CHAPTER XX.

WIDENING INTERESTS.

During this period my work on the State Children's Council continued,

and I never found time hang heavily on my hands; so that when Mr.

Kingston met me one day later in the year, and told me he particularly

wished me to accept an appointment as a member of the Destitute Board,

I hesitated. "I am too old," I objected. "No, no, Miss Spence," he

replied laughingly, "it is only we who grow old--you have the gift of

perpetual youth." But I was nearly 72, and at any rate I thought I

should first consult my friends. I found them all eager that I should

accept the position. I had agitated long and often for the appointment

of women on all public boards, particularly where both sexes came under

treatment, and I accepted the post. Although often I have found the

work tiring, I have never regretted the step I took in joining the

board. Experience has emphasized my early desire that two women at

least should occupy positions on it. I hope that future Governments

will rectify the mistake of past years by utilizing to a greater extent

the valuable aid of capable and sympathetic women in a branch of public

work for which they are peculiarly fitted. Early in my career as a

member of the board I found grave defects in the daily bill of fare,

and set myself to the task of remedying them as far as lay in my power.

For 30 years the same kind of soup, day in and day out, followed by the

eternal and evergreen cabbage as a vegetable, in season and out of

season, found its way to the table. My own tastes and mode of life were

simplicity personified, but my stomach revolted against a dietary as

unvaried as it was unappetizing. An old servant who heard that I

attended the Destitute Asylum every week was loud in her lamentations

that "poor dear Miss Spence was so reduced that she had to go to the

Destitute every week for rations!" My thankfulness that she had

misconceived the position stirred me to leave no stone unturned for the

betterment of the destitute bill of fare. I was successful, and the

varied diet now enjoyed bears witness to the humanitarian views of all

the members of the board, who were as anxious to help in the reform as

I was. My heart has always gone out to the poor old folk whose faces

bear the impress of long years of strenuous toil and who at the close

of life at least should find a haven of restfulness and peace in the

State for whose advancement they have laboured in the past.

She was a witty woman who divided autobiographies into two classes...

autobiographies and ought-not-to-biographies--but I am sure she never

attempted to write one herself. There is so much in one's life that

looms large from a personal point of view about which other people

would care little, and the difficulty often arises, not so much about

what to put in as what to leave out.

How much my personal interests had widened during my absence from home

could be gauged somewhat by the enormous increase in my correspondence

after my return. American, Canadian, English, and Continental

correspondents have kept me for many years well informed on reform and

kindred subjects; and the letters I have received, and the replies they

have drawn from me, go far to make me doubt the accuracy of the

accepted belief that "letter writing has become a lost art." A full

mind with a facile pen makes letter writing a joy, and both of these

attributes I think I may fairly claim. My correspondence with Alfred

Cridge was kept up till his death a few years ago, and his son,

following worthily in the footsteps of a noble father, has taken up the

broken threads of the lifework of my friend, and is doing his utmost to

carry it to a successful issue. My love of reading, which has been a

characteristic feature of my life, found full scope for expression in

the piles of books which reached us from all parts of the world. It has

always been my desire to keep abreast of current literature, and this,

by means of my book club and other sources, I was able to do. Sometimes

my friends from abroad sent me copies of their own publications, Dr.

Bayard Holmes invariably forwarding to me a presentation copy of his

most valuable treatises on medical subjects. Mrs. Stetson's poems and

economic writings have always proved a source of inspiration to me, and

I have distributed her books wherever I have thought they would be

appreciated. Just at this time my financial position became brighter. I

was fortunate in being able to dispose of my two properties in East

Adelaide, and the purchasing of an annuity freed me entirely from money

and domestic worries. Perhaps the greatest joy of all was that I was

once more able to follow my charitable inclinations by giving that

little mite which, coming opportunely, gladdens the heart of the

disconsolate widow or smoothes the path of the struggling worker.

Giving up my home entirely, I went to live with my dear friend Mrs.

Baker, at Osmond terrace, where, perhaps, I spent the most restful

period of a somewhat eventful life.

