« 이전계속 »
riding; it has buttons at the back because it was once gathered in at the waist; and the collar is notched because it once stood up and had to fit the neck.
An absolute creative power is denied to man equally with Nature. Either can only accomplish the extended developement of something which has preceded. It is often the practice to speak of art as creative; but this is far from being the case, and Mr. Walter Crane has recently given a perfectly accurate account of the limitations under which the artist works :
"There appears to be a law of evolution working in the arts of design quite as inevitably as in the Natural world. Certain germinal motives, derived from forms in Nature or art, are combined by the fancy of the designer. A conflict for pre-eminence, a struggle for existence, takes place in the mind of the artist, as his hand records the stages of the evolution of his design either on paper or in some plastic material. In view of his ultimate purpose—the use and destiny of the design--certain lines, certain forms, prevail over others as the most fitting ; the design sheds inessentials and takes final shape. It may closely follow the principle of its inception, or it may, passing through a multitude of complex stages, finally be involved in some very different shape ; but in either case its developement proceeds much as the developement of a plant from its seed germ to its full completion and flower, always strictly adapted to its environment.' Nor does Evolution necessarily imply progress. Nature is self-regarding, and simply adjusts the organism to its conditions. In that aspect degeneration not merely may, but does, become a necessity of existence for its victims. Huxley pointed out that there is an ambiguity in the expression 'fittest.' That which survives in the struggle
for existence may be, and often is, the ethically worst. * This is a profound truth fraught with political consequences of the deepest moment.
The brief history which has been given in the preceding pages is one of perpetual conflict between what may be called roughly the mechanical and the idealistic explanation of the methods of Evolution. It is not to be supposed that it is at an end when we deal with the higher aspects of man's nature. Darwin almost alone in this country has pushed his theory to its logical conclusion. Wallace remarks :
Although, perhaps, nowhere distinctly formulated, his wbole argument tends to the conclusion that man's entire nature and all his
conditions. In the necessity of
* Essays, vol. ii. p. 303,
faculties, whether moral, intellectual, or spiritual, have been derived from their rudiments in the lower animals, in the same manner and by the action of the same general laws as his physical structure has been derived.' (Darwinism, p. 461.) The theory of Evolution probably leads to the same conclusion. It would, however, be premature to dogmatise on a subject for which the materials for an accurate judgement are still confessedly insufficient. Mr. Andrew Lang has recently drawn attention to the remarkable fact that so practical a body as the United States Government has created means for ethnological study to which no parallel exists in this or perhaps any other country. Wallace dissents from Darwin's views; and his general discussion, as well as the more detailed studies of the subject which we owe to Weismann, must be weighed with all the consideration due to those distinguished men.
The remarkable pronouncement by Huxley in his Romanes lecture on the origin of the ethical principle is not inconsistent with Evolution, but is not reconcilable with the Darwinian theory. It is frankly pessimistic, while the latter is not. Since,' Huxley says, thousands of times a minute, were our ears sharp enough, we should hear sighs and groans of pain like those heard by Dante at the gate of hell, the world cannot be governed by what we call 6“ benevolence.”! But to Wallace, as to Darwin, the whole aspect of Nature is joyous; and, as the former points out, we are not justified in projecting into it what only exists in our imagination. Huxley thought that the ethical process is in opposition to the cosmic process,' * to which the struggle for existence belongs. The latter Huxley identified with evil; the former with good : the two are in necessary conflict. The cosmic process in the long run will get the best of the contest and resume its sway't when Evolution enters on its downward course. But that it will ever do so is a wholly illegitimate assumption.
The relation of Evolution to religion is one which it would be in no way profitable to discuss, briefly or even at all, with our present knowledge. That it will ultimately be embraced in a complete theory is wholly probable. Meanwhile in this, as in other fields, Evolution makes for tolerance, and cannot regard without reverential respect any system which gives expression to man's hopes and fears. Darwin has told us that for myself I do not believe there ever has been any
revelation.'* This was written to a correspondent as a mere dictum. It can only be construed to mean that there has been no specific revelation in the ordinary sense. He would not, perhaps, have refused to extend the term to the process by which our knowledge of all that is cognoscible is gradually opened to us, and in that sense revelation is continuous and inexhaustible. Finally, we must agree with Weismann that
• It would be a great delusion if anyone were to believe that he had arrived at a comprehension of the universe by tracing the phenomena of Nature to mechanical principles. He would thereby forget that the assumption of eternal matter with its eternal laws by no means satisfies our intellectual need for causality.' (Studies in the Theory of Descent, vol. ii. p. 710.) Here we arrive at a point beyond which science can carry us no further, however wistfully we demand of it a guide. Many will be content to follow Darwin in thinking that
the safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is • beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his • duty.' f
Yet we are the sons of the ages ; and they are wholly mistaken who fear that the cold abstractions of science will necessarily deprive us of our heritage. If the intellect is silent, the emotions will not be dumb.
