Chapter of the Episode about the new Crusade I may say just the right thing to help you in the right way--I am, yours in great peace and joy, W.
Is she saved yet? Is there anybody you know who could do anything for Norral's daughter--that policeman, you know, who seduced his daughter? There were also a good many doubts and suggestions on the very difficult questions in the discussion of the causes of the glacial epochs. Chapter xxiii. I must think that you overrate the importance of new surfaces on mountains and dispersal from mountain to mountain. I still believe in Alpine plants having lived on the lowlands and in the southern tropical regions having been cooled during glacial periods, and thus only can I understand character of floras on the isolated African mountains.
It appears to me that you are not justified. Not only in latter cases currents of sea are absent, but what is there to make birds fly direct from one Alpine summit to another?
There is left only storms of wind, and if it is probable or possible that seeds may thus be carried for great distances, I do not believe that there is at present any evidence of their being thus carried more than a few miles. This is the most connected piece of criticism in the notes, and I therefore give it verbatim. My general reply is printed in "More Letters," vol. Of course I carefully considered all Darwin's suggestions and facts in later editions of my book, and made use of several of them.
The last, as above quoted, I shall refer to again when considering the few important matters as to which I arrived at different conclusions from Darwin. But I will first give another letter, two months later, in which he recurs to the same subject. Any supposition seems to me more probable than that the seeds of plants should have been blown from the mountains of Abyssinia, or other central mountains of Africa, to the mountains of Madagascar. It seems to me almost infinitely more probable that Madagascar extended far to the south during the glacial period, and that the S. The substance of this article by Mr.
Baker, of Kew, is given in "More Letters," vol. I am fairly well, but always feel half dead with fatigue. I heard but an indifferent account of your health some time ago, but trust that you are now somewhat stronger. It is really quite pathetic how much he felt difference of opinion from his friends. I, of course, should have liked to have been able to convert him to my views, but I did not feel it so much as he seemed to do.
In letters to Sir Joseph Hooker in February and August, he again states his view as against mine very strongly "More Letters," iii. The last letter I received from him was entirely on literary and political subjects, and, as usual, very kind and friendly. As it makes no reference to our controversies, and touches on questions never introduced before in our correspondence, I think it will be interesting to give it entire.
I will certainly order 'Progress and Poverty,' for the subject is a most interesting one. But I read many years ago some books on political economy, and they produced a disastrous effect on my mind, viz. So I feel pretty sure that Mr. George's book will only make my mind worse confounded than it is at present. I also have just finished a book which has interested me greatly, but whether it would interest any one else I know not.
It is the 'Creed of Science,' by W. Graham, A. Who or what he is I know not, but he. I think some of his propositions rest on very uncertain foundations, and I could get no clear idea of his notions about God. Notwithstanding this and other blemishes, the book has interested me extremely. Perhaps I have been to some extent deluded, as he manifestly ranks too high what I have done. From Newman's old book I forget title about the country near Godalming, it must be charming. The scenery is quite charming, but I cannot walk, and everything tries me, even seeing scenery, talking with any one, or reading much.
What I shall do with my few remaining years of life I can hardly tell. I have everything to make me happy and contented, but life has become very wearysome to me. I heard lately from Miss Buckley in relation to Lyell's Life, and she mentioned that you were thinking of Switzerland, which I should think and hope that you would enjoy much. Something ought to be done, but what is the rub. I hope that you will not turn renegade to natural history; but I suppose that politics are very tempting. This letter is, to me, perhaps the most interesting I ever received from Darwin, since it shows that it was only the engrossing interests of his scientific and literary work, performed under the drawback of almost constant ill-health, that prevented him from taking a more active part in the discussion of those social and political questions that so.
It is a great satisfaction that his last letter to me, written within nine months of his death, and terminating a correspondence which had extended over a quarter of a century, should be so cordial, so sympathetic, and broadminded. In he had written to me, "I hope it is a satisfaction to you to reflect—and very few things in my life have been more satisfactory to me—that we have never felt any jealousy towards each other, though in some sense rivals.
I believe I can say this of myself with truth, and I am absolutely sure that it is true of you. But I cannot here refrain from quoting a passage from Huxley's striking obituary notice in Nature , summing up his work in a single short paragraph: "None have fought better, and none have been more fortunate than Charles Darwin. He found a great truth, trodden underfoot, reviled by bigots, and ridiculed by all the world; he lived long enough to see it, chiefly by his own efforts, irrefragably established in science, inseparably incorporated with the common thoughts of men, and only hated and feared by those who would revile but dare not.
What shall a man desire more than this? The Chief Differences of Opinion between Darwin and myself. Our only important differences were on four subjects, which may be considered separately. My view, on the other hand, was, and is, that there is a difference in kind, intellectually and morally, between man and other animals; and that while his body was undoubtedly developed by the continuous modification of some ancestral animal form, some different agency, analogous to that which first produced organic life , and then originated consciousness , came into play in order to develop the higher intellectual and spiritual nature of man.
