Part 14

Appreciation of the value of Mr. Spencer's work had been growing for many years, and its influence was gradually making itself felt in movements of various kinds in the active world. Whatever he wrote or said received attention at once, was discussed, or influenced action. The completion of his Philosophy was deemed worthy of formal notice and a proper subject for felicitation wherever science was known, and in England was regarded as a suitable object for a national memorial. An address of congratulation was prepared for presentation to him, and with it went a request that he would have his portrait painted to be presented to the nation. It has always been his principle to decline offers of testimonials, on the ground that the custom had become an abuse, and persons invited to participate in presentations were often put under a kind of moral obligation to comply, to which he would not be, even incidentally, a party. Consistently with this attitude and not realizing the real nature of the movement in favor of a testimonial and how really spontaneous it was, he wrote to its promoters repeating his objections and asking that it be not pressed. But when the address was presented and he saw the list of illustrious names attached to it, including those of men who had been his antagonists, he yielded to what was evidently a spontaneous feeling of the representative men among his countrymen, and sat for his portrait as soon as circumstances permitted, or about a year afterward, to Mr. Hubert Herkomer. The following is the letter of congratulation and the request for his portrait, with the names of the distinguished signers, and Mr. Spencer's reply:

THE CAMP, SUNNINGDALE, _December 16, 1896_.

DEAR SIR: We, the undersigned, offer you our cordial congratulations upon the completion of your System of Synthetic Philosophy.

Not all of us agreeing in equal measure with its conclusions, we are all at one in our estimate of the great intellectual powers it exhibits and of the immense effect it has produced in the history of thought; nor are we less impressed by the high moral qualities which have enabled you to concentrate those powers for so many years upon a purpose worthy of them, and, in spite of all obstacles, to carry out so vast a design.

To the many who, like us, have learned to honor the man while profiting by his writings, it would be a satisfaction to possess an authentic personal likeness of the author. It has therefore occurred to us that the occasion might be appropriately marked by requesting you to permit us to employ some eminent artist to take your portrait, with a view, to its being deposited in one of our national collections for the benefit of ourselves and of those who come after us.

We hope that your health may be benefited by the leisure which you have earned so well, and that you may long continue to enjoy the consciousness of having completed your work.

W. DE W. ABNEY, R. E., C. B., D. C. L., F. R. S., Pres. Physical Society.

ROBERT ADAMSON, M. A., LL. D., Prof, of Logic, Glasgow University.

GRANT ALLEN, B. A.

ALEXANDER BAIN, M. A., LL. D., Professor of Logic, Aberdeen University.

SIR GEORGE S. BADEN-POWELL, K. C. M. G., M. A., M. P.

RIGHT HON. ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR, P. C., D. C. L., F. R. S., M. P.

SIR ROBERT STAWELL BALL, LL. D., F. R. S., Lowndean Prof. Ast., Camb.

H. CHARLTON BASTIAN, M. A., M. D., F. R. S., Prof. Medicine, Univ. Coll., London.

FRANK E. BEDDARD, M. A., F. R. S., Prosector Zoölogical Society.

JOHN BEDDOE, M. D., F. R. S.

SIR WALTER BESANT, M. A.

E. W. BRABROOK, Pres. Anthropological Institute.

BERNARD BOSANQUET, M. A.

C. V. BOYS, F. R. S., Assistant Prof. Physics R. C. S.

T. LAUDER BRUNTON, M. D., D. Sc., F. R. S.

EDWARD CLODD.

F. HOWARD COLLINS.

SIR J. CRICHTON-BROWNE, M. D., LL. D., F. R. S.

W. H. DALLINGER, LL. D., D. Sc., F. R. S.

FRANCIS DARWIN, M. A., M. B., F. R. S.

GEORGE H. DARWIN, M. A., LL. D., F. R. S., Plumian Prof. Ast. and Exp. Physics, Cambridge.

W. E. DARWIN, B. A.

JAMES DONALDSON, M. A., LL. D., Principal University St. Andrews.

RIGHT HON. SIR M. E. GRANT-DUFF, P. C., G. C. S. I., F. R. S. Earl of Dysart.

SIR JOHN EVANS, K. C. B., D. C. L., LL. D., D. Sc., Treas. R. S.