'In a certain sense,' writes Lange, the ideas of religion are imperishable. Who will refute a Mass of Palestrina, or who will convict Raphael's Madonna of error? The “Gloria in Excelsis” remains a universal power, and will ring through the centuries so long as our nerves can quiver under the awe of the sublime. And those simple fundamental ideas of the redemption of the individual man by the surrendering of his own will to the will that guides the whole ; those images of death and resurrection which express the highest and most thrilling emotions that stir the human breast, when no prose is capable of uttering in cold words the fulness of the heart; those doctrines, finally, which bid us to share our bread with the hungry and to announce the glad tidings to the poor—they will not for ever disappear in order to make way for a society which has attained its goal when it owes a better police system to its understanding, and to its ingenuity the satisfaction of ever fresh wants by ever fresh inventions. (History of Materialism, vol. iii. pp. 360, 361.)
ART. V.–1. An Account of the Campaign in the West Indies
in the Year 1794. The Rev. COOPER WILLYAMS. London :
1796. 2. State Papers (Public Record Office). Colonial Corre
spondence : War Office, Original Correspondence. PROBABLY there are few names which have recurred more
frequently in the pages of this Review than that of the Greys of Howick. From the day in 1787 when Mr. Grey, subsequently Lord Howick and second Earl Grey, delivered the speech on Pitt's commercial treaty with France which raised him at once to the first rank among living debaters, down to this present year 1902, it may truly be said that the Greys have made themselves felt in the councils of the nation. And this they have achieved not through the influence which arises from great wealth or vast territorial possessions, still less through the mere courting of popularity, but through sheer strength of character, force of intellect, and integrity of principle. It is true that neither the second nor the third earl enjoyed the reputation of being the easiest or most conciliatory of colleagues, but the political services of their family were not confined to them during the period covered by their long and eventful lives. For, together with the third earl, his cousin Sir George Grey entered Lord John Russell's Cabinet in 1846, and for twenty years, with little interruption, reigned over the Home Office. Thus the Greys have always at least two strings to their bow; and while the present head of the family seeks to add to the innumerable Greytowns which are scattered so thickly over our Colonial Empire, the Parliamentary fame of the race stands chiefly committed to the grandson of this Sir George. We venture therefore to predict that the Greys of the twentieth century will still furnish subjects for these pages about the year 2002.
It may seem exacting to enquire of a house, which shows an unbroken political succession from the twenty-sixth vear of George III. to the second of Edward VII., whether its traditions were always and exclusively political; yet the question is by no means an idle one. If we turn to the Parliamentary debates of 1793, for instance, we have no difficulty in finding the name of Mr. Grey. He is opposing the Traitorous Correspondence Bill, moving resolutions
inst the war with France, condemning barracks as an sosed thing, and, characteristically enough, bringing
forward a motion for reform of Parliament. But if we glance at the list of the Navy for the same year, we find that his brother, George Grey, is captain of H.M.S. 'Boyne,' bearing the flag of Vice-Admiral Sir John Jervis. This George was the father of Sir George, the Home Secretary; and, therefore, the present Sir Edward Grey is the greatgrandson of one of the great St. Vincent's flag-captains. Similarly, if we look through the Army List of 1793, we find that another brother, Henry Grey, is a captain in the Eighteenth Light Dragoons, and that one of his brother captains is the Honourable Arthur Wesley, an officer in that day still unknown to fame. Again, among the officers of the Seventh Fusiliers there is the name of yet another brother, Lieutenant William Grey; and finally, high up in the list of lieutenant-generals, we encounter the name of Sir Charles Grey, K.B., the father of these three fighting sons. And who was Sir Charles Grey, K.B. (the reader may ask), and what title does he possess to fame, except as the father of Lord Grey of the Reform Bill? That is precisely the question wbich we propose to answer in the present paper. For it was not by political, but by military service that the first eminent Grey of Howick imprinted his name upon English history; and that service has been most undeservedly forgotten.
Charles Grey, second surviving son of Sir Henry Grey, first baronet, of Howick, was born in 1729. It was the second year of King George II., and the first of Walpole's ten years of unbroken peace. Seven years had passed since the great Duke of Marlborough had been laid in Henry VII.'s chapel, three years since Cadogan, his devoted quartermaster-general, had been carried to rest by his side. Dupleix had just begun the work of establishing French power in India; Canada was still an insufferable thorn in the side of New England. William Pitt, just come of age, was travelling abroad, and not for two years yet was to become a cornet of horse. Robert Clive was an unruly urchin of four. James Wolfe was a sickly child of two, doubtless already enamoured of his father's red coat, but not yet dreaming that he would one day wear it himself, and that among his pupils would be the baby just ushered into the world at Howick.
Of Charles Grey's early years and education little seems to be known, nor can we learn anything of the reasons that led him to embrace the profession of arms; but certain it is that in 1748 he received a commission as ensign at the ripe