202 
The Future “ Martyrdom of Science” 
April, 
reputation of Lavoisier, of Bailley, and Condorcet had no 
power to save them from looking through the “ national 
window.” How do men, certainly not under the sway of 
what is commonly called religious bigotry, speak even now 
of Science? ‘‘The time is near at hand,” says the Presi- 
dent of a provincial Literary and Philosophical Society, “if 
we may judge our age by its tendencies, when the pursuit 
of Science will have to justify itself anew to the reason of 
mankind ! ” According to this authority, then, Science is to 
take the place not of a free agent, much less that of a judge, 
but of a prisoner. Her place is to be not on the bench, 
but, as of old, at the bar. 
In a work lately reviewed in the “Journal of Science” 
(November, 1880, p. 725) we are told by a writer utterly free 
* from any theological bias that “ the life that is wholly given 
over to such pursuits (i.c., research) is a misspent one, and 
is, as an example, positively injurious to society.” What 
more was ever said by the Holy Inquisition ? It is generally 
considered to be within the competence, and even the duty, 
of governments to repress whatsoever is “injurious to 
society,” and if, therefore, men holding views similar to those 
of the writer just quoted should ever come into power, may 
we not expeCt interference with research ? 
Mr. E. R. Russell, in an essay on Trevelyan’s “ Life of 
Macaulay,” about two years ago, declared “ He (*.*., 
Macaulay) never thought it worth while to quit more at- 
tractive studies for the blind and groping physicism which 
now almost monopolises the name of Science. Whatever 
good it may have done in other directions, physical science 
has of late discouraged and debilitated moral and historical 
inquiry, which is of much more value to the world.” Here, 
therefore, we again find the charge that Science is in some 
respeCts hurtful to Society. Are, then, proposals for its 
repression likely to be very far distant ? An eminent author 
who has recently passed away from among us asked scorn- 
fully “ whether the heavens were made for Herschell tele- 
scopes to shoot Science at ?” Even Comte, in many passages 
of the “ Philosophic Positive ” ( e.g ., iv., p. 605), speaks with 
very little respeCt, or even toleration, for the scientific spe- 
cialist. Nor must we here lose sight of the anti-viviseCtion 
agitation, a movement largely supported by our “ advanced” 
historians, novelists, and free-thinking writers, and which 
has been carried to the length of the destruction of the 
Physiological Institute of the University of Leipzig. Thus 
we see that varied voices are now raised against Science, 
certainly not in obedience to any theological or religious 
