244 NATURAL SCIENCE. April, 1897. 



of him, until now the great mass of mankind is left to the new and 

 semi-conscious process of elaborating mental environment. 



My article was in no sense an " alarmist " one, but the implica- 

 tions of my view are very far-reaching, as I have tried to indicate in 

 my second Fortnightly article. The tendency of a belief in natural 

 selection as the main factor of human progress, is, in the moral field, 

 towards the glorification of a sort of rampant egotism — of black- 

 guardism in fact, — as the New Gospel. You get that in the Gospel 

 of Nietzsche. But from the standpoint of my article the obvious 

 gospel for the future is the gospel of discipline and education. As a 

 writer of books for the general reader, and a mere interpreter and 

 amateur of biology, my interest in these theories lies chiefly in their 

 application. I feel no doubt whatever that the adequate discussion 

 of this fundamental question is (if I may use a battered but expressive 

 phrase) one of the crying needs of the age. After Darwin it has 

 become inevitable that moral conceptions should be systematically 

 restated in terms of our new conception of the material destiny 

 of man. H. G. Wells. 



Heatherlea, Worcester Park, Surrey. 



It is a pleasure to conduct a controversy with so candid an 

 opponent as Mr. Wells ; but I am warned that my further share in 

 such a controversy must be confined to a note. After reading his 

 first article I thought that I understood Mr. Wells : his elucidation of 

 his argument has however shaken my confidence. Putting aside, for 

 want of space, all his other arguments, I infer that our main difference 

 lies in this — that Mr. Wells admits the peaks of inborn human great- 

 ness to be higher now than before, but contends that the depths are 

 also lower, whilst the median line is stationary. I gravely doubt the 

 justness of such pendulum analogy ; and can safely leave Mr. Wells 

 to be tackled by a vastly more dangerous foe than myself — Prof. 

 Weismann to wit. My own position has been, and is (see " Towards 

 Utopia "), that the loftiest peaks do not arise out of plains but only out 

 of mountain ranges. Mr. Wells will easily appreciate my analogy, 

 which is diametrically opposed to his pendulum analogy. The on- 

 lookers must decide between us. 



I believe that to a large extent we approached the question from 



different standpoints. I rely especially on the arguments from 



heredity and genius ; which Mr, Wells seems inclined to ignore. 



Also I perceive that he has prudently ignored what I consider to be 



several of the strongest arguments in my criticism. Our readers will 



readily perceive which. 



F. H. Perrv Coste. 



[Part IV., Mr. Archdall Reid's re-statement of his position, will, 

 it is hoped, appear in our next.— Ed. Nat. Sci.] 