The inauguration of a Criminological Society in Adelaide was a welcome

sign to me of the growing public interest in methods of prison

discipline and treatment. I was one of the foundation members of the

society, and attended every meeting during its short existence. My one

contribution to the lectures delivered under its auspices was on

"Heredity and Environment." This was a subject in which I had long been

interested, holding the view that environment had more to do with the

building up of character than heredity had to do with its decadence.

How much or how little truth there is in the cynical observation that

the only believers in heredity nowadays are the fathers of very clever

sons I am not prepared to say. I do say, however, that with the cruel

and hopeless law of heredity as laid down by Zola and Ibsen I have

little sympathy. According to these pessimists, who ride heredity to

death, we inherit only the vices, the weaknesses, and the diseases of

our ancestors. If this, however, were really the case, the world would

be growing worse and not better, as it assuredly is, with every

succeeding generation. The contrary view taken of the matter by Ibsen's

fellowcountryman, Bjornsen, appears to me to be so much more

commonsense and humanizing. He holds that if we know that our ancestors

drank and gambled to excess, or were violent-tempered or immoral, we

can quite easily avoid the pitfall, knowing it to be there. Too readily

wrongdoers are prepared to lay their failings at the door of ancestors,

society, or some other blamable source, instead of attributing them, as

they should do, to their own selfish and weak indulgence and lack of

self-control. Heredity, though an enormous factor in our constitution,

need not be regarded as an over-mastering fate, for each human being

has an almost limitless parentage to draw upon. Each child has both a

father and a mother, and two grandparents on both sides, increasing as

one goes back. But, besides drawing on a much wider ancestry than the

immediate parents, we have more than we inherit, or where could the law

of progress operate? Each generation, each child who is born, comes

into a slightly different world, fed by more experience, blown upon by

fresh influences. And each individual comes into the world, not with a

body merely, but with a soul; and this soul is susceptible to

impressions, not only from the outer material world but from the other

souls also impressed by the old and the new, by the material and the

ideal.

"The History of the Jukes" is continually cited as proving the power

and force of heredity. Most people who read the book through, however,

instead of merely accepting allusions one-sided and defective to it,

see clearly that it forms the strongest argument for change of

environment that ever was brought forward. The assumed name of Jukes is

given to the descendants of a worthless woman who emigrated to America

upwards of a century and a half ago, and from whom hundreds of

criminals, paupers, and prostitutes have descended. But how were the

Jukes' descendants dealt with during this period? No helping hand

removed the children from their vicious and criminal surroundings known

as one of the crime-cradles of the State of New York. Neither church

nor school took them under its protecting care. Born and reared in the

haunts of vice and crime, nothing but viciousness and criminality could

be expected as a result. Without going, so far as a wellknown ex-member

of our State Legislature, whose antagonism to the humanitarian

treatment of prisoners led him to the belief that "there wasn't nothin'

in 'erry-ditty,' it was all tommy rot," I still hold to the belief that

environment plays the larger part in the formation of character. Every

phase of criminal reform is, I candidly admit, dealing with effects

rather than causes. Effects, however, must be dealt with, and the more

humanely they are dealt with the better for society at large. So long

as society shuts its eyes to the social conditions under which the

masses of the people live, move, and have their being as tending

towards lowering rather than uplifting the individual and the

community, the supply of cases for criminal treatment will

unfortunately show little tendency to decrease. The work before

reformers of the world is to prevent the creation of criminals by

changing the environment of those with criminal tendencies as well as

to seek to alleviate the resulting disease by methods of criminal

reform.

Many interesting lectures were given by prominent citizens under the

auspices of the society, which did a great deal to awaken the public

conscience on the important question of criminal reform. The Rev. J.