SIR JOSHUA FITCH, LL. D.

MICHAEL FOSTER, M. A., M. D., LL. D., D. C. L., Sec. R. S., Prof. Physio., Cambridge.

EDWARD FRANKLAND, M. D., D. C. L., LL. D., F. R. S.

RIGHT HON. SIR EDWARD FRY, P. C., LL. D., D. C. L., F. R. S.

SIR DOUGLAS GALTON, K. C. B., D. C. L., LL. D., F. R. S.

FRANCIS GALTON, M. A., D. C. L., D. Sc., F. R. S.

RICHARD GARNETT, LL. D.

SIR GEORGE GROVE, C. B., D. C. L., LL. D.

ALBERT C. L. G. GÜNTHER, M. A., M. D., F. R. S., Pres. Linnean Society.

FREDERIC HARRISON, M. A.

JAMES EDMUND HARTING.

RIGHT HON. LORD HOBHOUSE, P. C.

HENRY HOBHOUSE, M. A., M. P.

SHADWORTH HODGSON, late Pres. Aristotelian Society.

SIR JOSEPH DALTON HOOKER, K. C. S. I., C. B., M. D., D. C. L., LL. D., F. R. S.

WILLIAM HUGGINS, D. C. L., LL. D., F. R. S.

J. HUGHLINGS JACKSON, M. D., LL. D., F. R. S.

WILLIAM KNIGHT, LL. D., Prof. Moral Philosophy, St. Andrews.

ANDREW LANG.

E. RAY LANKESTER, M. A., LL. D., F. R. S., Linacre Prof. Anatomy, Oxford.

SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE, Pres. Royal Horticultural Society.

W. E. H. LECKY, M. A., LL. D., D. C. L., M. P.

J. NORMAN LOCKYER, C. B., F. R. S., Prof. Astr. Physics, R. C. S.

RIGHT HON. SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, P. C., D. C. L., LL. D., F. R. S., M. P.

VERNON LUSHINGTON, Q. C.

P. A. MACMAHON, R. A., F. R. S., late Pres. Math. Society.

JAMES MARTINEAU, D. D., LL. D., D. C. L.

DAVID MASSON, M. A., LL. D., Emeritus Prof. Rhetoric, Edinburgh.

RAPHAEL MELDOLA, F. R. S., Pres. Entomological Society.

C. LLOYD MORGAN, Prin. University Coll., Bristol.

RIGHT HON. JOHN MORLEY, P. C., M. A., LL. D., F. R. S., M. P.

C. HUBERT H. PARRY, Prin. R. Coll. of Music.

GENERAL PITT-RIVERS, D. C. L., F. R. S.

EDWARD B. POULTON, M. A., F. R. S., Prof. Zoöl. Oxford University.

SIR WILLIAM O. PRIESTLEY, M. D., LL. D., M. P.

LORD REAY, G. C. S. I., G. C. I. E.

LORD RAYLEIGH, M. A., D. C. L., LL. D., F. R. S., Prof. Nat. Philos. Royal Institution.

DAVID G. RITCHIE, M. A., Professor of Logic St. Andrews University.

SIR HENRY E. ROSCOE, LL. D., D. C. L., F. R. S.

J. S. BURDON SANDERSON, LL. D., D. C. L., F. R. S., Reg. Prof. of Medicine Univ. Oxford.

GEORGE H. SAVAGE, M. D., F. R. C. P.

E. A. SCHÄFER, F. R. S., Prof. Physio. Univ. Coll. London.

D. H. SCOTT, M. A., Ph. D., F. R. S., Hon. Keeper Jodrell Laboratory, Kew.

HENRY SIDGWICK, M. A., Litt. D., D. C. L., Prof. Moral Philos. Univ. Camb.

W. R. SORLEY, Prof. Moral Philos. Univ. of Aberdeen.

LESLIE STEPHEN, M. A., Litt. D., LL. D.

G. F. STOUT.

JAMES SULLY, M. A., LL. D.

W. T. THISELTON-DYER, C. M. G., C. I. E., M. A., F. R. S.

JOHN VENN, Sc. D., F. R. S.

