236 REV. JAMES WHITE, M.A., ON 
orders of animals, which had practically a world-wide distribution at 
the time when the end came.” 
It seems to me, that if we apply these considerations to the 
present discussion, they add redoubled force to the ideas, which in 
the convluding paragraphs of his paper the author has put forward, 
as deductions from the principle enunciated by Malthus. ‘“ The 
right to live,” as conditioned by conformity with the laws which 
make for the well-being of the community, is seen to be even more 
strongly enforced by nature, when we see the law of direvtivity 
working for the removal from the stage of organic life on this planet 
of whole orders of creatures, whi h seemed to block the way for the 
advance of the whole organic complex. The idea is even older than 
Malthus ; for it is recognized in the simple dictum of the Apostle: 
“Tf any will not work, neither shall he eat.” It supplements the 
“parental responsibility ” of Malthus by the responsibility of the 
State; and we have the double sanction of Nature and Holy 
Scripture for interference by the State with the liberty of the 
individual (i) to organize forced labour for those able-bodied people 
who will not work and have no other right to live ; and (ii) to prevent 
the imbecile and feeble-minded from propagating their species. We 
shall all agree that such remedial measures should be tempered with 
mercy. 
Mr. JOHN SCHWARTZ, Jnr., wrote :— 
I wish to protest emphatically against the caricature of Charles 
Darwin depicted in this discussion, representing him as a huckstering 
bully who ruthlessly forced his baseless theories ; whereas it is common 
knowledge that he was one of the gentlest and most modest of men, 
who held back his theories during many years of hard work, until 
he could fully support them by thousands of experiments and 
observations. 
The primary object of our Institute is defined “to investigate 
fully and impartially and reconcile any apparent discrepancies 
between Christianity and Science.” To-day’s discussion is a fair 
illustration of the bias and antipathy to modern thought expressed 
by several members who generally monopolize the time allowed for 
discussion. Broadly speaking, the excellent papers read by non- 
members have been much more in sympathy with the main object 