This view was first intimated in the last sentence of my paper on the "Development of Human Races under Natural Selection," in , and more fully treated in the last chapter of my "Essays," in These views caused much distress of mind to Darwin, but, as I have shown, they do not in the least affect the general doctrine of natural selection.
It might be as well urged that because man has produced the pouter-pigeon, the bull-dog, and the dray-horse, none of which could have been produced by natural selection alone, therefore the agency of natural selection is weakened or disproved. Neither, I urge, is it weakened or disproved if my theory of the origin of man is the true one. Sexual Selection through Female Choice. The first is an observed fact , and the development of weapons such as horns, canine teeth, spurs, etc. The second is an inference from the observed facts of the display of the male plumage or ornaments; but the statement that ornaments have been developed by the female's choice of the most beautiful male.
The first kind of sexual selection I hold as strongly and as thoroughly as Darwin himself; the latter I at first accepted, following Darwin's conclusions from what appeared to be strong evidence explicable in no other way; but I soon came to doubt the possibility of such an explanation, at first from considering the fact that in butterflies sexual differences are as strongly marked as in birds, and it was to me impossible to accept female choice in their case, while, as the whole question of colour came to be better understood, I saw equally valid reasons for its total rejection even in birds and mammalia.
But here my view really extends the influence of natural selection, because I show in how many unsuspected ways colour and marking is of use to its possessor. I first stated my objections to "female choice" in my review of the "Descent of Man" , and more fully developed it in my "Tropical Nature" , while in my "Darwinism" , I again discussed the whole subject, giving the results of more mature consideration.
I had, however, already discussed the matter at some length with Darwin, and in a letter of September 18, , I gave him my general argument as follows:—. Female birds and insects are usually exposed to more danger than the male, and in the case of insects their existence is necessary for a longer period.
They therefore require, in some way or other, an increased amount of protection. If the male and female were distinct species, with different habits and organizations, you would, I think, admit that a difference of colour, serving to make that one less conspicuous which evidently required more protection than the other, had been acquired by natural selection.
But you admit that variations appearing in one sex are sometimes transmitted to that sex only. There is, therefore, nothing to prevent natural selection acting on the two sexes as if they were two species. Admitting, therefore, abundant variation of colour in both sexes, it is impossible that the male can be brought by natural selection to resemble the female unless such variations are always transmitted , because the difference in their colours is for the purpose of making up for their different organization and habits, and natural selection cannot give to the male more protection than he requires, which is less than in the female.
The striking fact that in all protected groups the females usually resemble the males or are equally brightly coloured shows that the usual tendency is to transmit colour to both sexes when it is not injurious to either. But in the much stronger-flying Papilio, Pieris, and Diadema, it is the female only that mimics the protected group, and in these cases the females often acquire brighter and more conspicuous colours than the male.
No case is known of a male Papilio, Pieris, or Diadema, alone, mimicking a protected species; yet colour is more frequent in males, and variations are always ready for the purpose of sexual or other forms of selection. The fair inference seems to be that each species , and also each sex , can only be modified by selection just as far as is absolutely necessary—not a step further. A male, being by structure and habits less exposed to danger, and therefore requiring less protection than the female, cannot have an equal amount of protection given to it by natural selection; but the female must have some extra protection to balance her greater exposure to danger, and she rapidly acquires it in one way or another.
The objection as to male fish, which seem to require protection, yet have sometimes bright colours, seems to me of no more weight than is the existence of some unprotected. These are all illustrations of the many and varied ways in which nature works to give the exact amount of protection it needs to each species. Darwin's explanation of the above phenomena by a cooling of the tropical lowlands of the whole earth during the glacial period to such an extent as to allow large numbers of north-temperate and Arctic plants to spread across the continents to the southern hemisphere, and, as the cold passed away, to ascend to the summits of isolated tropical mountains.
I explained my views at some length in "Island Life," and later, with additional facts, in "Darwinism. The difficulties in the way of Darwin's view are twofold. First, that a lowering of temperature of inter-tropical lowlands to the required extent would inevitably have destroyed much of the overwhelming luxuriances and variety of plant, insect, and bird life that characterize those regions.
This has so impressed myself, Bates, and others familiar with the tropics as to render the idea wholly inconceivable; and the only reason why Darwin did not feel this appears to be that he really knew nothing personally of the tropics beyond a few days at Bahia and Rio, and could have had no conception of its wonderfully rich and highly specialized fauna and flora. In the second place, even if a sufficient lowering of temperature had occurred during the ice-age, it would not account for.
The reason why Darwin was unaffected by these various difficulties may perhaps be found in the circumstance that he had held his views for so many years almost un challenged. In a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, in , he says, "I feel a strong conviction that soon every one will believe that the whole world was cooler during the glacial period. Remember Hooker's wonderful case recently discovered of the identity of so many temperate plants on the summit of Fernando Po, and on the mountains of Abyssinia.
