« AnteriorContinuar »
also is the fact that while the former theory is incompatible with the transmission of acquired characters, and therefore with the causes of transmutation alleged by Buffon and Lamarck, the latter may be said to give an opening for the operation of those causes. These rival theories of heredity are thus seen to connect themselves with the respective attitudes of their authors towards the general question of evolutionary methods. As before, what is really at stake is the admission of the "Lamarckian factors"; for whether one of these views is true or both are false, the principle of natural selection remains unaffected. Of the actual validity of this principle there can indeed be no reasonable doubt; though whether it is adequate to the production of all the results with which it has been credited is another question. Perhaps the most pressing need of evolutionists at the present time is to establish by quantitative methods a measure of the extent and rapidity of selective action. There is much to be said for the opinion of Professor Karl Pearson:
the present purpose. Our aim has been to show that, together with a general agreement as to the fact of organic evolution, there has arisen a serious difference of opinion as to the methods by which it has proceeded. We have tried to indicate briefly, but not inaccurately, the manner in which both agreement and disagreement have been arrived at; and we have done our best to state, though necessarily in a form far from complete, the most important and crucial questions that at present divide evolutionists. The decision of these questions must of course be left to time. In the meanwhile it may not be amiss to point out that harm has not infrequently resulted to the cause of religion by too much eagerness in accepting, as well-established facts, hypotheses on which science has not really said her last word. The history of the dogma of special creation is a case in point. The theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries who taught the immutability of species were in a scientific sense quite "up to date." In course of time the scientific world found that it had made a mistake, and theologians were driven somewhat painfully to retrace their steps. Their deviation was natural, and perhaps unavoidable, but they would have done better in the first place not to forsake the guidance of St. Augustine. At the present time there is a tendency among apologists to look with special favor on the views of the Neo-Lamarckian school. It is not to be denied that the notions of an "inherent tendency towards perfection," of "directed variation," and the like, are highly attractive, and seem like new weapons in the hands of the defenders of theism. We are reminded of the avidity with which much the same notions in their Aristotelian form were caught at by the schoolmen. But even if these specu
"It is not absence of explanations, but rather of the quantitative testing of explanations, which hinders the development of the Darwinian theory." "The problem of the near future is not whether Darwinism is a reality, but what is quantitatively the rate at which it is working and has worked."
It is probable that as regards the mechanism of heredity we are on the eve of discoveries which will to a great extent supersede the conceptions on this point of both Darwin and Weismann. But to pursue the subject further, and especially to discuss the new views of inheritance now chiefly associated with the names of Galton and Pearson on the one side and of Mendel on the other, would involve an appeal to somewhat minute and technical detail. Nor is it necessary for
lations should become part of the general scientific belief, which at present is not the case, the doubt must still be felt whether they will stand the test of time. We are far from saying that the teleological argument, is useless in natural theology. On the contrary, we believe that the general The Church Quarterly Review.
acceptance of evolution has made it stronger than ever. But it must be grounded on a wider basis than Paley gave it, and it should be carefully preserved from even seeming dependence on views which the event of to-morrow may show to be without scientific foundation.
THE BOERS AND THE EMPIRE.
Swords may be readily beaten into ploughshares, but it is not so easy to turn them into fine pens, nor is the rough and racy language of soldiers and farmers-serviceable enough for the everyday needs of the people of South Africa-a suitable medium for diplomatic discussions in Europe. It lacks the fine distinctions and the delicate shades of meaning which a highly cultured nation is so apt to look for. My comrades and myself felt all this very keenly from the outset, and we would therefore much rather have striven in our humble way to make history than to write it: that is to say, we would have gladly co-operated with our new Government to smooth away the traces of bitterness left by the war and lay the foundation for the well-being of all our fellow-subjects in South Africa. That was our fervent desire from the first, and not the drawing up of manifestos and appeals, the wording, nay the very drift of which were certain to be scanned as through a microscope and construed by a standard of interpretation which, differing widely from our own, must needs be misleading.
Yet we took the latter course instead of the former, and the evils which we anticipated from it have already come to pass: our words are misconstrued,
our actions assigned to wrong motives, our very aims are misstated and condemned. If the odium resulting from that complete-but, we doubt not, involuntary-misunderstanding, fell upon ourselves only, we could endure it with fortitude, we certainly would bear it in silence. But as we have reason to fear that our acts-or rather acts and motives which are mistakenly held to be ours-will seriously harm our sorely tried people in the eyes of the British people, it may be well to set forth in a few words the scope of the work in which we are engaged, the reasons which moved us to undertake it, and the conditions which, if fulfilled, would make our further efforts superfluous and at the same time would offer the best chance of rendering South Africa contented and delivering its people from misery.
