THE NATURAL AND THE ARTIFICIAL. 193 



The CHAIRMAN (Rev. Cauon Gibdlestone, M.A.) — 1 am sura 

 you will allow me to thank Dr. Schofield iu all your uauies for tlio 

 very interesting paper vrhich he has given us. 



Dr. Gerard Smith, M.R.C.S.E. — Upon the main thesis ot 

 Dr. Scliofield's paper I have no remark to make except to express 

 my appreciation of the value of what he has said ; but the major 

 portion of the paper is a preamble leading up to the main thesis, 

 and in that he dealt more or less with the great theories held by 

 materialists which are supposed to be so essentially tangible as 

 ag.iinst those held by members of this Society, which are regarded 

 as so very intangible. But I notice that Dr. Schoheld has quoted, 

 as tar as he could possibly quote, those arguments on the material- 

 istie line of thought, comnieiiciug only with vortex motion. I 

 claim that we should be allowed the fullest right of search, which 

 should go far behind this, and that when we come to vortex motion 

 we have skipped over a great deal that should have gone before, 

 and which we must go into if the theories are to be consistently 

 held. In following out the materialistic argument everyone rightly 

 suggests a seiies of infinite causes, one behind the other, and 1 hold 

 that the consistent following out of what used to be called the 

 momic theory brings us precisely to this position. It is very 

 diOBcult to get a matex'ialist to go with you, and not to fly off at 

 some point when things are getting a little difficult. I have asked 

 questions as regards whence comes energy (not force) residing in 

 oiiginal atoms; and have been told, constantly, that it is the result 

 of their inhereiit properties, and I have asked whence come their 

 inlurent properties and have been told " that they are the result 

 of the inherent energy " ! That is cause behind cause, and we 

 cannot get behind that when we go in that direction. Now the 

 simple monistic assumption is said to be given up — the one idea of 

 starting from equi-distant atoms all spread equally in space — but it 

 is not given up if we still follow Spencer's polysyllabic expression 

 that " matter passes from an indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a 

 definite coherent heterogeneity," passes, that is from a state of equal 

 separation of atoms in space, to unequal sized masses. We will not 

 go behind that ; but I ask, are these atoms at rest or moving ? 

 They must be one of the two. If they are at rest, I want to get 

 at where the vortex motion comes in ? If not at rest, whence 

 came the primary movement ? The answer is " Gravity — every 

 atom as a centre of gravity and therefore the atoms would come 



o 2 