I look at it as certain that these plants crossed the whole of Africa, from east to west, during the same period. I wish I had published a long chapter, written in full, and almost ready for the press, on this subject which I wrote ten years ago. It was impossible in the 'Origin' to give a fair abstract" " More Letters," vol.
Having thus held his views for twenty-five years, they had become so firmly impressed upon his mind that he was unable at once to give them up, however strong might be the arguments against them. This particular difference, however, is not one which in any way affects the theory of natural selection. Pangenesis, and the Heredity of Acquired Characters. I therefore accepted pangenesis at first, because I have always felt it a relief as did Darwin to have some hypothesis, however provisional and improbable, that would serve to explain the facts; and I told him that "I shall never be able to give it up till a better one supplies its place.
Galton's experiments of transfusing a large quantity of the blood of rabbits into other individuals of quite different breeds, and afterwards finding that the progeny was not in the slightest degree altered, did seem to me to be very nearly a disproof, although Darwin did not accept it as such.
But when, at a much later period, Dr. Weismann showed that there is actually no valid evidence for the transmission of such characters, and when he further set forth a mass of evidence in support of his theory of the continuity of the germ-plasm, the "better theory" was found, and I finally gave up pangenesis as untenable. But this new theory really simplifies and strengthens the fundamental doctrine of natural selection. It will thus appear that none of my differences of opinion from Darwin imply any real divergence as to the overwhelming importance of the great principle of natural selection, while in several directions I believe that I have extended and strengthened it.
The principle of "utility," which is one of its chief foundation-stones, I have always advocated unreservedly; while in extending this principle to almost every kind and degree of coloration, and in maintaining the power of natural selection to increase the infertility of hybrid unions, I have considerably extended its range. Hence it is that some of my critics declare that I am more Darwinian than Darwin himself, and in this, I admit, they are not far wrong.
SOON after my return home, in or , Bates and I, having both read "First Principles" and been immensely impressed by it, went together to call on Herbert Spencer, I think by appointment. Our thoughts were full of the great unsolved problem of the origin of life—a problem which Darwin's "Origin of Species" left in as much obscurity as ever—and we looked to Spencer as the one man living who could give us some clue to it. His wonderful exposition of the fundamental laws and conditions, actions and interactions of the material universe seemed to penetrate so deeply into that "nature of things" after which the early philosophers searched in vain and whose blind gropings are so finely expressed in the grand poem of Lucretius, that we both hoped he could throw some light on that great problem of problems.
I forget the details of the interview, but I think Bates was chief spokesman, and expressed our immense admiration of his work, and that as young students of nature we wished to have the honour of his acquaintance. He was very pleasant, spoke appreciatively of what we had both done for the practical exposition of evolution, and hoped we would continue to work at the subject. But when we ventured to touch upon the great problem, and whether he had arrived at even one of the first steps towards its solution, our hopes were dashed at once.
That, he said, was too fundamental a problem to even think of solving at present. We did not yet know enough of matter in its essential constitution nor of the various forces of nature; and all he could say was. So we had to wait and work contentedly at minor problems. And now, after forty years, though Spencer and Darwin and Weismann have thrown floods of light on the phenomena of life, its essential nature and its origin remain as great a mystery as ever.
Whatever light we do possess is from a source which Spencer and Darwin neglected or ignored. In , when Spencer was, I believe, one of the editors of The Reader , he asked me to write an article on the treatment of savage races, with special reference to some cases of the barbarity of settlers in Australia that had recently been published. This I did, and the article appeared in the issue of June Ten years later, on November 13, , he wrote to ask me where and when this article had appeared, adding, "I ask the question because I contemplate giving Dr. Bridges a castigation for the unwarranted sneer at the close of his article in the Fortnightly.
Soon afterwards he invited me to dine with him in Bays-water, where he lived for many years in a boarding-house with rather a commonplace set of people—retired Indian officers and others; and I afterwards visited him there several times. I was amused when some popular error was solemnly put forth at dinner as the explanation of some phenomenon; Spencer would coolly tell them that it was quite incorrect, and then proceed to explain why it was so, and on principles of evolution could not be otherwise.
Revival under the Zulus by Erlo Stegen
In the evening, after we. On remarking to him one day that I wondered he could live among such unintellectual people, he said that he had purposely chosen such a home in order to avoid the mental excitement of too much interesting conversation; that he suffered greatly from insomnia, and that he found that when his evenings were spent in commonplace conversation, hearing the news of the day or taking part in a little music, he had a better chance of sleeping.
In the autumn of I read the Duke of Argyll's "Reign of Law," and though I found much that was erroneous and weak in argument, I thought his discussion of the mode of flight in birds, founded largely on personal observation, was very good; in fact, the best I had seen. Spencer had also read this, and differed from me, thinking that important parts of the duke's theory of flight was not true, because they would not apply equally to bats; and we had quite a discussion on the subject.
