mum wage of the constables was raised, and they were put beyond the temptations which surrounded them. (Cheers.)

Sir M. STEWART, Mr. H. J. WILSON, Mr. SPICER and Mr. CHANNING having

also spoken,

Mr. S. SMITH asked leave to withdraw his motion, at the same time thanking the Home Secretary for his sympathetic reply.

Appendix XVII

THE NEW SCHOOL OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM

A PARABLE AND FORECAST, PUBLISHED MAY, 1901

ABOUT a thousand years after this, a great school of philosophical historians arose in Europe. By that time the British Empire had passed away, and the causes of its "decline and fall" were expounded by future Gibbons. Among the causes of its decline a chief place was given to a war in South Africa, which was assigned to the years 1900 and 1901 A.D. But this historical school, profiting by the discoveries in Old Testament criticism, applied these methods of research to the ancient histories of England. They examined with microscopic care the various discrepancies in the accounts of the Boer War, the linguistic terms used by the annalists of the day, above all the evidence of later authorship and patriotic frauds, and were rewarded with astonishing discoveries which enabled them to recast the legendary history of those early times.

They discovered such astounding contradictions in the contemporary narratives as pointed clearly to a composite work drawn from several sources, and edited at a late date by a redactor who represented the dominant race. Upon unearthing some faded copies of a newspaper called the London Times, which were found enclosed in a cavity of the monument to a certain Queen Victoria, thought by some to be identical with Boadicea, it was found that two entirely opposite views of the war were held in the ancient British senate. It was discovered that the speeches of men of Celtic names were for the most part full of praise of the Boers, while those of Anglo-Saxon names were filled with invectives against them. The names of Dillon, of Lloyd George, and Bryn Roberts-all Celts by origin-stood out as champions of the Boers, whereas the names of Chamberlain, Milner, and Rhodes, all AngloSaxon, were identified with strong attacks on the Dutch populations of the Boer States. From this it is surmised that reminiscences of the Celtic resistance to Julius Caesar had mingled with much later events. Pursuing this golden thread further, the future Gibbons of the year 2900 disentangled the skein of errors into which traditional theories of ancient history had led us. It was clearly proved by subjective analysis that long periods of time and many wars were erroneously assigned to the years 1900 and 1901.

Some of the grounds for this conclusion may be indicated briefly.

The despatches of the British Commander-in-Chief claimed a surprising series of victories, and extolled to the skies the valour and constancy of the British Army, especially as shown in the brilliant defence of Ladysmith and Mafeking. But the speeches of John Dillon and others poured contempt on these statements, accused the Brtish Commanders of cruelty and inefficiency, and extolled to the skies the courage and patriotism of the Boers. Further exploration brought to light the opinion of contemporary nations such as the French and Germans, and it was found that the literature of these countries was filled with abuse of Great Britain, accusing her of bringing on the war for the lust of gold, and of conducting it with great cruelty.

It became at last perfectly clear that the records of several wars had become fused into one. The prodigies of valour reported by the British Commander clearly belonged to the period of Cressy and Agincourt, when by all accounts the valour of the English nation was at the highest, and the disparaging contrast with the Boers evidently belonged to a much later period, say about 2400 A.D., when the British Empire was in a state of decay. This is all the more clear when you reflect that some 200,000 troops were unable to capture a Boer chief called De Wet, who had not more than 2,000 men under his command.

It is also proved more plainly by the strangely contradictory accounts given of De Wet. By the Celtic orators and by the French and German historians that have survived, he is represented as the William Tell or the William Wallace of South Africa, and his little band of heroes is likened to the Spartans at Thermopyla; whereas the Anglo-Saxon chroniclers describe him as a kind of guerilla chief or brigand, whose principal occupation was wrecking trains and robbing their contents.

It is quite clear that the legendary hero was largely a creation of fancy. He resembled the Joshua of the Old Testament, who by Israelite tradition was supposed to have conquered Canaan, whereas it is now well known by scholars who have examined the tablets of Chaldea and Assyria that his exploits were largely mythical. Indeed, there is a startling analogy between the composition of the Pentateuch, or, as it is now called, the Hexateuch, and the extant histories of the South African war. In the former case scholars have long ago discovered the composite materials that go to form the books ascribed to Moses and Joshua. They have detected Elohist and Jahwist elements which are combined in Genesis, and "the priestly code " in Leviticus and Deuteronomy which is at least 1,000 years later than the primitive Ten Commandments, which perhaps was the sole work of Moses which has survived. Indeed, they have discovered several independent layers of history and legend that overlap one another in the early part of the Old Testament, and which they designate by various titles and even by coloured paragraphs, so that the common people can now easily see for themselves what is true and what is fabulous, and we are now in the year 2900 A.D. applying this marvellous touchstone to the mixture of truth and fable which go to form the ancient history of the South African war. Indeed, some of our most competent critics have gone even further. Gifted with rare insight,

