THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

OF THE

VICTORIA INSTITUTE

WAS HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL HALL, WESTMINSTER, S.W.1, ON MONDAY, MARCH 15TH, 1926, AT 3.30 P.M.

DR. JAMES W. THIRTLE, M.R.A.S., IN THE CHAIR.

The CHAIRMAN called on the Honorary Secretary to read the invitation convening the Meeting, and then to read the Minutes of the last Meeting, which were confirmed and signed.

He then proposed to Members that the Report be taken as read, and after a few remarks on the general situation of the Societywhich, he pointed out, had had a successful Session in 1925, and had slightly increased in numbers he called on the Auditor, Mr. E. Luff-Smith, to make a few remarks first on the income and expenditure account for the year ending December 31, 1925. He pointed out that there was still an adverse balance of expenditure over income for the year of about £38, but that printing was slightly going down.

Mr. FRIZELL, J.P., a Member present, suggested that it would be a good thing to realize a part of our securities so as to be able to start fair another year.

The AUDITOR then discussed the balance sheet.

A question was asked as to the subscriptions in arrear, estimated at £27 6s., and the meeting was informed by the Secretary that all had been received since the beginning of the year.

The CHAIRMAN then moved the following resolution :— "That the following retiring Councillors were proposed for re-election Prof. T. G. Pinches, LL.D., M.R.A.S., H. Lance-Gray, Esq., Lieut.-Colonel F. A. Molony, O.B.E., Lieut.-Colonel Hope

Biddulph, D.S.O., and Lieut.-Colonel A. H. D. Riach; also that the names of Avary H. Forbes, Esq., M.A., and Arthur Rendle Short, Esq., M.D., B.S., B.Sc., be added to the Council, and that E. Luff-Smith, Esq., should be re-elected Auditor for the ensuing year at a fee of three guineas."

This was seconded by Mr. W. HOSTE.

Mr. T. A. GILLESPIE rose to enquire whether Mr. T. Roberts had voluntarily retired, and if not, why his name was not submitted for re-election.

The CHAIRMAN replied that the question had been gone into by the Council and that, while the personal character of Mr. T. Roberts had not been in question, it had been thought best, for the highest interests of the Institute, that his name should not be proposed for re-election on the Council.

The motion then, as proposed and seconded, was put to the Meeting, and carried unanimously.

Then the second resolution was proposed by Mr. WILLIAM C. EDWARDS, and seconded by the Rev. R. WRIGHT HAY:-

"That the Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1925, presented by the Council, be received and adopted, and that the thanks of the Meeting be given to the Council, Officers, and Auditor for their efficient conduct of the business of the Victoria Institute during the year,'

and agreed to unanimously.

A vote of thanks to the Chairman was proposed by Mr. W. E. LESLIE, seconded by Mr. T. A. GILLESPIE, and carried unanimously.

The proceedings then terminated.

681ST ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING

HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL H WESTMINSTER, S.W.1, ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 7TH, 19 AT 4.30 P.M.

THE REV. A. H. FINN IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read, confirmed and s and the HON. SECRETARY announced that the following had been e since the last Meeting:—As Members: Percy O. Ruoff, Esq., and Rev. Sidney Swann, M.A.; and as Associates: A. F. Kaufmann, Pastor S. F. Tonks, Miss Cheetham, Mrs. R. S. Elliot, the Rev. Anderson, the Rev. H. H. Meyer, D.D., the Rev. Rhys Bevan Jones, G. Webber, Esq., Miss E. E. Whitfield, the Rev. Thomas Miller, H. T. Shirley, Esq., and Miss E. F. Staley.

The CHAIRMAN then announced that Dr. Pinches had kindly cons to change dates with Mr. Michell, in order to allow him to be preser read his paper, which he could not have done on January 11th, ow absence from England.

He then introduced Mr. G. B. Michell, O.B.E., His Majesty's C General at Milan, to read his paper on " Scientific Criticism as Appl

the Bible."

SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM AS APPLIED TO THE BI

By GEORGE B. MICHELL, ESQ., O.B.E., Consul-General at M

66

C Britannica,

RITICISM," says Sir Edmund Gosse, in the Encyclop is the art of judging the qualities values of an æsthetic object, whether in literature fine arts. It involves, in the first instance, the formation expression of a judgment on the qualities of anything. It has come, however, to possess a secondary and specia meaning as a published analysis of the qualities and chara istics of a work in literature or fine art, itself taking the of independent literature. The sense in which criticism is as implying censure, the 'picking holes' in any stateme production, is frequent, but it is entirely unjustifiable. Th nothing in the proper scope of criticism which presupposes bla

Candid criticism should be neither benevolent nor adverse; its function is to give a just judgment, without partiality or bias. A critic (KPITIKÓS) is one who exercises the art of criticism, who sets himself up, or is set up, as a judge of literary or artistic merit." "Neither minute care, nor a basis of learning, nor wide experience of literature, salutary as all these must be, can avail to make that criticism valuable which is founded on the desire to exaggerate fault-finding and to emphasize censure unfairly." Scientific criticism may, indeed, be defined as a shrewd and minute analysis combined with a scrupulously fair judgment. It is not mere fault-finding, nor heresy-hunting, nor captiousness, nor censoriousness. It is not the taking of a theory and seeking to prove it from the matter in hand.

Thus it is manifest that scientific criticism requires a trained judgment, educated to examine all sides of a question with equal fairness and the utmost impartiality, skilled to weigh the relative value of all items of evidence, to reject the false, the specious, and the merely plausible, and to decide on the balance of the resultant established facts without regard to the effects on preconceived theories. It must, at the same time, be mindful of the limitations of our knowledge of all the circumstances, and the possibility of later discoveries which would throw a new light on points which may completely alter the judgment expressed.

A critic is both an analyst and a judge. He is not an advocate or an interested party. In delivering his judgment he is entitled, of course, to give his reasons for his findings; but if he allows himself to seek to prove either one side or the other, he ceases to be a judge, and becomes an ex-parte advocate, a mere special pleader. He is, in short, an umpire, not a player in the game.

Such qualities are indispensable in all true criticism ; as applied to the Bible they are more than ever necessary. The odium theologicum is not a thing to be lightly aroused, and the Book that has been regarded as Divine for thousands of years by millions of people must be treated with special care and conspicuous justice.

It is clear, therefore, that not every one can be a truly scientific critic. The training of an expert in other subjects is, indeed, rather apt to disqualify the specialist from being an impartial judge. He can give good evidence, but the task of weighing that evidence as against other evidence is not his, but that of an expert in evidence, a specialist in judgment.

It may be objected that this insistence on keen and impartial