mind, depended mainly upon conduct, not only of the individual, but also from heredity. Therefore we should expect that as conduct (and through conduct, health; and through health, happiness) was the object of religion, a code of religion should lay down laws, which would be a guide of conduct, and thereby conduce to health and happiness. These primary instincts, that of self-preservation and the reproductive instinct, were mainly regulated in the Jewish code by laws concerning diet, circumcision, and the sexual relations. The speaker had shown elsewhere at length (in a series of papers "On the Communicability to Man of the Diseases from Animals used as Food") that the Hebraic dietary laws preserved from the transmission of such diseases, and especially from the ravages of tuberculosis, which in its various forms was accountable for at least one-fifth of the entire mortality in this country. The sexual relations were regulated in the Hebrew code by laws which aimed at conserving the highest attainable degree of virility, by restraining undue indulgence, and ensuring procreation only at a specially healthy period. We need hardly pause to dwell on the enormous advantages such a start in the battle of life must give towards the "survival of the fittest."

The special biostatic privileges of Jews might be summed up in the proved facts that they married less, had fewer births, died less (that is, lived longer), increased at a greater rate, and had fewer stillborn and illegitimate children than any other race. It was quite unnecessary to repeat the statistics upon these points: they had been given over and over again, as by Hoffmann, Kolb, Bergmann, Legoyt, Bernouilli, Lagneau, Loeb, and many others; but it was interesting, and to the Jews vitally instructive, to note that in proportion as they mixed with other races-either of their own accord or by the spread of social tolerance-they lost these biostatic privileges, and the differences became effaced. Thus M. de Bergmann ("Beiträge zur Geschichte der Bevölkerung in Deutschland") showed that the relation of the sexes among the Jews in Posen had of late become much modified: that while from 1819 to 1864 it was as 111.94 boys to 100 girls, it fell to 106-39 to 100 from 1864 to 1873; similarly, the proportion of illegitimate births among them had increased, showing a relaxation in their adherence to the Mosaic code. In every one of the biostatic privileges they enjoyed, the penalty had to be paid for laxity of observances, and either in their own persons or in their descendants those who transgressed had to submit to the inexorable law of "being cut off from their own people," as far as was concerned in their share of the physical advantages of their race.

Mr. F. D. MOCATTA remarked that in addition to the two greater divisions of the Jewish race, Sephardim (Spanish) and Ashkenazim (German), not to mention the Italian Jews, there were various other families of Jews, such as those of the interior of Morocco, speaking Arabic, and not Spanish, those of Persia and of Yemen, and others. Besides these were large numbers of Jews in various countries, who might be considered not to be of the seed of

Abraham, or only to be to a greater or lesser degree crossed with it. Such were the Beni-Israel of Bombay, those of Foo-Choo-Foo (now nearly obliterated), the Riff Jews of the north of Morocco (an armed warlike set, loosely adhering to Judaism, but differing in physique and habit from other Jews), the nearly black and crispy Malabar Jews, &c. Also the Jews of South-East Russia in Europe who speak Russian, and are a well-developed, hardy, and generally ruddy race, are probably a different family from those of Poland and Central Russia, who still speak a dialect of German, their ancestors having been driven out of Germany at the period of the Crusades. This family might possibly represent, as the Karaites of the Crimea were often supposed to do, the descendants of the Khozars, a tribe on the Caspian, who about the seventh century founded a state and maintained it for the best part of two centuries, adopting the Jewish religion. All these, so to speak, outlying families of Jews might be regarded as descendants of proselytes, but as they had blended but very little with the general mass of the Jews, they did not much affect the subject then under consideration. In Biblical times the Jews frequently made matrimonial alliance with the surrounding populations, and it was a constant theme of the reproach of prophets and reformers, notably of Ezra and Nehemiah. Later on, at the time of the conquest of Titus, and when Christianity was only dawning on the Latin world, many Jews were carried to Rome, the bulk being the common people, who were put to labour on public works, and often devoured at gladiatorial shows; but some of whom being scholars and persons of refinement were admitted into Roman society, and by the purity of their doctrine won over to their philosophy and religion many of the higher classes, notably women, who were becoming tired of the superstitions and worldliness into which the pagan religions had degenerated. This probably led to alliances, and such is M. Renan's opinion. The Jews also, ever prone to adopt the habits aud manners of surrounding nations, became lax, Romanised and Hellenised their names, as was evidenced in the Jewish catacombs at Rome, and probably contracted marriages with the people around them. All these sources might have led to an admixture of nonJewish blood, the extent of such admixture (the alliances being at all times exceptional rather than general, and having become rarer with the persecutions which set in in the earlier ages of the Christian Church) was not likely to have essentially modified either the type or the physical or moral characteristics of the Jewish race, which might therefore be regarded for all practical purposes as pure. This was all the more probable since a large number of the issues of such mixed alliances naturally fell back to the dominant religions of the various times and countries, and ceased to have anything to do with Judaism. The speaker said he had not alluded to alliances made between Jews and Oriental peoples, Mohammedans, &c., in earlier times, firstly because it would be difficult to prove their frequency or the contrary, and secondly, because these peoples, being for the most part Semitic themselves, the changes thus induced would have been far less accentuated.