The next day, after thinking the matter over, I wrote him a long letter of eight pages, trying to show that the general principles of flight in birds, bats, and insects were the same; but that in birds there were additional special adaptations that render their flight more perfect, and their power of motion through the air, under adverse conditions, more varied and more complete. The duke, dealing with birds only, had dwelt most on these special adaptations chiefly, if I remember, the beautiful overlapping and movements of the separate feathers increasing resistance during the downward, and decreasing it during the upward stroke which did not exist in bats or in insects.
I also showed that although this adaptation was absent in the wings of insects, the general form and movements of the wings were similar and produced similar, but not identical results. In his reply he admitted the accuracy of my description of the flight of insects, but made the following remark in furtherance of his former objection as regards the duke's account of the flight of birds: "If you will move an outstretched wing backwards and forwards with equal. An excellent short account of the whole mechanism of the flight of birds, with many of Marey's diagrams and illustrations, is given in Professor A.
Newton's "Dictionary of Birds," in the article "Flight," and is the clearest exposition of the subject I have yet seen. In , in my presidential address to the Entomological Society, I endeavoured to expound Herbert Spencer's theory of the origin of insects, on the view that they are fundamentally compound animals , each segment representing one of the original independent organisms.
This theory is expounded at some length in the second volume of his "Principles of Biology" chapter iv. On sending him a copy of the address, he wrote to me as follows: "It is gratifying to me to find that your extended knowledge does not lead you to scepticism respecting the speculation of mine which you quote, but rather enables you to cite further facts in justification of it.
Possibly your exposition will lead some of those, in whose lines of investigation the question lies, to give deliberate attention to it. This communication gave me much pleasure, because the subject was one quite out of my own domain, and though I had taken a good deal of trouble to understand his views and to represent them accurately, and had also adduced a few additional facts in support of it, yet the subject was so novel and so complex that I was rather afraid I might have made.
I was much relieved, therefore, to find that my account of his views was satisfactory to him. In , when writing "The Principles of Sociology," Herbert Spencer asked me to look over the proofs of the first six chapters, and give him the benefit of my criticisms, "alike as naturalist, anthropologist, and traveller. During the year I had several letters from him, dealing with subjects of general interest. In consequence of an article I wrote on "How to Nationalize the Land," especially showing how to avoid the supposed insuperable objection of State management, a "Land Nationalization Society" was formed, of which I was chosen president.
As I had been induced to study the question by Herbert Spencer's early volume on "Social Statics," I sent him a copy of our programme and asked if he would join us. His reply is very instructive, as showing how nearly he agreed with us at that time, and also how slight were the difficulties he suggested as the most important. It seems to me that before formulating the idea in a specific shape, it is needful to generate a body of public opinion on the general issue, and that it must be some time before there can be produced such recognition of the general principle involved as is needful before definite plans can be set forth to any purpose.
For example, in definitely making the proposed distinction between 'inherent value as dependent on natural conditions, etc. How far back are we to go in taking account of the labour and money expended in giving fertility? In respect of newly enclosed tracts, some estimation may be made; but in respect of the greater part, long reduced to cultivation, I do not see how the valuations, differing in all cases, are to be made.
It appears to me that at present we are far off from the time at which action may advantageously be taken. On this I may remark that, during the twenty-five years that has elapsed, the Land Nationalization Society has been continuously at work, doing the very things that our critic seemed to think ought to be done before we formed the society. We have now "generated a body of public opinion". But the remarkable thing is, that only ten years later, in his volume on "Justice," the writer of this letter should have so far changed his opinions as to arrive ultimately at the conclusion thus stated: "A fuller consideration of the matter has led me to the conclusion that individual ownership, subject to State suzerainty, should be maintained.
A few months later he wrote me again on the land question, in reply to my recommendation of Henry George's book "Progress and Poverty," and this letter, as exhibiting his ideas on human progress generally, and also his somewhat hasty judgments on particular writers, seems well worthy of preservation, and I therefore give it verbatim. I gathered, from what little I glanced at, that I should fundamentally disagree with the writer, and have not read more.
The whole process,. Spencer's treatment of the land question in this work is criticized and controverted in great detail by Henry George in "A Perplexed Philosopher," published in Neither H. Spencer nor any of his disciples have refuted these destructive criticisms. I do not in the least believe that from the primitive system of communistic ownership to a high and finished system of State ownership, such as we may look for in the future, there could be any transition without passing through such stages as we have seen, and which exist now. For myself, I feel that I have to consider not only what I may do on special questions, but also how the action I take on special questions may affect my general influence; and I am disinclined to give more handles against me than are needful.
Already, as you will see by the enclosed circular, I am doing in the way of positive action more than may be altogether prudent. I do not remember, and I do not think that Henry George either stated or implied that the course of civilization "might have been different" from what it has been. His whole work was devoted to showing the injustice and the evils of private property in land, just as Herbert Spencer himself had done in "Social Statics;" and both works are alike beneficial, inasmuch as they demonstrate these facts and serve as incentives and guides for our future attempts to remedy them.