they have discovered that individual names do not represent persons at all, but tribes; and just as it is well known that the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are but tribal names representing tribal religions, so it is held that such names as Chamberlain, Krüger, etc., do not represent individuals, but races of mankind: This becomes highly probable when you analyse the speeches attributed to these personages. Krüger is represented as a strange compound of greed, cunning, and religion. He is constantly appealing to the aid of his tribal deity, Jehovah, just as the Homeric heroes appeal to Jupiter or Mars; whereas Chamberlain, Milner, and Rhodes preserve absolute silence on supernatural interposition. They evidently belong to a much later period, which we may designate the age of reason; Krüger belongs to the primitive age of superstition when men believed that celestial beings took an interest in human affairs. In fact, Krüger, in the opinion of some first-class German scholars, must have lived near the Homeric times, or at least in the early days of Christianity, while those other personages belong to an age when primitive religions had died out. Indeed, some of our acutest critics have discovered under different names an identity of character between a mythical hero called Oliver Cromwell and Paul Krüger. Both are represented as constantly appealing to the Almighty, and yet both are described as arrogant and ambitious and greedy of supreme power. It is coming to be suspected by our ablest scholars that these two personalities are but one; the Anglo-Saxon name Cromwell being the equivalent of the Low Dutch Krüger, just as the Greek Zeus is the equivalent of the Latin Jupiter. There are some slight difficulties connected with the different legends which have grown up around them, but these are not greater than have been successfully surmounted in the legends of Moses and Joshua. Who can believe for a moment that the story of the Exodus is true history or that the wilderness journey, or the apparition on Mount Sinai of the Most High, are anything but myths and allegories ? So in like manner the incredible story of Cromwell and his Ironsides, and the execution of his king are obviously inventions of a later age, just as are the exploits of Krüger, who is represented as a kind of blend between Hercules and Gideon !

The great principle which underlies our higher criticism is that ancient history is poetry rather than prose. It is the outcome of folklore and superstition; and though it has a kernel of truth, it is in the main the product of a later period when the historic imagination was applied to primitive legends. In this way the siege of Troy, the taking of Jericho, the siege of Londonderry and that of Ladysmith, are literary creations of a later date, Achilles and Hector typifying the conflict of Greek and Asiatic ideas; Joshua and the king of Jericho represent the monotheistic and polytheistic types of Semitism, while Londonderry and Ladysmith of a later time represent, the one an age-long contest between traditional religion and liberty of thought, and the other, the struggle between progress and inertia. No trace has been found of a material siege of Ladysmith, no remains of ramparts or bastions, and our scholars have proved to demonstration that it ranks with such

epics as King Arthur and his Round Table, or the mythical story of David and Goliath.

The great advantage of the higher criticism is that it has dispelled all traces.of superstition except among the most ignorant of our people. A "great western tradition " for many centuries ascribed to Jesus of Nazareth supernatural powers. By some He was believed to be the Most High God. His alleged sayings and those of His Apostles were collected in a book called the New Testament, and were imposed by a priestly caste on the ignorant population of Europe and America. To our scholars and critics we owe deliverance from this bondage. They have clearly shown by subjective analysis the mythical character of the chief actor in the drama. He was, so far as history can be trusted, a victim of unconscious illusion, if not an accomplice in pious frauds.

The old philosopher Archimedes said that if he had a lever of sufficient length and a corresponding fulcrum he could move the world. Old Testament criticism has given us this lever. It has proved to demonstration that the great Teacher believed in all the Jewish fables of the age. He is reported to have said, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life." Again he said, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me." Again, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Again, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad." It was not difficult to show that no reliance could be put on a teacher who was so destitute of the critical faculty, and it is no wonder that his prophecies have fallen into disfavour. It is true that he is said to have predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, just as Isaiah is said to have predicted the fall of Babylon. But all critics believe that these so-called "prophecies" were made after the event, and antedated to support the tradition of supernatural knowledge. It is clear to men of understanding that one who believed such fables as the brazen serpent story, the flood of Noah, the tale of Jonah, and the personality of Abraham, cannot be trusted when he speaks of a future life, of resurrection and of judgment to come. The truth is the theological age is past, the age of philosophy and free thought has come. The scholar has dispossessed the priest. The honour and emoluments too long enjoyed by ghostly fathers have passed to men of brains and culture.

The means by which this victory was achieved may now be made public. It was long felt by men of "light and leading" that so long as veneration was paid to an old book called the Bible, and so long as it was taught in our schools and colleges by those who believed it, no impression could be made on the dense mass of superstition. But stratagem accomplished what open assault could not do. The chairs of philosophy and theology were filled by professors who turned their guns upon the citadel itself. The reign of free thought began among the defenders of the faith, and when the enemy made their next assault they found the gates of the citadel open and its walls crumbling to the