Sir JOSEPH FAYRER had no criticisms to make on the erudite papers which had been read that evening, but would ask one or two questions, first remarking that he had known Jews in Calcutta where one member of the family had light hair and grey eyes, another dark hair and complexion. It struck him that the Armenians presented those peculiar characteristics of physiognomy which were usually attributed to the Jew. Was this not simply a question of race, both being Semitic, and should not the so-called Jewish physiognomy rather be called Semitic than be regarded as the special attribute of the Hebrew as distinct from other Semitic races such as the Armenian? The speaker would ask the learned author of the second paper (Mr. Jacobs) if he could give any information as to the relation of the Afghans to the Jews? They undoubtedly had the physiognomy strongly marked,-it was often said they were descendants of the lost tribes, and there was a tribe among them calling themselves Beni-Israel. What was known

and accepted among erudite Jews as to the origin of the Afghans? Again, what was the origin of the race of Black Jews on the Malabar coast ? Were these not a mixed race, and were they not the result of admixture with the Teluigan races of Southern India? Pure as the Jewish race is, it would seem that it must be recognised that evidences of such admixture with other races did exist, and it would also seem that they had taken more or less an impression from their surroundings and from the character of the races among which they had settled.

Mr. LUCIEN WOLF did not agree with Mr. Jacobs' view of the physiological characteristics of Jews. Mr. Jacobs practically denied the existence of these characteristics, whereas the speaker felt inclined not only to assert their existence, but to assert that they were as well defined as to form real race distinctions. This view could be proved by statistics, and figures could also be given to prove the immunity of Jews from phthisis, which Mr. Jacobs contested. The purity of the race could not be demonstrated by anthropological measurements, for, physically, Jews varied enormously. It was different with their vital characteristics, and while we found that these were maintained at a high average we might rest assured that the race was being conserved. The evidence brought forward by Dr. Neubauer in favour of his view that the Jewish race had not kept itself pure told against the proposition it was intended to support when it was tested by other evidence. Thus it might be asked how was it that, notwithstanding these large accessions to Judaism, the race had not increased, and that in spite of these large infusions of alien blood, so important a vital characteristic as its high reproductive power has not become modified. It must be obvious that had the remarkable multiplying power of the Jews been left unchecked they must have increased far beyond their present numbers, and if they could receive accessions from other races without diminishing this power, then by this time they ought to have peopled the world. The conclusion must be then that the mixed marriages referred to had

not affected the purity of the race. By their tendency to sterility they have periodically carried off the perpetually growing fringe of Judaism, leaving always a pure nucleus to repropagate itself. Thus by bringing to light the fact that mixed marriages were generally sterile, the evidence cited by Dr. Neubauer, instead of telling against the purity of the Jewish race, revealed the most powerful argument in its favour. Nor was this theory of sterility a theory only. The speaker had investigated a large number of cases of mixed marriages-not quite so many as Mr. Jacobs-and in every single case he had found, if not absolute sterility, at least a falling off in the vital power of the offspring, placing them far below the average obtaining in the Jewish community. This falling off was only postponed sterility, as he had had occasion to prove himself by investigating the history through several generations of a few mixed marriages.