SYDNEY HOWARD VINES, M. A., D. Sc., F. R. S., Prof. Botany Univ. Oxford.

SIR WILLOUGHBY WADE, M. D., F. R. C. P.

ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE, D. C. L., F. R. S.

BEATRICE WEBB.

LADY VICTORIA WELBY.

SAMUEL WILKS, M. D., LL. D., F. R. S., Pres. R. College of Physicians.

HAWARDEN, _November 30, 1896_.

MY DEAR SIR: It has long been my rule to decline joining in groups of signatures, nor do I think myself entitled to bear a prominent part in the present case. But I beg that you will, if you think proper, set me down as an approver of the request to Mr. Spencer, whose signal abilities and, rarer still, whose manful and self-denying character, are so justly objects of admiration.

I remain your very faithful, W. E. GLADSTONE.

F. HOWARD COLLINS, Esq.

2, LEWES-CRESCENT, BRIGHTON, _December 19, 1896_.

MY DEAR HOOKER: If, as may fitly be said, the value of congratulations increases in a geometrical progression with the eminence of those offering them, I may, indeed, be extremely gratified by the accumulation coming from men standing so high in various spheres. And an accompanying pleasure necessarily results from the good wishes expressed for my health and happiness during my remaining days.

The further honor offered has caused in me some mental conflict. Eight years ago, to the inquiry whether I would sit for a subscription portrait to be painted by Millais, I replied negatively, assigning the reasons that the raising of funds to pay the costs of conferring marks of approbation had grown into an abuse; that the moral coercion under which contributions were in many cases obtained was repugnant to me; and that I objected to have my known and unknown friends asked to tax themselves to the required extent. These reasons survived, and, swayed by them, I recently sent a copy of the letter in which they had been stated to the gentleman with whom the proposal now made originated, thinking thereby to prevent further trouble. I was unaware to how large an extent the proposal had been adopted and how distinguished were the numerous gentlemen who had given it their support. I now find myself obliged either inconsistently to waive my objection or else rudely to slight the cordially-expressed feelings and wishes of so many whose positions and achievements command my great respect. Between the alternatives there seems to be practically no choice. I am compelled to yield to the request made in so sympathetic a manner by signatories so eminent, and at the same time must express to them through you my full sense of the honor done me.

I am, my dear Hooker, sincerely yours, HERBERT SPENCER.

Marks of honor offered to Mr. Spencer from time to time since 1871 have included doctor's degrees from the Universities of St. Andrews, Bologna, Cambridge, Edinburgh, and Buda-Pesth; and elections as foreign member or correspondent of the Academies of Rome, Turin, Naples, Paris, Philadelphia, Copenhagen, Brussels, Vienna, Milan, and the Prussian order "_Pour le Mérite_." Mr. Spencer has been prompted year after year to decline these various honors by the conviction that instead of being, as commonly supposed, encouragements to literature and science, they are discouraging. He contends that they constitute a system of inverse handicapping. In physical competitions it is usual to give the younger a certain artificial advantage when they are set against the elder; but in these mental competitions between the rising men and the men who have risen the reverse practice is followed--the men who have risen have an artificial advantage, and the younger men, who of necessity have much to struggle against, have their difficulties artificially increased by the absence of titles which their competitors possess. Mr. Spencer is quite aware that the course he has persistently followed has cost him much, since a list of honors on the title-pages of his books would have greatly increased the attention paid to them by critics and others. Nevertheless, he has continued to make this practical protest.