Here again I must ask Englishmen to remember that they are dealing not with a diplomatist versed in the use and abuse of language but with a plain-spoken farmer and soldier speaking frankly to fair-minded men, whom he takes to be willing to hear the truth and honestly minded to do what is right and fair. They have no reason to doubt our sincerity. If we needed any testimony on that score, it would be tendered-nay it has been tendered
glishmen caling not
t with a lier speak. ben, whom
e no reason
re, it would
-by Lord Kitchener and those other representatives of the British Army who had dealings with us at a time when everything, including cunning, is said to be fair. We then gave our 'word; since then we have kept it. We called on our people to come in and lay down their arms. Although many of them had made up their minds to hold out and fight to the bitter end, they none the less sacrificed their own wishes and acquiesced in ours. How many million pounds were saved the British nation by that surrenderwhich was inspired by the motives that still actuate us-it is needless now to reckon up. But the saving was very considerable, at the very lowest estimate.
hearty co-operation is an essential condition of the well-being of the entire community. That was the firm faith to which my comrades and myself tenaciously clung,-to which we still tenaciously cling despite the misunderstandings of the past few months. And in this we hold that we are doing justice to the humane feelings, the generous instincts of the British race. What we sought for therefore was not a modification of the terms of the Peace Treaty, but that immediate help -to which as subjects our people possess a claim-of which they are in sore need, and the bestowal of which—as it seemed and still seems to us-is the most efficacious means of realizing the intentions of the British Government. Holding so strongly that it is in the interests of both sides that the ravages of the war should be speedily repaired, we may at first have underrated the difficulty of making our point clear to others-indeed we deemed it self-evident-and some people concluded that we were endeavoring to obtain another treaty containing more acceptable terms than the first. In truth we were but seeking-as all British subjects are warranted in doing-to secure the most favorable treatment possible, whether
Having accepted the terms which Lord Kitchener was authorized to offer us, we have never sought to have them modified. No step which we have taken since then will reasonably admit of any such interpretation. We have no right to go behind the Treaty which ended the war and opened an era of peace, and we have ever acknowledged the fact. What follows
from that? That the British people possess a right to leave widespread
human misery unrelieved? If this were indeed so, I would still refuse to believe that a nation so sensitive to human suffering throughout the world would deign to avail itself of any such formal line of reasoning. They cannot but be aware that there are some rights the exercise of which constitutes a terrible wrong, and assuredly this, if it existed, would be one of them. Moreover the people whose warm sympathies, assuming the shape of material help, go out spontaneously to the famine-stricken Russians, the homeless inhabitants of Martinique, to every race whose lot is wretched, cannot abandon to a miserable fate brave men whom they sincerely welcome to the Empire as fellow-subjects, and whose
as a matter of right or of enlightened policy.
But no unbiassed man, be he Boer or Briton, who is acquainted with the country, the people and the misery that hangs like a cloud over both, will deny that relief-immediate and efficacious-is as necessary in the interests of the Empire as it is in those of its most recent subjects in South Africa. The need is such that it cannot wait: every week, every day it becomes more pressing; and delay may render assistance, I do not say wholly useless, but unavailing as a means to the twofold end which the Government on the one hand, and we who would gladly second its efforts on the
other hand, have at heart. and agriculture which made the two South African countries all that they were and had, no longer exist. Cattle and implements, without which work cannot be resumed, are gone. The woful desolation which the war has brought in its train is intense and widespread-I only wish I could make the people of this country realize how intense and widespread. For to hear of such things is not the same as to see them embodied in suffering women, wasting children and strong men powerless in the midst of ruins and ashes to help either. The feelings which such sights engender in members of the ill-starred race do not cling merely to the garments we put on and off. They reach the heart and pierce it. And if the bulk of Englishmen only realized the pitiable state of our men, women and children we should have no need to put our appeal in words.