Mr. MARCUS N. ADLER said that in his capacity as Actuary he had had opportunities of examining various statistics bearing on the subject under discussion. He agreed with Mr. Jacobs' remark that in the case of Jews mixed marriages were not so productive as ordinary marriages. On this point Herr von Fircks had published some interesting statistics in the official Journal of the Statistical Bureau of Prussia, and a good deal of weight must be attached to these figures, inasmuch as the entire population of Prussia is compared with the Jewish population, which exceeds 300,000. It would appear, dealing with the averages from the year 1875 to the year 1881, that out of 100 marriages— Where both parents were Protestants

there were 430 children.

If we bore in mind that out of the number born not one-half attained marriageable age, and a still less number actually married, it followed that the descendants of mixed marriages were comparatively few, and this consideration became an important element in the argument as to the comparative purity of the Jewish race at the present day. With regard to insanity, there was little doubt but that it was more prevalent amongst Jews than among the Christian population. M. Legoyt published some statistics which would show that while one person was insane out of every 1,200 Protestants, and one person insane out of every 1,000 Roman Catholics, amongst the Jews one person was insane out of every 760. It would not do to ascribe this to marriages amongst near relations being rather frequent amongst Jews, for if so, why should there be a larger number of insane amongst Roman Catholics than amongst Protestants, seeing

that amongst the Roman Catholics marriages between cousins are prohibited? Moreover, Mr. George Darwin, in an interesting article which appeared in the Fortnightly Review in 1875, showed that insanity is not more prevalent in the offspring of marriages of cousins than in the offspring of other marriages. It was, however, found that persons living in towns were more subject to insanity than those living in the open country, and since the Jews mostly inhabit towns, the speaker was disposed to ascribe the more numerous cases of insanity among the Jews to the fact of their living among densely populated districts, also to their being more addicted to head work than to manual labour, and to many of them being of rather a nervous temperament.

Dr. ASHER believed that the figures supplied by Mr. Joseph Jacobs as to the prevalence of phthisis among Jews were entirely fallacious. Jews had an extraordinary power of resistance to phthisis, but when exposed for sufficient time to all those surroundings which lower vitality beyond the limits which their constitutions could bear, they necessarily succumb, but they endured and resisted far far beyond what would kill those not of their race. From an experience of several years as surgeon to the Jewish Board of Guardians, the speaker was enabled to say that phthisis among English Jews was almost unknown: the vast majority of those who died from tuberculosis were Russians or Poles, who in their own countries had been herded together under the most insanitary conditions. It was no more fair to accuse Jews of special liability to tuberculosis on account of those deaths than it would be to say that Brompton is a district specially liable to that disease because there were so many deaths therefrom in the hospitals with which the district abounded. Figures and facts substantiating the above would be found in the report for 1859 of Dr. Septimus Gibbon, Medical Officer of Health.

Mr. JOSEPH JACOBS, in reply, expressed his regret at the absence of Dr. Neubauer, which had deprived the meeting of his valuable criticism, though it had doubtless freed himself from a formidable opponent. He was under the impression that the translation "redhaired" in 1 Sam. xvi, 12, was mistaken, and that the word edmoni simply implied "ruddy," which might apply to a dark as to a fair complexion. He had only referred to the mistranslation of the Targum as showing that Jews of the sixth century A.D. saw no objection to a Jewish king being red-haired. There was no special Jewish theory of the origin of the Afghans. They shared with many other races of uncertain origin the doubtful honour of being connected with the Ten Tribes about whom so many wild theories had been broached. This was possible; or their Semitic appearance might be due to descent from the tribes of North Arabia or Mesopotamia. The Black Jews of Malabar were known to be proselytes of the White Jews who had arrived there. Mr. Wolf's remarks seemed to him to overlook the great complexity of the problems dealing with the origin of the biostatic and physical characteristics of the Jews. These might be due either to common