112 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



we do not agree. They remind us oi questions asked in the House of Com- 

 mons by well-meaning but uneducated Members who wish to ventilate a 

 grievance. What he puts down as facts in the conclusion of his paper are 

 really only conjectures, and, I think, extremely improbable ones. 



Mr. Richardson, having written a long and wordy book without proving 

 anything, ought to know that there are some matters which cannot be any 

 more definitively discussed in the correspondence columns of a magazine ; and 

 I can only wonder that he should have insisted on wasting so much of your 

 space and of my leisure on discussions which are notoriously always futile. 

 At the same time I sympathise with him. He and those who agree with him 

 wish to persuade themselves that they are above the order of nature and the 

 risk of death, and employ every possible dialectical artifice in order to do so. 

 But the facts are against them. Whether there is any hope in the unknown 

 will not be ascertained in our life-time ; but, so far as I can perceive, there 

 is none to be got from that form of superstition which he and others support. 



Yours faithfully, 

 The Writer of the Essay-Review. 

 May loth, 1920. 



*** The Editor can afford no more space for this discussion. 



To THE Editor of "Science Progress" 



LATIN OR IDO? 



From H. W. Unthank, B.A., B.Sc. 



Dear Sir, — In Mr. G. H. Richardson's interesting letter on " Latin or Ido ? " 

 he expresses the wish to know what educational experts would say of Ido 

 as a means of mind-training. 



I send you herewith some expert views on Esperanto — a far more widely 

 known language than Ido. 



Would it not be possible to get together a body of scientific men to 

 investigate this question of an international language, which is becoming 

 more pressing every day ? 



Yours faithfully, 



H. W. Unthank. 



March 3, 1920. 