Day Thompson, who was then in the zenith of his intellectual power and

a noble supporter of all things that tended to the uplifting of

humanity, dealt with the land question in relation to crime. He gave a

telling illustration of his point--which I thought equally applicable

to the question of environment in relation to prison reform--that no

permanent good could result from social legislation until society

recognised and dealt with the root of the social evil, the land

question. "In a lunatic asylum," he said, "it is the custom to test the

sanity of patients by giving them a ladle with which to empty a tub of

water standing under a running tap. 'How do you decide?' the warder was

asked. 'Why, them as isn't idiots stops the tap.'" It was the Rev. J.

Day Thompson who first called me the "Grand Old Woman" of South

Australia. When he left Adelaide for the wider sphere of service open

to him in England I felt that we had lost one of the most cultured and

able men who had ever come among us, and one whom no community could

lose without being distinctly the poorer for his absence.

Just at this time the visit of Dr. and Mrs. Mills created a little

excitement in certain circles. Their lectures on Christian science,

both public and private, were wonderfully well attended, and I missed

few of them. I have all my life endeavoured to keep an open mind on

these questions, and have been prepared to accept new ideas and new

modes of thought. But, although I found much that was charming in the

lectures that swayed the minds of so many of my friends, I found little

to convince me that Christian scientists were right and the rest of the

world wrong in their interpretation of the meaning of life. So far as

the cultivation of will power, as it is called, is concerned, I have no

quarrel with those who maintain that a power of self-control is the

basis of human happiness. So far as the will can be trained to obey

only those instincts that tend to the growth and maintenance of

self-respect--to prevent the subordination of our better feelings to

the overpowering effects of passion, greed, or injustice--it must help

to the development of one of the primary necessities of a sane

existence. When, however, the same agency is brought to bear on the

treatment of diseases in any shape or form I find my faith wavering.

Though there may be more things in earth and heaven than are dreamed of

in my philosophy, I was not prepared to follow the teachings set before

us by the interpreters of this belief, whose visit had made an

interesting break in the lives of many people. Truth I find everywhere

expressed, goodness in all things; but I neither look for nor expect

perfection in any one thing the world has ever produced. "Tell me where

God is," a somewhat, cynical sceptic asked of a child. "Tell me where

He is not," replied the child; and the same thing applies to goodness.

Do not tell me where goodness is, but point out to, me, if you can,

where it is not. It is for each one to find out for himself where the

right path lies, and to follow it with all his strength of mind and of

purpose. Pippa's song, "God's in His heaven-all's right with the

world," does not mean that the time has come for us to lay down our

arms in the battle of right against wrong. No! no; it is an inspiration

for us to gird our loins afresh, to "right the wrongs that need

resistance;" for, God being in His heaven, and the world itself being

right, makes it so much easier to correct mistakes that are due to

human agencies and shortcomings only.

I found time to spend a pleasant week at Victor Harbour with my

friends, Mr. and Mrs. John Wyles. I remember one day being asked

whether I was not sorry I never married. "No," I replied, "for,

although I often envy my friends the happiness they find in their

children, I have never envied them their husbands." I think we must

have been in a frivolous mood; for a lady visitor, who was present,

capped my remark with the statement that she was quite sure Miss Spence

was thankful that when she died she would not be described as the

"relic" of any man. It was the same lady who on another occasion, when

one of the juvenile members of the party asked whether poets had to pay

for poetical licence, wittily replied, "No, my dear, but their readers

do!" Although so much of my time has been spent in public work, I have

by no means neglected or despised the social side of life. Visits to my

friends have always been delightful to me, and I have felt as much

interested in the domestic virtues of my many acquaintances as I have

been an admirer of their grasp of literature, politics, or any branch

of the arts or sciences in which they have been interested. This

seaside visit had been a welcome break in a year that had brought me a

new occupation as a member of the Destitute Board, had given me the

experience of a political campaign, had witnessed the framing of the

Constitution for the Commonwealth 'neath the Southern Cross, and had

seen effective voting advance from the academic stage into the realm of

practical politics. During the year Mrs. Young and I addressed together

26 meetings on this subject. One of the most interesting was at the

Blind School, North Adelaide. The keenness with which this audience

gripped every detail of the explanation showed us how splendidly they

had risen above their affliction. I was reminded of Helen Keller, the

American girl, who at the age of 21 months had lost sight and hearing,

and whom I had met in Chicago during my American visit, just before she

took her degree at Harvard University.

