of the child. I hold very strongly that it is the parent who is responsible for the education, religious, moral and social, of the child. Therefore, in whatever position they may be, the parent, the father or the mother, or both, have the right of demanding that their children shall be instructed in the form of Christianity which they themselves consider best for them. If a system could be inaugurated by which that principle could be carried out throughout our vast community, it would solve a problem which is now dividing class against class, party against party, and I am afraid is likely to do so for a long time to come; but I hold that if we maintain this principle, that the parent is the proper guardian, then he has the right to prescribe the form of Christianity, or even the form of religion other than Christianity, for we cannot neglect other religions, and the child ought to be brought up as far as it is possible in that form which the parent prescribes.

I shall now ask Mr. Marston to reply.

Rev. H. J. R. MARSTON.-Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I thank all those who have taken part in this discussion, and particularly each one for the marked clemency with which they have dealt with my address.

I am happy to feel that as I designed, though I hardly ventured to expect quite so practical an application, that my lecture has stirred the feeling and the thought of the Society to discuss the greater problem of education.

I should like to say one or two things in reply.

First of all, I venture to say to my friend Mr. Coxhead that I do not think that he has proved that I failed to grasp the essential principle of the Politeia. I know, of course, that the object of that book is to ascertain what justice is, and I said so. I think I also said that education was the third of three of the principal topics, and I still retain that opinion, pace Mr. Coxhead.

As to the nature of education, and Plato's teaching upon it, I ought to add this, that Plato does say that the son of one who has the gold admixture may prove to be silver, or even iron. In that case, he must be degraded to the silver or the iron. Conversely, one whose parents are of the iron class may be born with gold or silver admixture. He then must be raised to the silver, or the gold class. So that although there is a very rigid division of classes ideally considered, he does make room for the transposition

of one to the other. In other words, he allows for the great principle which Mr. Oke dwelt upon, that where there is talent, talent must have the scope to assert itself, to realize itself, and to rise as high as the talent will go. (Hear, hear.) In point of fact, there is no country in the world where that has been longer or more liberally recognized than in England. England, with all thine educational faults, I love thee still! (Hear; hear.)

To go to another subject. In my closing sentence I said that according to the Christian doctrine of human nature it is impossible for any educator with eighteen centuries of Christian history and Christian consciences behind him, to allow that anything is really education which violates the highest qualities of human nature. We cannot tear up our New Testament; we cannot falsify centuries of Christian practice to please anybody. What I said was that however you interpret that thorny word "Church," according to my thesis the Church in some sense or other must have not only a say, but the say, the first and the last say in the matter of education. If the Secretary who made that interesting and inspiring speech cannot tell us better than this, that the State is so behind the times, and the Church is so divided that we cannot give an adequately Christian Education in Christian England, all I can say is, God help us, and God help those that come after. (Applause.)

A vote of thanks to the lecturer, proposed by Mr. BISHOP and seconded by Dr. HEYWOOD SMITH, was carried by acclamation.

The CHAIRMAN having given notice of the alteration in the date of the Annual General Meeting from May 2nd to May 9th, and having announced that the President, Lord Halsbury, would take the Chair, the proceedings terminated.

508TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.

MONDAY, MAY 23RD, 4.30 P.M.

THE VEN. ARCHDEACON BERESFORD POTTER, M.A.,
IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed.

Announcement was made of the Election of the following Associates:

Mrs. Lucy Isabella Bartholomew.

Miss Florence Mary Edensor.

James Peddie Harper, Esq., M.D., L.R.C.S.E.
William Sylvester Walker, Esq.

The following paper was then read by the author :

HEREDITY AND EUGENICS.

By Rev. Professor A. CALDECOTT, D.Litt., D.D., University of London, King's College.

H

AVE Christian believers, and men of religion generally, any special interest in the question of Heredity? Are we by our religious convictions inclined towards hoping to find that there is no heredity in the life of man, that each individual comes perfectly fresh into the world? or towards hoping to find that heredity is deep-reaching and comprehensive, and that by far the major part of our nature is not at all new, but is passed on to us from the generations which precede? A very high doctrine of individuality attracts us by the thought that evil results would perish with the doer, giving every child a fresh start, an open course; while a very high doctrine of heredity would commend itself on the ground that it would mean that all good results are gathered up and passed on in unending service to humanity, so that each child would start from a higher level than its parents enjoyed.