If Mr. Spencer had not hastily laid aside the book, owing to this prepossession against it, even he might have been benefited by the thorough examination of the whole subject which Mr. George gave, while he could hardly have failed to admire its admirable and forcible exposition of the problem. I remember that some years earlier, when I asked Herbert Spencer what he thought of Buckle's "History of Civilization," which I took for granted that he had read, his reply was somewhat similar to that here given in the case of Henry George—that on looking into the book he saw that its fundamental assumption was erroneous, and therefore he did not care to read it.
I believe he referred to Buckle's view of the immense influence of the aspects of nature in influencing human character, which, even if much exaggerated, cannot be said to be wholly untrue, and certainly does not destroy the value of a work of such research, eloquence, and illumination as the "History of Civilization. The next letter of much interest I have from Herbert Spencer is, when acknowledging receipt of a copy of my little book, entitled "Bad Times," on November 21, During the past generation, one of the causes of the great exaltation of prosperity has been the development of the railway system, which while it had the effect of opening up sources of supply and means of distribution, had also the effect during a long period of greatly exalting certain industries concerned in construction.
There was consequently a somewhat abnormal degree of prosperity, which lasted long enough to furnish a standard of good times, and to be mistaken for the normal condition. Now that this unusual and temporary cause of prosperity has in considerable measure diminished, we are feeling the effect.
This was no doubt true, and in the case of America I had adduced the railway mania in the United States, from to , and our own over-production of shipping while we were supplying the whole world with rails and engines, as causes of the subsequent depression in both countries. The last three letters I received from Herbert Spencer were in and , all on the subject of what he termed "the absurdity of Lord Salisbury's representation of the process of natural selection" in his British Association address at Oxford, wishing me to write to the Times , pointing out his errors, which were influencing many persons and writers in the press, and suggesting certain points I should especially deal with.
He concluded, "It behoves you of all men to take up the gauntlet he has thus thrown down. To this he replied that he did not at all agree with me, and that "articles in the papers show that Lord Salisbury's argument is received with triumph, and unless it is disposed of, it will lead to a public reaction against the doctrine of evolution at large. As I still declined to go into this controversy, having dealt with the whole matter in my "Darwinism," and still being sceptical as to any great effects being produced by the address in question, he wrote me a month later as follows: "As I cannot get you to deal with Lord Salisbury, I have decided to do it myself, having been finally exasperated into doing it by this honour paid to his address in France—the presentation of a translation to the French Academy.
The impression produced upon some millions of people in England cannot be allowed to be thus further confirmed without protest. This was the latest letter I received from him; but during his last illness my wife, being in Brighton, called to make inquiries after his health, and left our cards, and I received a kindly expressed card in reply, written by his amanuensis, but signed with his own initials.
It is dated November 28, , ten days before his death. Among his intimate friends, Herbert Spencer was always interesting from the often unexpected way in which he would apply the principles of evolution to the commonest topics of conversation, and he was always ready to take part in any social amusement. He once or twice honoured me by coming to informal meetings of friends at my little house in St. John's Wood.
Once I remember dining informally with Huxley, the only other guests being Tyndall and Herbert Spencer. The latter appeared in a dress-coat, whereupon Huxley and Tyndall chaffed him, as setting a bad example, and of being untrue to his principles, quoting his Essay on "Manners and Fashion," but all with the most good-humoured banter. Spencer took it in good part, and defended himself well, declaring that the coat was a relic of his early unregenerate days, and where could he wear it out if not at the houses of his best friends?
Those who are acquainted only with the volumes of Herbert Spencer's "Synthetic Philosophy " can have no idea of the lightness, the energy, and the bright satire of some of his more popular writings. Such are many of his earlier Essays, and in his volume on "The Study of Sociology" we find abundant examples of these qualities.
In conclusion, I may remark that, although I differ greatly from him on certain important matters, both of natural and social science, and have never hesitated to state my reasons for those differences with whatever force of fact and argument I could bring to bear upon them, I yet look upon these as but spots on the sun of his great intellectual powers, and feel it to be an honour to have been his contemporary, and, to a limited extent, his friend and coadjutor.
With the remainder of my scientific friends I had, for the most part, only social intercourse, with no correspondence of general interest. Those I saw most of during my residence. Slater, Mr. Meldola, and many others whose names are only known to specialists. All these I met very frequently at scientific meetings, or at some of their houses at which I was occasionally a guest.
To all of them I have been more or less indebted for valuable information or useful suggestions in the course of my work, and to these I must also add Professor E. Poulton, of Oxford; F. Myers, Professors W. Thomson, of Aberdeen. For the last quarter of a century I have lived so completely in the country that I have ceased to have personal intercourse with most of them; and of those still among us, I can only say here that I hope and believe they all continue to be my very good friends.
