22, 
susceptible persons. He mentioned the case of an illusion by a 
drunken husband with a bad temper. For fear of incurring his 
anger at having no supper for him, the wife, while he was asleep, 
daubed his moustache with something palatable; and when he 
awoke and demanded his supper she said ‘‘ You have had it.” 
(Laughter). He agreed that it was very hard to get out of the 
grooves, and to cease putting new facts into old pigeon holes, 
It behoved them to subiect their beliefs to the most critical 
discrimination. In the highest of all branches, the spiritual, 
they were apt to take too much on trust without sifting the 
evidence for themselves. (Hear, hear.) 
After a hearty vote of thanks, on the motion of Mr. Sinkinson, 
seconded by Mr. J. T. Lupton, the Lecturer replied. Regarding 
the Santa Claus illusion they must, he said, get beyond the dream 
of the child, which was only a secondary explanation, to the 
substance of the dream. which was. the inherent belief in the 
mind of the child. If the Towneley Boggart was started by a 
mischievous person there was still the illusion, as that person 
was not Sir John Towneley. He regarded the cross incident 
mentioned by Mr. Kay as a good illustration of the theory he had 
put forward. ‘The case of ‘“ crocodile tears ’’ was mentioned by 
Prof. James, who says there are very few people living who can 
force tears from their eyes without a feeling of sorrow being 
produced as a consequence. That was the whole point. The 
feeling of sorrow was produced by the simulation of sorrow. 
He did not believe that swearing relieved the feelings, but 
whether that was so or not, the subject of physical pain was not 
included in Prof. James’s theory. It was not physical, but 
mental pain. 

