612 TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION L. 
and its imperfections while preying upon the gullibility of the masses. Science 
is not yet a sufliciently public possession, however, to make a rational and 
considerate Socialism possible. 
That religion will ultimately be placed upon a scientific basis—though perhaps 
only in far-off days—may also be anticipated, for it has been well said that in 
literature we already have homilies innumerable: that God’s universe is a 
symbol of the Godlike ; Immensity a Temple; Man’s and Men’s history a perpetual 
Evangel. In thus quoting Carlyle, I am aware of Mr. Balfour’s ill-judged, 
flippant reference to his ‘windy prophesyings "—that for the time being his 
Puritanism is out of fashion. But I prefer Huxley’s estimate, who uses 
memorable words in saying :— 
‘“ Sartor Resartus ’’ led me to know that a deep sense of religion was com- 
patible with the entire absence of theology. . . . Science and her methods gave 
me a resting-place independent of authority and traditions. 
‘The longer I live the more obvious it is to me that the most sacred act of 
man’s life is to say and to feel ‘‘ I believe such and such to be true.’”’ All the 
greatest rewards and all the heaviest penalties of existence cling about that act. 
‘he universe is one and the same throughout; and if the condition of my success 
in unravelling some little difficulty of anatomy or physiology is that I shall 
rigorously refuse to put faith in that which does not rest on sufficient evidence, 
T cannot believe that the great mysteries of existence will be laid open to me on 
other terms. It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know 
what I mean when I say, I believe in the law of the inverse squares and I will 
not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions. I dare not if I would.’ 
‘Science seems to me to teach in the highest and strongest manner the great 
truth which is embodied in the Christian conception of entire surrender to the 
will of God. Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up 
every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses 
Nature leads or you shall learn nothing. I have only begun to learn content and 
peace of mind since I have resolved at all risks to do this.’ 
These remarkable passages occur in one of Huxley’s letters to the Rev. 
Charles Kingsley; probably they are a fair representation of the faith that is in 
all whose views of life are ordered on a scientific basis. At least, they indicate 
our attitude towards utterances such as Sir Oliver Lodge has given expression to 
even from the Presidential Chair of this Association and to the fancies woven 
by Mr. Balfour in his recent Gifford Lectures. Sir Oliver has asserted that ‘the 
methods of Science are not the only way, though they are our way, of arriving 
at the truth.’ It is scarcely necessary to controvert so illogical a statement. 
If they are our way, it is because the methods of Science are the only methods 
known to us which we can apply in our search for truth: all methods which 
lead to truth are necessarily methods of science. 
With all the marvellous growth of achievement to which I have referred, 
there has been no proportionate growth of public intelligence. Our Admiralty 
and to a far less extent our War Office have called Science into their service 
but our public Departments generally will have none of it. Even the elements 
of an understanding of the methods of Science are not thought to be essential to 
the education of a Civil Servant; such knowledge is not required even in the 
highest branches of the Indian Service—no politician is ever supposed to need 
it: we are governed almost entirely by the literary spirit. 
Our newspaper press is in the hands of literary men. Even ‘The Times’ 
gives no regular place to Science—now and then chance reference is made to 
some discovery but too often the account is garbled. It publishes Literary and 
Educational Supplements in neither of which Science figures; and recently, on 
reducing its price in order to increase its popularity, it abandoned the weekly 
publication of its Engineering Supplement and issues this only monthly in an 
emasculated form. ‘The Liberal press is distinguished by the infrequency of its 
references to scientific questions and by the superlative inaccuracy of the state- 
ments that are made. The ‘Morning Post,’ by reporting the meetings of 
societies and by opening its columns recently to a lengthy correspondence 
on ‘Science and the State,’ however, has shown sympathy with us. 