In future chapters I may have to refer to some of them again, in connection with special conditions of my life. Here I will only give a few indications as to my personal relations with a few of them. Of all those I have mentioned I became, I think, most intimate with Huxley. At an early date after my return home he asked me to his house in Marlborough Place, where I soon became very friendly with his children, then all quite young, all very animated, and not at all shy.
Huxley was also exceedingly kind and pleasant, and the whole domestic tone of the house was such as to make me quite at my ease, which is what happens to me with only a few persons. I used often to go there on Sunday afternoons, or to spend the evening, while I was several times asked to dine to meet persons of similar pursuits to my own. One of those occasions that I particularly remember was to meet Dr.
Miklucho Maklay, a Russian anthropologist, who was going to New Guinea, and as I was the only Englishman who had lived some months alone in that country, Huxley thought we should be interested with each other. Maklay was a small, wiry man, somewhat younger than myself; he spoke English well, and told us all about what he was going to do. His idea was that you could really learn nothing about natives unless you lived with them and became almost one of themselves; above all, you must win their confidence, and must therefore begin by trusting them absolutely.
He proposed to go in a Russian warship, and be left for a year at some part of the north coast where Europeans were wholly unknown, with one servant, but without visible arms. This was, I think, in the winter of — Both Huxley and myself thought this plan exceedingly risky, but he determined to try it; and he succeeded, but through the exercise of an amount of coolness and courage which very few men indeed possess.
He returned to Russia to complete his preparations, and in September, , was landed in Astrolabe Bay with two servants, one a Swede and the other a Polynesian. The ship's carpenter built him a small hut, fourteen feet by seven feet, and then the ship sailed away and left him totally unprotected. As soon as it was seen that the ship was completely out of sight, large numbers of natives, armed with knives, bows, and spears, gathered round his hut and soon began to make warlike demonstrations, which went on more or less for some days.
They would shoot arrows close to his head or body, or draw their bow to the full with the arrow directed to his chest, and then loose the string with a twang, while holding back the arrow; but he sat still and smiled, knowing, I suppose, that if they really meant to kill him that was hardly the way they would do it, and that in any case he could not possibly escape them. At other times they would run at him with their spears, or press the spear-point against his teeth till he was forced to open his mouth.
But finding that he was brave, that he did not try to escape them, and also finding that he was a "medicine" man, could heal their wounds and cure the sick, they gradually came to consider him as a friend and even as a supernatural being. Soon one servant died, and the other was almost constantly ill, so that the doctor had plenty to do; but he lived with these people for fifteen.
I know of no more daring feat by any traveller. A short account of this exploration is given in Nature , vol. I used often to call in at Jermyn Street if I had any question to ask Huxley, and he was always ready to give me all the information in his power; while I am pretty sure I owe partly, if not largely, to his influence the grant of the royal medal of the Royal Society, and perhaps also of the Darwin medal.
Once only there was a partial disturbance of our friendly relations, of the exact cause of which I have no record or recollection. I had published some paper in which, I believe, I had stated some view which he had originated without mentioning his name, and in such a way as to leave the impression that I put it forth as original. This I had no notion of doing; but I think it was an idea which had become quite familiar to me, and that I had quite forgotten who originated it.
I fancy some one must have called Huxley's attention to it, and when I next met him, I think just as he was leaving Jermyn Street to go home, he was much put out, and said something intimating that after what I had said in this paper, he wondered at my speaking to him again. I forget what more was said, but on going home I looked at the article, and found that I had used some expression that might be interpreted as a slight to him. I immediately wrote a letter of explanation and regret, and I here give his reply, which greatly relieved me, and our relations at once resumed their usual friendly character.
But I dare say I should have 'consumed my own smoke' in that matter as I do in most, if I had not been very tired, very hungry, very cold, and. Pray forgive me if I was too plain spoken,. In a letter he wrote me, in , on another matter he refers to my former intimacy with his children. Two are married, and one has made me a grandfather. Leonard, my eldest boy, is six feet high, and at Balliol; even the smallest of the mites you knew is taller than her mother.
All within reach unite with me in kindest regards and remembrances. In I had read two books by Mr. Arthur J. Bell, a Devonshire gentleman who had devoted himself to the study of the modern physical sciences in their relation to the deepest problems of our nature and destiny. The first was entitled, "Whence comes Man, from 'Nature' or from 'God'?
We want to know why man exists. We want to know why God 'created' him.source link
Online Library of Liberty
Did God desire that man should be good? Is there any reason why he should be good? If there be, then why does evil exist? And there arises also the further question, that, supposing there be a good reason why man should be good, is goodness possible to him? If his character be made for him, not by him, how can he be good if his character, which he did not make himself, be not good? Does his existence terminate at death? Does he come into the world only for the sake of what he therein does—suffers—enjoys? Is that existence, if it be continued after death, to be desired or to be dreaded?
