Humanitarian League Address

19, HIGHDOWN ROAD,
BRIGHTON,

November 21, 1921

In thanking my friends for the kindness that has prompted them to send me, as a token of their goodwill, the Address to-day received, I must first express my hope that they will not think me ungracious owing to my reluctance to accept the gift alluded to in their letter. I am most grateful for the intention; but as I have a strong dislike of testimonials, both on private grounds and public, the Committee has kindly met my wishes by devoting the subscriptions to another and less personal end.

With regard to the Address itself, it is usual for the recipients of such presentations to protest that they are too flattering; and this, as far as I have observed, is generally true, and would certainly be so in the present instance. I will, however, confine myself to pointing out, as I did on the somewhat similar occasion when the Humanitarian League celebrated its twentieth birthday, that, like every one who takes part in such propaganda, I have been indebted at every turn to the aid of my fellow-workers, and that the praise so generously given is therefore much more than my due. I note, for example, that George Meredith’s words: “You make steps in our civilisation” are quoted in the Address as intended for me personally, whereas in fact they had reference to the efforts of the League as a whole.

To me it seems that such steps as the League succeeded in making were marks not of progress in civilisation (for we have as yet no civilisation deserving the name), but of partial egress from savagery. I never looked upon the League as more than a pioneer society; for what could it do, in the way of actual achievement, in this very primitive age, when wars, hangings, floggings, butcheries, blood-sports, and vivisections are sanctioned as matters of course? Especially wars. The lesson which Humanitarians should draw from the events of the last seven years seems to me to be this: that if any real progress is to be made, warfare much henceforth be regarded not as a regrettable necessity, but as a crime—a crime in the same sense as vivisection or any other horror.

If I may express my gratification at one point than another, in an Address which is fully of friendly feeling, it is for the remark that I have endeavoured “to place human ethics on a philosophical and not merely on a sentimental basis.”

I cordially thank the signatories of the Address for the honour they have done me.

Yours,

Henry S. Salt