207 
18760] Biological Controversy and its Laws. 
raising the cry of atheism should be held to be ipse facto an 
outlaw, and to be no longer entitled to the treatment of a 
gentleman and a scholar? Nay, why should not other 
charges affedting the personal character of an opponent be 
dealt with in a similar manner? We do not, of course, 
seek to screen the man who can be proved to have sup- 
pressed documents, cooked results, or claimed as his own 
discoveries those which he well knew belonged to another. 
We refer to those random charges of dishonesty and menda- 
city, and those sweeping ascriptions of motive, which are 
unfortunately so common. Thus we have often heard and 
seen it asserted that the authors of some particular theory 
were actuated by a desire to disprove the existence of a God, 
to subvert the Christian religion or some particular form of 
it, or to injure public morals. To such assertors we would 
reply— “ Prove your charge by evidence such as would 
satisfy an impartial court of justice, or take the consequences, 
which will not be pleasant ! ” We are here reminded that 
in the very passage in Mr. Mivart’s book (p. 144) in which he 
comes unpleasantly near charging Mr. Darwin with atheism, 
he brings forward against the same gentleman something very 
like an accusation of dishonesty. It is perfectly true that 
in the “ Origin of Species ” Mr. Darwin does not pronounce 
as to whether mankind had or had not been gradually evolved 
from some lower form of animal life. But reticence is very 
different from dishonesty. A thinker is not absolutely bound 
to bring his speculations to light at all ; for keeping them 
back whilst he is accumulating and weighing the evidence 
for and against them, he deserves praise rather than censure. 
Nay, even for introducing dodtrines gradually, as the public 
are able to bear them, there is certainly authority which 
Mr. Mivart cannot consistently impugn. Nor must we for- 
get that Mr. Darwin has, from the first, nowise courted 
publicity for his views. But for the fadt that Mr. Wallace 
was known to be preparing a work of a somewhat similar 
nature, even the “ Origin of Species ” might never have 
seen the light. 
There may be persons who will be aggrieved at this ex- 
pression of our views on the subjedt of scientific controver- 
sies ; but if they feel themselves guiltless they may cheerfully 
exclaim — “ Let the galled jade wince.” As for those who 
have actually made the kind of charges we protest against, 
they have no claim to lenity or forbearance. 
Controversies on theories in the various inorganic sciences 
have been carried on with no little acrimony. But charges 
of atheism are, at least, banished. Why may not this 