Is the having been born a misfortune or a blessing? What is the character of God? Is He a Being to be feared—to be hated—or to be loved? What are man's relations to his fellow-man? What are man's relations to God—that awful Being whose power over us seems to be absolute? And that last, most terrible of questions, Is man's existence owing to God's malevolence—to His indifference—or to His love? Bell discusses them all thoroughly and honestly, with wonderful knowledge and sagacity, with sound logic, and in clear, forcible, and often brilliant language.
And he arrives at a grand—a magnificent conclusion—a conclusion that comes as near to a satisfactory solution of these seemingly insoluble problems as with our limited faculties we can attain to. His reply, dated November 23, , is a characteristic example of his style, and as it is also the last letter of his I possess, I here reproduce it.
But, then, they do not usually come with such a recommendation as yours, and if your friend Mr. Bell is kind enough to send me a copy of his book, I will not only read it, but pay him the highest compliment in my power, by doing my best to pick holes in it! I 'can't say no fairer.
Although Huxley was as kind and genial a friend and companion as Darwin himself, and that I was quite at ease with him in his family circle, or in after-dinner talk with a few of his intimates and although he was two years younger than myself , yet I never got over a feeling of awe and inferiority when discussing any problem in evolution or allied subjects—an inferiority which I did not feel either with Darwin or Sir Charles Lyell.
This was due, I think, to the fact that the enormous amount of Huxley's knowledge was of a kind of which I possessed only an irreducible minimum, and of which I often felt the want. In the general anatomy and physiology of the whole animal kingdom, living and extinct, Huxley was a master, the equal—perhaps the superior—of the greatest authorities on these subjects in the scientific world; whereas I had never had an hour's instruction in either of them, had never seen a dissection of any kind, and never had any inclination to practise the art myself.
Whenever I had to touch upon these subjects, or to use them to enforce my arguments, I had to get both my facts and my arguments at second hand, and appeal to authority both for facts and conclusions from them. And because I was thus ignorant, and because I had a positive distaste for all forms of anatomical and physiological experiment, I perhaps over-estimated this branch of knowledge and looked up to those who possessed it in a pre-eminent degree as altogether above myself.
With Darwin and Lyell, on the other hand, although both possessed stores of knowledge far beyond my own, yet I did possess some knowledge of the same kind, and felt myself in a position to make use of their facts and those of all other students in the same fields of research quite as well as the. I had, however, very early in life noticed, that men with immense knowledge did not always know how to draw just conclusions from that knowledge, and that I myself was quite able to detect their errors of reasoning. I also found that when, in my early solitary studies in physics or mechanics, I came upon some conclusion which seemed to me, for want of clear statement in the books at my command, contrary to what it ought to be, yet when, later, the matter was clearly explained, I at once saw where my error lay and had no further difficulty.
I will here mention one of these smaller stumbling-blocks, which I know are to this day quite impassable by large numbers of persons who are interested in physical science. It is the fact that degrees of latitude increase in length from the equator to the pole, the only explanation usually given being that this is due to the compression at the poles, or, in other words, of the polar diameter being less than the equatorial.
Now nine persons out of ten probably more who know what a "degree" is, and have an elementary knowledge of geometry, and perhaps a much more than elementary knowledge of several other sciences, could not explain offhand why this is so; while many of them, meeting with the statement for the first time and trying to understand it, would come to the conclusion that it was a mistake—perhaps a printer's error, and that degrees really decrease towards the pole.
For they know that a circle is divided into parts, each being a degree, and if you draw a circle round the earth, passing through the two poles with a radius of half the equatorial diameter, and divide it into equal parts, each of those parts will be a degree.
Lenin: Frederick Engels
But the earth's radius at the poles will be about miles less than at the equator; therefore the degrees will be proportionately less , not more as stated. Gumpel, pointing this out, and asking them to correct so important an error. But I presume he was only laughed at, as what Professor de Morgan called a "paradoxer," and the Americans a "crank," and I dare say. Now the essential point, rarely explained in popular books, is, that if the earth were of exactly the same shape it is now, but did not turn on its axis, then degrees of latitude at and near the pole would really be shorter than those at and near the equator; but the bulging out at the equator is caused by the rotation , owing to centrifugal force diminishing the force of gravity there, and causing the true sphere, which gravity would produce in a non-rotating fluid or flexible mass, to be changed into a spheroid of greater diameter at the equator, where the rotating motion is swifter, and therefore the centrifugal force greater.
The surface will therefore become a surface of equilibrium, due to the two forces everywhere acting upon it, and the direction of a plumb-line will be also determined by the same two forces, and will necessarily be at right angles to that surface. It follows that as the curvature along a meridian is more rapid near the equator than that of a sphere of the mean diameter of the earth, and less rapid or flatter near the poles, therefore two or more plumb-lines near the equator will meet at a point nearer than the geometrical centre of the earth, while those near the poles will meet at a point beyond the geometrical centre, and therefore the degrees near the latter, being measured on a circle of longer radius, will be longer than those near the equator.