To all peacelovers the years from 1898 to 1901 were shadowed by the

South African war. The din of battle was in our ears only to a less

degree than in those of our kinsmen in the mother country. War has

always been abhorrent to me, and there was the additional objection to

my mind in the case of the South African war in that it was altogether

unjustified. Froude's chapters on South Africa had impressed me on the

publication of his book "Oceana," after his visit here in the

seventies. His indictment of England for her treatment of the Boers

from the earliest days of her occupation of Cape Colony was too

powerful to be ignored. I felt it to be impossible that so great a

historian as Froude should make such grave charges on insufficient

evidence. The annexation of 1877, so bitterly condemned by him,

followed by the treaty of peace of 1881, with its famous "suzerainty"

clause, was, I think, but a stepping stone to the war which was said to

have embittered the last years of the life of Queen Victoria. The one

voice raised in protest against the annexation of 1877 in the British

House of Commons was that of Mr. Leonard (now Lord) Courtney. Not

afraid to stand alone, though all the world were against him, the war

at the close of the century found Leonard Courtney again taking his

stand against the majority of his countrymen, and this time it cost him

his Parliamentary seat. I have often felt proud that the leadership of

proportional representation in England should have fallen into the

hands of so morally courageous a man as Leonard Courtney has invariably

proved himself to be.

We are apt to pride ourselves on the advance we have made in our

civilization; but our self-glorification received a rude shock at the

feelings of intolerance and race hatred that the war brought forth.

Freedom of speech became the monopoly of those who supported the war,

and the person who dared to express an opinion which differed from that

of the majority needed a great deal more than the ordinary allowance of

moral courage. Unfortunately the intolerance so characteristic of that

period is a feature, to a greater or lesser extent, of every

Parliamentary election in the Commonwealth. The clause in the Federal

Electoral Act which makes disturbance of a political meeting a penal

offence is a curious reflection on a so-called democratic community.

But, though its justification can scarcely be denied even by the

partisans of the noisier elements in a political crowd, its existence

must be deplored by every right-minded and truehearted citizen. In Miss

Rose Scott I found a sympathizer on this question of the war; and one

of the best speeches I ever heard her make was on Peace and

Arbitration. "Mafeking Day" was celebrated while we were in Sydney, and

I remember how we three--Miss Scott, Mrs. Young, and I--remained

indoors the whole day, at the charming home of our hostess, on Point

Piper road. The black band of death and desolation was too apparent for

us to feel that we could face the almost ribald excesses of that day. I

felt the war far less keenly than did my two friends; but it was bad

even for me. No one called, and the only companions of our chosen

solitude were the books we all loved so much, and

The secret sympathy,

The silver link, the silken tie,

Which heart to heart and mind to mind,

In body and in soul can bind.

I had hoped that the Women's National Council, a branch of which was

formed in Adelaide a few years later, would have made a great deal of

the question of peace and arbitration, just as other branches have done

all over the world; and when the Peace Society was inaugurated a short

time ago I was glad to be able to express my sympathy with the movement

by becoming a member. As I was returning from a lecturing tour in the

south during this time, an old Scotch farm-wife came into the carriage

where I had been knitting in solitude. She was a woman of strong

feelings, and was bitterly opposed to the war. We chatted on the

subject for a time, getting along famously, until she discovered that I

was Miss Spence. "But you are a Unitarian!" she protested in a shocked

tone. I admitted the fact. "Oh, Miss Spence," she went on, "how can you

be so wicked as to deny the divinity of Christ?" I explained to her

what Unitarianism was, but she held dubiously aloof for a time. Then we

talked of other things. She told me of many family affairs, and when

she left me at the station she said, "All, well, Miss Spence, I've

learned something this morning, and that is that a Unitarian can be

just as good and honest as other folk."

An Autobiography(#4220) · 第 20 / 24 章