THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1883. BIOLOGY VIEWED EDUCATIONALLY.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2488, 28 March 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1883. BIOLOGY VIEWED EDUCATIONALLY.

The practical value of biology in an Arts curriculum was the subject chosen by Professor Hutton last evening for the opening address of the new term of the Canterbury College. As far as we are able to understand the Professor's drift, he " plumps" for biology, considering its value to be very great, not very intrinsically, but as being the basis of the science of sociology, which in its turn is the basis of the. science of history. The Professor commenced his address with a dissertation on the principle of natural i election, ths advantages of which, are somewhat " whittled" down, for wo learn that selection does not originate or improve, but that that is left to variation. All that selestion does is to bring all the individuals up to the level of the best, but if an improved variety appears, improvement is at once made permanent and diffased through the species by the action of selection: but selection itself does aot originate or improve. As to how variations arise, wo are told that we are profoundly ignorant. This fact seoms somewhat to detract from the value of the science of biology pure and simple as part of an Arts curriculum, bounding it within somewhat narrow limits from a philosophical point of view, but still, wo presume, we should be told that the wall ascertained phenomena of life are sufficiently varied to render their study a valuable mental training. But it is on biology as the basis of history that Professor Hutton appears to principally rely as constituting its claim to a valued part of an Arts curriculum, and it is to this point that we wish principally to.

draw attention, because it appears to na that the learned Professor has not made out his case, or rather in endeavoring to prove it, has proved too much, for he has brought forward such a mass of conflicting evidence that at the end of his address we are left very much where we were at the beginning. Take, for instance, what biology teaches us with regard to government and the strength of nations. Montesquieu divides all governments into—(l) Republics, in which the whole or part of the public have the supreme power; (2) Monarchies, in which a single person governs by fixed and established laws; and (3) Despotisms, in which a single person directs everjthiug according to his own will and caprice. Now biology teaches us that two things are necessary for securing the continued existence of a group of animals, namely, strength to resist enemies and flexibility of organisation. Flexibility of organisation is to be found in Republics; strength in Despotisms, where the executive arm is strong and rapid. But " nations inhabiting rich warm countries, which produced abundance of food, would be envied by their neighbours, and consequently they could never afford to give up despotism, for if they did so they would certainly be conquerod by foreign nations, whose customs they abhorred. But nations dwelling in the bleak north, on land of which no one wished to deprive them, would develop government by discussion; the struggle for life against unkindly nature would strengthen the body, and government by discussion would invigorate the intellect. In warmer climes man becomes physically and mentally enervated and living under a despotism he becomes intellectually listless." The consequence of these conditions would be either that the Northern nations would be constantly breaking in upon the Southern nations, conquering them and becoming in turn themselves degenerated, or that the Southern nations would, by reason of the strength of their despotism, be able to overrun for a time the Northern nations, and so "nnmerons complications would arise." Now we should like to know what is learnt from all this. The two sides of the question are so nicely balanced that we absolutely gain nothing from the discussion. Either Smith will beat Jones in the race of life, or Jones will beat Smith. When complications are so very numerous, we doubt whether it can benefit students to wade into the sea of doubt. We should have thought that it would have been better to have left it to gentlemen of maturer intellects and more leisure to balance the rival chances of Smith and Jones

And we advance one step further into the swamp of incertitude when wo come to the question as to whether history can be viewed as a science even by the aid of biology. And here we think that Professor Hutton has hardly grasped the question in its true bearings. He quotes Professor Jevons, and objects to his sentence that " a science of history in the true sense of the term is an absurd notion" but quotes a further paragraph from the same writer to show that after all his words are mainly directed against the application to history of the principle of averages as advocated by Buckle, and says that all Professor Jevons means to assert is that human affairs are too complicated to allow of results being often predicted. But says Professor Hutton, "This, as I have already said, is very different from denying the possibility of a science of history. If I threw a glass bottle on the ground, I can safely predict it will be broken, but notwithstanding the perfection of the science of mechanics no man can predict into how many pieces it will be broken." This wo take it is hardly to the point. Professors Jevons, Froude, Freeman and others are of opinion that, deducing from given facts, nothing can be predicted with regard to history; that in fact it is impossible, arguing from known data whether the bottle will be broken or not. Professor Hutton brings forward the case of Turkey, and says we may safely predict that the Turk will not rule long in Europe. But this is so self-evident that it does not lie within the region of doubt. The Turk as a nation is already dying out. But can the science of history tell us anything of the future of England, France, or Russia? Can it take nations of antiquity and by analogy prove to us the future of any single present | nation whose fate is at all a matter of doubt. Jomini may have predicted at the beginning of the century that a decisive battle would be fought in the neighborhood of Jena, but one swallow does not make a spring, and one successful gaess of this sort will not prove to the impartial mind that history has been erected into a science in the ordinary -acceptation of the term. Till something practical has eventuated from the researches of historians we prefer to hold with Mr. Froude that the fact that human beings are moved by impulses utterly unaccountable very often even to themselves, but by impulses which have vast future consequences, prevents any science of •history being perfected. In Mr. Fronde's words —" Whon natural causes are liable to be set aside and neutralized by what is called volition, the word science is out of place." We are by no means undervaluing the benefit to bo derived from historical studies. They open and strengthen the mind, and give us a most valuable insight into the human heart, besides informing us of the manner in which our present political and social institutions have been built up step by step. We are merely asserting our belief that Professor Hutton has brought forward no overwhelming evidence in proof of his assertion of the practical value of biology in our Arts curriculum, basing his assertion principally, as he appears to do, on tho fact that biology is the basis of soci. logy and sociology of history.