It appears, then, that the problem is not a geometrical one, as the mere statement of the fact seems to make it, but one of mechanics and the laws of motion, and what we really measure is the amount of curvature on different parts of the earth's surface, not an equal angle measured from its centre, which is what the term "degree" usually and properly means.
From this point of view the astronomers are all wrong, since they use the term "degree" of latitude in a technical sense, which is not its geometrical meaning, and they very rarely explain this to their readers. Degrees of latitude are dynamical, not geometrical quantities. This rather long digression may be considered to be out of place, but it is given in order to illustrate the steps by. Thus I have never hesitated to differ from Lyell, Darwin, and even Spencer, and, so far as I can judge, in all the cases in which I have so differed, the weight of scientific opinion is gradually turning in my direction.
In reasoning power upon the general phenomena of nature or of society, I feel able to hold my own with them; my inferiority consists in my limited knowledge, and perhaps also in my smaller power of concentration for long periods of time. With Huxley also I felt quite on an equality when dealing with problems arising out of facts equally well known to both of us; but wherever the structure or functions of animals were concerned, he had the command of a body of facts so extensive and so complex that no one who had not devoted years to their practical study could safely attempt to make use of them.
I therefore never ventured to infringe in any way on his special departments of study, though I occasionally made use of some of the results which he so lucidly explained. One of my near neighbours while I lived in London was Dr. Carpenter, the well-known physiologist and microscopist, and a voluminous writer on various branches of natural science. I often called on him in the evening, when I usually found him at work with his microscope, and he always took pleasure in showing me some special structure or some obscure organism, and explaining the nature of what I saw. The great controversy was then at its height as to the alleged animal nature of a substance found in the Laurentian formation of Canada, supposed to be the oldest of all the stratified rocks.
Carpenter maintained that it was a low form of Foraminifera, a group of which he had made a special study. This supposed organism had been named by Sir William. Dawson, the geologist, Eozoon Canadense , and he was supported in his view by Dr. Carpenter, to whom he sent the finest procurable specimens. By making sections in various directions, and by the knowledge he possessed of the minute structure of living and fossil Foraminifers, he arrived at his conclusions; while other observers declared that this supposed primitive organism was entirely of mineral origin, and that all the apparent details of organic structure were deceptive.
Carpenter showed me these specimens, and pointed out the details of structure on which he relied, but having no knowledge of the actual structures with which he compared them, I could myself see nothing sufficiently definite to settle such an important question. The discussion went on very fiercely for years, but the general opinion now is that all the appearances are due to forms of crystallization in these very ancient metamorphic rocks.
Carpenter was also at work on the anatomy and physiology of the Crinoidea or sea-lilies, on which he published some important papers, and these, too, he would dilate upon and explain, though not much to my enlightenment. We often walked across the Regent's Park into town together, and we were very friendly, though never really intimate; and a few years later we entered on a rather acute controversy upon mesmerism and clairvoyance, to which I shall refer later on. Among the more prominent naturalists, one of my chief friends, and the one whose society I most enjoyed, was Professor St.
George Mivart, who for some years lived not far from us in London. He was a rather singular compound mentally, inasmuch as he was a sincere but thoroughly liberal Catholic, and an anti-Darwinian evolutionist. But his friendly geniality, his refined manners, his interesting conversation and fund of anecdote of the most varied kind, rendered him a charming companion. His most intimate friends seemed to be priests, one or two of whom were almost always among the guests, and often the only ones, when I dined with him.
And they, too, were excellent company, full of humour and. Mivart visited a good deal in the country houses of the aristocracy and country gentlemen, and he used often to tell me things that happened in some of them, or that were spoken of as common knowledge, which I could not have believed on less direct authority, and which went to prove that some of the worst features of society morals, such as are occasionally revealed in the divorce courts, are by no means uncommon.
Mivart thoroughly enjoyed a good dinner as did I myself and was rather fond of illustrative stories on gastronomic subjects. One that has remained in my memory for its almost pathetic humour was of two friends recalling old times together. He would also sometimes tell of the incredible doings of some of the fashionable roues among the wealthy, and if I doubted the possibility of such things being true, would appeal to the priests, who would assure me that such things, and worse, did really occur. Mivart was a very severe and often an unfair critic of Darwin, and I never concealed my opinion that he was not justified in going so far as he did.
I also criticized some of his own writings, but he took it all very good-naturedly, and we always remained excellent friends. Besides natural history we had other tastes in common. He enjoyed country life, and for some time had a small country house in the wilds of Sussex, about midway between Forest Row and Hayward's Heath, where we sometimes spent a few days; and some years later he built a house on the Duke of Norfolk's estate near Albury, where he had to make a new garden and began to take an interest in horticulture.
Related The Heart of life (1895) Volume 2
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved