EDITOR'S TABLE. 



IM 



ontspoken way in which he has de- 

 clared his opinions, and he has been 

 pronounced rash for so doing ; . . . 

 we do not see why those who are not 

 framed for special researches, but rather 

 for being spokesmen of science, should 

 bring odium upon it by trumpeting 

 forth on occasions like these such of 

 their beliefs as are most controverted 

 even among themselves, and are most 

 objected to by a large part of the out- 

 side world." And, speaking of his se- 

 lection of a subject, the Review con- 

 cludes that " while we fully appreciate 

 the honesty of his motive which led to 

 the choice, we much doubt its wisdom." 

 The N'ew YorTc Tribune is even more 

 decisively of the same opinion. It de- 

 clared that " every sensible man will 

 deeply regret that the address was ever 

 delivered ; " and, in a subsequent edi- 

 torial, it reaffirms the judgment, "re- 

 garding Prof. Tyndall's demonstration 

 as utterly unwise and unnecessary." 



The question here raised is, by what 

 kind of motives ought a man to be gov- 

 erned who has a great public duty to 

 discharge as the representative of a 

 body devoted to the advancement of 

 scientific thought ? Shall he meet his 

 responsibilities like a man, or shrink 

 from them like a coward? Shall he 

 speak with honest fearlessness, or with 

 a calculating caution ? It is admitted 

 on all hands that Prof. Tyndall chose 

 the former alternative, and that his ad- 

 dress was bold and courageous. This 

 means, if it means any thing, that there 

 was resistance to be overcome, and 

 that it was so great as to call for the 

 highest qualities of character to over- 

 come it. There were ignorance, pre- 

 judice, narrowness, misunderstanding, 

 and intolerance, in regard to a grave 

 subject that had grown up in the world 

 of science. A great opportunity came 

 to him to treat this question as science 

 treats all questions, to place it in a new 

 light, and fix the world's attention more 

 closely upon it. He might have taken 

 counsel of prudence and timidity, and 



refrained from stirring up the disagree- 

 able elements of hostility to an unpopu- 

 lar doctrine. But, pray, what are the 

 circumstances in which the bold and 

 courageous utterance of unacceptable 

 opinions is to be ever justified? Can' 

 it be denied that the problems taken up 

 by Prof. Tyndall are of transcendent 

 importance, and are universally so re- 

 garded ? And, if they were legitimate 

 to discuss at all, what reason can be 

 given for not treating them with the 

 utmost thoroughness? Prof. Tyndall 

 might, no doubt, have shirked the sub- 

 ject, to the comfort of many, and taken 

 up some commonplace topic that would 

 have disturbed the tranquillity of no- 

 body. But there are plenty of men to 

 rehearse the platitudes of science on 

 occasions like this ; and when one ap- 

 pears with the power of stirring the 

 intellectual world to its depths, by the 

 commanding treatment of a great theme, 

 if he makes the utmost use of his op- 

 portunity, we see no reason for deplor- 

 ing it. More than this, he has no op- 

 tion in the matter ; he is bound to be up 

 to the utmost requirements of his du- 

 ties and responsibilities. We off'er no ex- 

 cuse for Prof. Tyndall, in taking the 

 course he did — it would be an imperti- 

 nence. He was forced by an obligation 

 of honor to use his best powers for the 

 advancement of the broad objects of the 

 Association over which he presided ; 

 and his use of the occasion to vindicate 

 the rights of scientific inquiry was the 

 noblest ser\ice that he could perform. 

 It has been said that his argument is 

 superfluous, and that science has al- 

 ready the fullest liberty of investigation. 

 It is true that the laboratories are not 

 disturbed by the police ; it is true that 

 investigators are at liberty to publish 

 their proceedings; but it is not true 

 that the advance of science is without 

 impediments and restrictions, nor is it 

 true that men of science are left in per- 

 fect freedom to push their investigations 

 undisturbed, to the utmost boundaries 

 of knowledge. If they pass into cer- 



