Wellington Philosophical Society. 649 



rnent of force in the human sphere, from the movement of an eyelid to 

 the course of an express train or an ocean-steamer, could be traced back 

 to what was known as will, and could be followed no further. 



Mr. Tanner said it seemed to him that when dealing with meta- 

 physics it was difficult to come to a common understanding. The paper 

 was most interesting, but it appeared almost impossible to arrive at any 

 satisfactory conclusion on such a subject. 



Mr. A. R. Atkinson remarked that the difficulty in dealing with a 

 subject like this was largely one of language. Words in general were not 

 constructed with precision for the purpose of science, but roughly hewn 

 for popular use; and, after their being so manufactured, the philosopher 

 had to make the best use of them he could. The chief objection which 

 a philosopher would take to Mr. Carlile's paper would probably be that 

 there was too much common-sense about it. In ordinary language our 

 view of the " cause " of a thing was determined by the particular aspect 

 of it that had most interest for us at the time ; but was it possible, 

 philosophically, to separate the cause of anything from the whole ante- 

 cedent history of the universe ? Similarly, the doctrine of the conserva- 

 tion of energy showed that, scientifically speaking, no cause can ever 

 cease to operate. This seemed to be the explanation of the argument 

 which the author based on Newton's first law of motion. In conclusion, 

 he protested against what he took to be the suggestion of a previous speaker 

 — namely, that a subject of this kind lay beyond the scope of the Society. 



Mr. Barnes also agreed with other members as to the great difficul- 

 ties attending the discussion or conception of a question of this nature, 

 and gave as an illustration a chain of circumstances showing how an 

 occurrence or event might be traced back through the chain to a cause 

 having apparently not the slightest or remotest connection with it. It 

 seemed to him that all existing circumstances were the progeny of pre- 

 existing circumstances, which was perhaps only another way of saying 

 that " the cause of anything is the previous history of the world." 



Mr. Carlile, in reply, said if a subject such as this was barred as un- 

 suitable for the Society they would bar everything that had been written 

 on the subject of philosophy as distinguished from special science, from 

 Plato to Hegel. If agnosticism was proved untenable, the crude teleology 

 of Paley was not the only alternative explanation of the universe. There 

 were other explanations which did not leave reason out of account, such 

 as that attempted to be given by Hegel. It was quite legitimate, in any 

 case, to show the fallacy of one system, without having another system 

 ready-made to substitute for it. 



2. "A Chapter in the History of the Warfare against Insect- 

 pests," by W. M. Maskell, F.E.M.S. (Transactions, p. 282.) 



In the course of his paper the author referred to the fact that Dr. 

 C. V. Riley had been obliged, through failing health, to resign his appoint- 

 ment as Director of the United States Agricultural Department (Entomo- 

 logical Branch), and pointed out that the farmers and cultivators of every 

 country of the globe were indebted to him for his services during the past 

 thirty years. 



On the motion of Mr. C. V. Hudson, seconded by Sir 

 James Hector, the following resolution was passed: "That 

 the members of this Society sympathize cordially with Dr. 

 Riley in his enforced retirement, on account of ill-health, from 

 the position of State Entomologist to the United States, and 

 beg to assure him of their high appreciation of the services 

 which he has rendered during the last thirty years to cultiva- 

 tors of every country." 