Since completing his Philosophy, Mr. Spencer has occupied his working hours with the revision of the Principles of Biology, making the modifications and incorporating the new facts which the progress of the science demands. He recognizes that the advance has been more rapid in this branch than in any other; and that while it might be almost hopeless for him at his time of life to bring a work on biology at large up to date, the case is different in an exposition of the Principles of Biology. The additions to the work include a chapter on Metabolism supplementing the discussion of vital changes of matter; a chapter on the Dynamic Element in Life, to render less inadequate the conception of life previously expressed; some pages on Structure; an account, under the head of Cell Life and Cell Multiplication, of the astonishing actions in cell nuclei which the microscope has revealed; a further chapter on Genesis, Heredity, and Variation, in which certain views enunciated in the first edition of the book are qualified and developed; a review of various modern ideas under the title of Recent Criticisms and Hypotheses; a rewriting of most of the chapter on The Argument from Embryology; and a number of changes incorporated as sections in pre-existing chapters. The articles on Weissmannism are incorporated in an appendix. In performing this work assistance was needed, and the author sought and received criticism and help from different persons, each taking a division falling within the range of his special studies: Prof. W. H. Perkin in organic chemistry and its derived subjects; Prof. A. G. Tansley in plant morphology and physiology; Prof. E. W. MacBride and Mr. J. T. Cunningham in animal morphology; and Mr. W. B. Hardy in animal physiology. The first volume of this work, recently published, has been received with favor by persons of all shades of opinion respecting the questions it touches. The London Times, in not the friendliest of criticisms, says that even persons who do not accept the author's Philosophy will rejoice that he has been able to complete it, and adds that as it stands it "is a marvel of erudition: every page exhibits the wealth and variety of illustration for which Mr. Spencer is justly famous." The latest notice of it that we have observed, a French one in the _Revue Scientifique_, says that in consulting it biologists "will not lose their time, and many will find valuable ideas in it, suggestions by which their experimental work can not fail to be greatly benefited. And, like us, they will be filled with admiration for a work so condensed, and at the same time so admirably co-ordinated, so replete with facts and ideas, of the philosopher who has exercised so great an influence on the science of his times, and who is one of the finest intellectual glories of his country and of the present epoch." Perhaps one of the most significant of recent testimonials of appreciation of the Synthetic Philosophy is the announcement of the publication of a complete translation of First Principles into Japanese by Mr. Fujii, who has devoted several years to the work. "Mr. Spencer's works," it is added, "have long had a great attraction for Japanese translators." Mr. Spencer is now engaged upon the second volume of the Biology.

It was formerly Mr. Spencer's custom to spend about nine months of the year in London and the three summer months in the country, but for several years past he has found the fogs and other gloomy winter conditions of the metropolis too trying. The confinement enforced upon him by increasing feebleness has, moreover, precluded his enjoyment of the social privileges, particularly of the Athenæum Club, which were one of the attractions that made a town residence tolerable. He therefore, at the beginning of 1898, took up his residence in Brighton, where he has a house looking upon the sea, and giving him the benefit of the flood of light which that place enjoys.

At present Mr. Spencer is able to give very little time to work, and being confined to the house most of the time, the routine of his daily life admits of little variety. His first business in the day is to hear the morning paper read; then he attends to his correspondence, and if well enough does a little work. If any matter is going through the press he will generally be seen with a proof close by. His afternoon is spent in such relaxation as is afforded by scanning the illustrated papers and magazines, listening to music, which must always be classical, or, if sufficiently well, a drive; and he retires at ten o'clock.

* * * * *

It is often asked, Miss Mary H. Kingsley says in her West African Studies, whether Christianity or Mohammedanism is to possess Africa--"as if the choice of Fate lay between these two religions alone. I do not think it is so, or at least it is not wise for a mere student to ignore the other thing in the affair, fetich, which is, as it were, a sea wherein all things suffer a sea change. For, remember, it is not Christianity alone that becomes tinged with fetich, or gets ingulfed and dominated by it. Islam, when it strikes the true heart of Africa, the great forest belt region, fares but little better, though it is more recent than Christianity, and though it is preached by men who know the make of the African mind."

PRESIDENT CHARLES W. DABNY, Jr., of the University of Tennessee, once said in an address that when in school, where the work was all done "at the point of the hickory, so to speak," the best teacher he had "was the kindly old neighborhood loafer," who roamed the woods with him, told him of the times of the wild flowers and the habits of the birds, and taught him to shoot the long rifle. He followed the "natural method, and showed a pupil how to do a thing by doing it."

Editor's Table.

