26 



NATURE 



{Nov. lo, 1887 



assertions. In the face of statements so definite as those 

 quoted above, this may seem presumptuous. They read 

 almost hke the sentence of an ecclesiastical court, which 

 it is heresy to question. Caledonia locuta est, causa 

 finita est, seems to be their tone ; and if one whisper a 

 doubt, one expects the familiar conclusion, Anathema sit / 

 But men of science, as all the world knows, are sceptics. 

 Have they yet awakened and rubbed their eyes, and said 

 of Darwin's theory " Lo ! it was a dream " ? What says 

 Prof. Huxley? He asserts that Darwin's confidence in 

 the accuracy of his own theory was not seriously shaken, 

 as the Duke alleges, and quotes as conclusive evidence a 

 letter from Prof. Judd, who gives the results of a conversa- 

 tion which he had with Darwin no long time before the 

 death of the latter. Prof. Huxley also intimates that to 

 himself — though tolerably familiar with coral reefs — the 

 new theory is at first sight so far from fascinating that, 

 until he can devote a considerable time to a re-e.xamina- 

 tion of the whole subject, he must be content to remain 

 "in a condition of suspended judgment," and that Prof. 

 Dana, " an authority of the first rank on such subjects," 

 has pronounced against the new hypothesis in explicit 

 terms. Undoubtedly, Mr. Murray has obtained distin- 

 guished converts, but with such differences of opinion 

 among those best qualified to judge, it is certainly going 

 further than is warranted by facts to insinuate if not to 

 assert that he has convinced the scientific public. Very 

 probably more than a minority of them are in my own 

 position, which perhaps I may be pardoned for stating. 

 They, like myself, have never had the opportunity of 

 forming an independent judgment upon the matter, but 

 they see some very serious difficulties — difficulties which 

 are of a general rather than of a special nature — in the 

 new explanation. At present these difficulties do not 

 appear to them to have been overcome ; so that, while 

 admitting that Mr. Murray's hypothesis may sometimes 

 apply, and that Darwin either may have expressed him- 

 self a little too sweepingly, or may have been understood 

 so to do, the theory of the latter is capable of a more 

 general application, and presents less serious general 

 difficulties, thaa does that of Mr. Murray. 



We come, then, to the third charge, which is the most 

 serious one, because it affects the morality of scientific 

 men ; and many of them, like myself, are old-fashioned 

 enough to resent being called a knave more than being 

 called a fool. Has Mr. Murray been met by "a con- 

 spiracy of silence " .? The Duke, in asserting this, must 

 have been strangely oblivious of, or, among the cares of a 

 statesman, have failed to keep himself au courant with, the 

 literature of geology. Prof. Huxley denies the assertion, 

 and adduces in his support an answer to an inquiry which 

 he had addressed to Prof. Judd. The facts, according to 

 these authorities, are briefly as follows ; — Mr. Murray's 

 views were duly published, as the Duke himself states ; 

 they were favourably regarded by the authorities at the 

 Challeftger Oifice ; they were expounded, one might almost 

 say advocated, on more than one occasion {e.g. in this 

 very journal) by Dr. A. Geikie. His text-book in the 

 year 1882 not only took the leading place, as it still does, 

 but also was then the only complete text -book on a large 

 scale for this country. On p. 468 is a full statement of Mr. 

 Murray's views. They have also been referred to at more 



or less length in many treatises and journals, both English 

 and foreign. As Prof. Judd remarks, " If this be a 

 ' conspiracy of silence,' where, alas ! can the geological 

 speculator seek for fame ? " 



Thus the main charge is disproved. One special item 

 in it, however, as peculiarly offensive, yet calls for a brief 

 notice. The Duke states : "Mr. John Murray was strongly 

 advised against the publication of his views in derogation 

 of Darwin's long-accepted theory of the coral islands, and 

 was actually induced to delay for two years." Now, if 

 these words do not amount to an imputation of bad 

 faith on the part of Mr. Murray's adviser, and are not by 

 insinuation extended to others, I do not know what they 

 mean, or why they have been penned. But, as Prof. 

 Huxley observes, "whether such advice were wise or 

 foolish, just or immoral, depends entirely on the motive 

 of the person who gave it." The remark is perfectly just. 

 Who, I would ask, who is old enough to look back on a 

 quarter of a century of work, has not occasionally said, 

 " Wait a bit,'' to some younger friend, who has come in 

 the first incandescence of a brilliant hypothesis ? I have 

 so sinned. Sometimes I have been wrong and my young 

 friend right, but not always. Still, I know myself fallible. 

 As the late Master of Trinity said, " We are all fallible 

 mortals, even the youngest amongst us." Yet I am not 

 ashamed. I will not put on sackcloth and ashes, and I 

 mean to sin again. Perhaps it is because I am naturally 

 unimaginative ; perhaps I am come to the season of 

 autumn leaves ; but I have always looked askance at a 

 brilliant hypothesis, and now distrust it more than ever. 

 I have lived long enough to see many a one go up 

 whoosh / like a sky-rocket, all stars and sparks, and come 

 down exploded, all stick and stink ! 



So the " great lesson " has been read, and the scientific 

 world, I fear, has not repented or rent its clothes. But it 

 has heard, and not without indignation. The Duke of 

 Argyll has made grave charges against the honour and 

 good faith of men of science, and they ought to be grateful 

 to Prof. Huxley for his prompt repulse of the attack and 

 his stern rebuke of the assailant. As it seems to me, 

 reply is only possible on one point — namely, the special 

 charge mentioned above. Hence the Duke of Argyll is 

 bound to establish or to withdraw the accusation. 



Men of science are justly sensitive on this question. 

 Doubtless they are no more exempt from human frailty 

 than any other class of men : we all fail sometimes — 

 nay, too often— to live up to our ideal standard ; still, such 

 shortcomings are not common, and anything like a " con- 

 spiracy of silence" or any kind of scientific "boycotting' 

 is a thing so improbable as to be almost incredible. Each 

 man must testify according to his own experience ; so in 

 conclusion, though it may be deemed impertinent, I will 

 express my own. I have lived now for not a few years 

 among the rank and file of scientific men on more intimate 

 terms than can have been possible for the Duke of 

 Argyll, owing to his exalted station and his high occupa- 

 tions of State, and I am bound to declare that, in a fairly 

 wide experience, I have never found men as a class less 

 self-seeking or more earnest in their desire for truth, more 

 steadfast as friends, or more generous as antagonists. 



T. G. BONNEY. 



I 