Old Thomas Fuller saw this: considering the genealogy of the Kings of Judah, he notes that in four generations a bad

father begot a bad son, a bad father a good son, a good father a good son, and a good father a bad son: and his reflection is put in his own witty way: "I see, Lord, from hence, that my father's piety cannot be entailed: that is bad news for me. But I see also, that actual impiety is not always hereditary: that is good news for my son." Delightful filial regard and personal modesty guide the choice of the old divine. But taking a general view it would seem that we shall be inclined towards one or other of the alternatives, firstly, according to our estimate of the balance of good and evil in the world: pessimists will welcome the fresh start, the clean slate; optimists will welcome the passing on of trained faculties, of good habits, of high emotions. And, secondly, according to our estimate of the significance and scope of individuality. If we endorse Newman's view that religion is "a relation between God and my soul, my soul and God," then we shall expect each individual to be a new appearance, with its own nature and responsibility; but if we are more impressed with the thought of our common humanity, the social organism, the brotherhood, the kingdom of souls, we shall not have any objection to a widening of the scope of heredity if such should be suggested by enquiry.

Of course few people are likely to occupy either of the above extremes, either to deny heredity or to make it so comprehensive as to crush out individuality. But I think that we must all of us look round with keen interest when we hear on every hand that the evidence is increasing, whether the effect is to be what we shall welcome or shall regret. With this preface let me endeavour to set before you some reflections on the present position of thought upon the subject.

Heredity is defined by a leading biologist as "Genetic continuity between succeeding generations (Thomson Heredity, p. 68). Every one knows that there is some such continuity in nature: the determination of the more or the less of it is one of the most interesting of problems.

I. In the sphere of physical life: the plant world, the animal world and human nature in their bodily organisms.

In this respect the most important conception of recent modern science is that of the Germ-plasm and Germinal continuity, raised into the definiteness of a working theory by Weismann. Organisms are understood to be constituted

fundamentally by a central core, the germ-plasm, which keeps on reproducing itself; by simple reproduction in some low stages of life, by intermixture of two germ-elements in all the higher ranges. And around this germ-structure is a soma or envelope, with some variety of which each germ will surround itself. The importance of this lies in that it points to the mechanism for transmission of qualities. In cases of simple reproduction, the new germ nearly repeats the former one, and continuity is, so far, complete: in the case of dual reproduction, the elements of both constituents come into operation, the new germ reproduces them both, in so far as they can combine. And the outer soma or envelope is determined according to the inner, deep-seated, germ.

The course of the life-history of any plant, for example, is all settled from the beginning; there is some little room for variation in response to environment and the way in which different environments would call into play reactions on the part of the plant. But these variations are small; the life of a spaniel in all its principal features will run on according to a formula; he may be somewhat larger than usual, a shade different from his tribe in colour, and by training or circumstance may become a trifle more clever than his parents; but these points are comparatively superficial, and it is quite likely that they will not reappear in his offspring. For the mass of qualities which is transmitted the theory of germinal continuity professes to point to the vehicle of transmission.

Obviously this conception of modern biology lends support to heredity by indicating the nature of the physical process which connects two generations. By penetrating into the recesses of organisms it indicates the mechanism of heredity; transmission of all important qualities seems assured; it is only superficial modifications which rise and fall within the compass of the individual. I do not understand that it is claimed that the Germinal theory is proved at all points; but for us it is important to note that it holds the field, and subject to emendations and qualifications it must be regarded by non-biologists as what we are called upon to take into account as the order of nature in this respect.

So far for continuity, the transmission of like natures from one generation to another. But the world is very complex, and presents a spectacle of an almost unlimited variety of forms of living beings, both plant and animal, all arising in course of thousands, possibly millions, of years, from a few simple forms. To the study of the rise of variations and the continuance of