_SCIENCE AND THE STATE._

It is probably not too much to say that the true measure of the intelligence and efficiency of a government is the extent to which, in the various spheres of activity which it controls, it recognizes the authority and adopts the methods of science. There is one department of Government--the remark might be applied to nearly all civilized governments, and very pointedly to our own--in which science receives a large and serious recognition, and that is the Navy Department. We have lately had a striking exhibition, which the world at large has watched with great interest, of the high state of efficiency to which a navy can be brought in a comparatively short space of time. If the question is asked how it was done, there is but one answer: it was done by recognizing science and working on scientific lines. To work on scientific lines is simply to study carefully, in the light of the best available knowledge, the means for accomplishing a desired end, and having found the best means, to adopt them in practice. Our naval administration has fortunately been able to repel if not wholly, at least to a remarkable extent, the intrusion of "political" influence, and has consequently been able to apply itself without serious distraction to the accomplishment of its own special tasks. It has called science to its aid not only as regards purely physical questions, but as regards questions of organization; and the result is that it has succeeded in giving the nation not only ships and guns, but the men who are fitted by knowledge, by training, and by discipline to make the best possible use of the ships and guns.

Next to the navy in the recognition accorded to science, but yet a long way off, comes the army. We are speaking now, of course, of our own army; and what the "long way off" meant in waste of money and of human life, in the suffering and misery of brave men, is a too familiar tale. Had science governed the operations of the land forces and presided over their whole organization to the same extent that it did over the operations and organization of the navy, a certain recent page of history would have borne a very different record, and would not have been so burdened as it is with shame and heartache to patriotic citizens.

Killing and being killed are serious matters, and everybody understands that the business can not safely be trifled with. That is why science is allowed to have its own way almost entirely in the navy, and to exercise a large measure of control in the army, with the effect of rendering the first a nearly perfect machine, and giving to the latter a high degree of efficiency for its own purposes. But have we not here object lessons which ought to be applied to other departments of the Government? Is it only in the matter of killing that the aid of science is required? Can the public at large not rise to the conception that, if science can make splendid killing machines, it might also, if allowed fair play, make excellent administrative machines for peaceful purposes? We have departments which deal with such important matters as currency and finance, agriculture and statistics, the administration of justice, the control of railway traffic, the erection of public buildings and the improvement of waterways, the carrying out of geodetic and geological surveys, the representation of the country abroad, the protection of the public health, and, finally, the great question of public education. It must be obvious to every thoughtful person that, if science could have its say and its way in relation to these matters, it would put them all on the best footing which the existing condition of knowledge permits. It would ask, "What are the objects to be accomplished?" and would proceed to select the persons and adopt the means best fitted to realize those objects. The country would then have a civil service in which economy and efficiency would be equally conspicuous, and which would furnish examples for imitation in private enterprise of the best ways of doing things.

It is needless to say how far removed the present condition of government business is from anything like scientific organization. If killing must be done scientifically, the injured feelings of the politician find relief in insisting that nearly everything else within the sphere of government action shall be done most unscientifically. In the filling of important positions the first thing considered is not the question of fitness for the work to be done, but the question of party advantage. It is not too much to say that a prejudice frequently exists against a man conspicuously qualified by knowledge, experience, and character for a given post. There is an uncomfortable feeling that such a man might not be sufficiently pliable afterward in the hands of those who had appointed him--that the preposterous idea might get into his head that, having obtained the office on his merits, he was at liberty, in the execution of his duties, to think only of the public interest. The preference of the politician, therefore, for "the boys" is easily understood; but "the boys" and science do not work hand in hand.

Our universities are turning out year by year men possessing the highest scientific qualifications, men who have studied both in this country and in Europe, and who are prepared to take any positions in which scientific work is required. Some of these are absorbed by the teaching profession, but the great majority find employment in the various industries of the country. Unfortunately, the attainments of such men give them no special advantage as regards employment in the public service of the country; to qualify for that they must graduate in another school entirely, and get certificates from a very different class of professors. We are far from holding the opinion that men of high education should dissociate themselves from the political life of the country; but it is unhappily true that the kind of interest which an intelligent man who places the nation above party can take in politics is not likely to recommend him to those who have the dispensing of places. The fact should, however, be emphasized that if science does not receive due recognition in connection with the public services, it is not because of any lack of native-born citizens capable of representing it with credit and even with distinction. In this respect America has placed herself fully abreast with the most advanced nations of the modern world, and the Government has only to say what service it requires in order to have its choice of men possessing every qualification to render that service in the most competent and satisfactory manner.