It was when weighed down by that load of grief and care that we reached the shores of England, and it may well be that the most friendly attitude which we were then humanly able to assume seemed to many people in this country less demonstratively cordial than the warm welcome which we received warranted them in anticipating. But is it reasonable to explain that natural attitude by any other than the obvious facts intelligible to all? A man whose father, sons or brethren have been killed in a quarrel may agree to forgive the slayer, to live with him in peace, to become his fellow-worker in a good cause, to hope and endeavor to become his friend; but can he be expected to do more than that before the first blades of grass have sprung up on the graves of those near and dear to him? No man worthy of the name, coming as we came from the ruined home of his people, of his people who had lost their
worldly goods, their kith and kin and the independence which they set above either, could have accomplished in that respect more than we did. If he feigned more, he would be a hypocrite; if he effected more he would be an angel.
Our resolve then was to make the best of things as they were, and by having the first needs of our farmers relieved to work hand in hand with our new Government. Now the first step in this direction is the rebuilding of the farmsteads, the purchase of implements and livestock, in a word the allotment of a sum of money sufficient to set up the people and allow them to resume work. We held aloof from all discussions about the past which seemed calculated to produce bitter-ness in the present or obstacles to good fellowship in the future. We hoped that the whole subject would be dealt with in a humane, in a generous spirit. We were all the more confident of it that in this case generosity and national self-interest converge in a single point.
And having come in that frame of mind to plead a cause which seemed to speak eloquently enough for itself, we were sorely disappointed by the result. At least we had every reason to consider that we had failed in our errand. We had never regarded the fund of three millions mentioned in the Peace Articles as sufficient for the purposes for which, we understood, it was to be set apart. We are farmers, not financiers, and the subject of the three million pounds-insufficient for the purpose to which it was to be devoted-together with the loan which was to bear interest after two years but to be without interest until then, appeared to us to be wanting in clearness. We therefore did what we thought was necessary and sufficient in order to have light shed upon the matter. But the financial question, we
were told, was not to be reopened. We respected that decision while regretting it, for we took it to mean that no appeals for help would be listened to and that generosity would be compressed within the limits of legal obligation under the treaty. We may have been mistaken in drawing this inference from facts which apparently admitted of none other. But if so, it would have been easy to convince us of our error, which opened before us a gloomy, a harrowing prospect. This was not done, and we then took a step at once necessary and painful, in a direction which we would modify tomorrow, if the fears which compelled us to take it were shown by acts to be no longer real. It has been assumed since that we did not take kindly to the loan. But that supposition is gratuitous. We came to appeal for funds for sorely needed assistance. As to the shape in which material help was to be given, we had neither the right nor the will to pick and choose. A drowning man does not refuse to be rescued because the apparatus thrown to him floats upon bladders instead of corks: he eagerly snatches at such appliances as are at hand and is grateful to the giver. That was our position exactly. Let our people be saved from ruin; whether it is done by loan or by free grant is a secondary matter. But having seen no prospect of their receiving such help as we thought adequate we appealed in our urgent need to all the nations of the world.
That course has been sharply criticised, not only for what it implied, but also for the incidents with which it is said to have been accompanied. In neither case, I submit, have those strictures been deserved. So far as we can see, all that our appeal to foreigners implied was that our people were in sore need of instant relief and that we were willing to undergo the humiliation-no trivial ordeal, I can
assure my readers-of pleading for it. It implied nothing else that had not already been expressed in the publication of the results of our mission in England. The negotiations in London had been made known to all. ing that we have said on the Continent was calculated to change their import. Our action, therefore, was natural, necessary, and painful. For we are to the full as desirous as our new Government can be of sedulously removing every cause of friction, every ground for bitterness and distrust between the two races upon whose good fellowship depends the welfare of South Africa. And we should deeply regret if the necessity of seeking abroad what we should have been grateful to obtain from our new fellow-subjects in England were unfortunately likely to retard the welding process. But we fear that in all probability it would. Memories of help withheld despite pressing needs and an urgent appeal for justice or generosity, are certain to live long, die hard, and inflict damage out of all proportion to their seeming importance. And while painful incidents of the war, however deep the wounds they may have inflicted at the time, are forgiven and even forgotten, those which follow the peace rankle long in the minds of a high-spirited people. And the knowledge of that certainty filled us with grief.
I wish it to be clearly understood that I am but stating a well-known fact, not uttering a covert threat: for I am speaking bluntly to frank Englishmen who, I trust, can face facts and act upon them. But we are as sincere as we are plain spoken, and having accepted the terms of peace, will strictly observe them. Yet it should be borne in mind that however high a person's sense of duty, the masses are men, not angels, and the strict observance of clearly defined