After adverting to Herbert Spencer’s dictum that an industrial society and militarism are incompatible, Professor Ford demonstrated the falsity of that statement by instancing the cases of Switzerland and of Germany, where the harmonious development of both types is in progress. In Great Britain there is a movement to promote military efficiency for the very purpose of promoting industrial efficiency. While many details of wars may with profit be omitted from our teaching, we cannot afford to ignore those great forces in the development of national life and character. The Association was also fortunate in having present Professor Eduard Meyer, of the University of Berlin, who, in continuing the discussion, heartily-endorsed Professor Ford’s views, at the same time wondering how the question of eliminating the study of wars could ever have become so general in this country. We must not confound sentimentalism with ethics. The great responsibility laid on statesmen in a country of universal compulsory military service is a guarantee of no war except for good and unavoidable causes. The danger of war is less, he believed, than in a country with voluntary military service or in one with an army recruited from the lower orders of society. Germany’s militarism is a guarantee of peace, as was shown by her attitude last year in the acute stage of the Austro-Servian controversy. Professor William MacDonald, of Brown University, taking up Professor Meyer’s question, how the movement against militarism has come about, suggested that it was owing in part to a movement to make things easy and agreeable, resulting, in the case of history teaching, in eliminating dates, memorizing, hard study of facts. Furthermore, the growth of emphasis on economic and social elements has tended to lessen the attention to political and military events. It is due, also, to a tendency to carry reform movements to extremes. Still, there is a question of what shall be done with the ethical side of history. Professor MacDonald doubted the value of singling out any study and making it the basis of ethical instruction. In teaching civil government, for instance, for “good citizenship,” we may fail to teach civil government. How shall the teacher deal with cases of the “lie direct” in history, followed by highly beneficial results? Or characters who have violated the laws of personal morality and the results have apparently not been injurious to public welfare? These and similar questions the teacher would better leave untouched. History, except in advance work, does not afford a good field for ethical instruction as such. The discussion was continued by Dr. Jessie M. Law, of Springfield, and Mr. J. C. S. Andrew, of Lynn, the last speaker strongly combatting the views of Professors Ford and Meyer.