134 REPORT — 1876. 



but the laws whicli regulate these mental states themselves. Suppose a compli- 

 cated machine possessed consciousness, I can readUy understand that by the 

 exercise of this consciousness it might be unable to discover the relation and 

 mechanism of its own parts, because in attempting to do so the machinary would 

 be so interfered with as to prevent normal action ; but it might still be able to 

 study the products of its operations. I do not, therefore, decry this old method of 

 psychological research, as it is so much the fashion to do in these days. Apart 

 altogether from the philosophical speculations and systems of philosophy founded 

 upon them, I think many data accumidated by such men as Locke, Berkeley, 

 David Hume, Thomas lleid, Dugald Stewart, Thomas Bro■^^^l, Sir William 

 Hamilton, and James Mill have as good a right to be considered correct as some 

 of the quasi-metaphysical conceptions of modern physical science. Subjective 

 inquiry carried on by such men cannot be given up as a mode of psychological 

 research. It may not carry us much further than it has done, but it has rendered 

 good ser^■ice already, and may possibly do more. 



But, on the otlier hand, the object! \e method appears to me to be the one which, 

 in future, will be principally cultivated ; and it is for this reason that, as a ph^'.-iolo- 

 gist, I wish especially to refer to it. 



It is the busmess of physiology to supply psychology with information regarding 

 physical processes occurrhig in the nervous system ; and it is one of the special 

 features of the physiology of the present day to direct attention to the physical 

 side of mental phenomena. No doubt Aristotle, Hobbes, and Hartley incorporated 

 into their psychological theories much that was purely physiological ; but in their 

 days the physiology of the nervous system was in a crude state, and, consequently, 

 did not lead to great results. In comparatively recent times, a new inductile and 

 experimental department of science has arisen, the nature of which is indicated 

 by the term physiological psychology, and wliich is being diligently cultivated by 

 numerous workers, both at home and abroad. In our own country the writings 

 and researches of Herbert Spencer, Alexander Bain, Dr. Laycock, George Henry 

 Lewes, Dr. Maudsley, Dr. Carpenter, Alfi'ed Barratt, and James Sidly, and on the 

 continent those of Fechner, Ilelmholtz, Wundt, Hermann Lotze, Taine, Donders, 

 Plateau, and Dalboef, have excited much interest, and have led to the formation of 

 a new school of thought. 



I think it right to mention here specially the name of Professor Laycock, who 

 has done more, in my opinion, in this field of inquiry than any other member of the 

 medical profession of tliis coimtry in our time. His teaching has largely contri- 

 buted to our present humane methods of treating the insane ; he has attracted year 

 by year some of the best students of the University of Edinburgh to this important 

 dopai'tment of medical practice ; and his earher writmgs incontestibly show that 

 many years ago, and prior to most of the writings of those great men whose 

 names I have just enumerated, he not only recognized the value of physiological 

 research with regard to mental phenomena, but made important contributions 

 himself. 



Physiology lias thus encroached on psychology, and is attempting to supply from 

 the objective side an explanation of at least the simpler mental phenomena. As a 

 proof of awakened interest in this department, one of t])e features of the past year 

 has been the appearance of ' Mind,' a quarterly journal of psychology, edited by 

 my able friend Professor Groom Robertson of University Gollege. In the pro- 

 spectus of this journal it is .stated that "psychology, while drawing its fundamental 

 data from subjective consciousness, will be understood in the widest sense, as 

 covering all related lines of objective inquiry. Due prominence will be given to the 

 physiological investigation of nerve-structure." This quotation indicates the view 

 ■which the editor takes of the relation of the two sciences, and alread}' valuable 

 papers have appeared on subjects connected with physiological psychologj', from 

 the pens of Sully, Lewes, Wundt, and others. 



Now a certain class of thinkers are alarmed by work of this kind. They are 

 afraid of the tendency " to represent the mental fact as a physical fact," and they 

 are inclined to shut their eyes to the physical facts connected, undoubtedlj', with 

 psychological processes, and to be contented with the study of subjective pheno- 

 mena. But as most admit that there are two aspects in which mental phenomena 



