229 
between the particles. But does that tell us anything ? What is cohesion ? 
Why should the particles keep together ? — Take another illustration 
from chemistry — a fertile field. Some of the compounds to be found 
there form bodies which are known to chemists as isomeric, — that is 
to say, they are absolutely identical in a material sense, but they have 
different properties. Take an instance of this : the common form of 
phosphorus is a yellow, waxlike substance, easily fusible, and taking 
fire at a very low temperature ; but there is also a substance known as 
amorphous phosphorus, which is well known and seen by us every day on 
the sides of safety match-boxes as a red powder, and that cannot be fused 
except at a high temperature, and does not take fire except at a compara- 
tively great heat. Yet those two substances are absolutely identical, so far 
as their material essence is concerned. What is the difference between 
them ? Some chemists say the particles are differently placed ; but why 
should that different arrangement bring about so great a difference in their 
properties ? The same difficulty arises in the explanation of the force of 
gravitation. We are told that by it bodies attract each other. But why should 
they be so attracted ? It seems to me that Professor Tyndall’s remark, that 
he sees in matter “ the promise and potency of every form and quality of life,” 
may well be challenged. How can particles of matter have any potency in 
them at all ? That was felt by the great Faraday — an authority which we 
must all receive with respect — who, when writing on the subject, said, “ As 
to the little solid particles which are by some supposed to exist independent 
of the forces of matter ..... they greatly embarrass me ; for after taking 
account of all the properties of matter, and allowing in my consideration for 
them, then these nuclei remain on the mind, and I cannot tell what to do 
with them.” Professor Tyndall gives us no explanation whatever as to the 
connection between matter and its properties. There is one term used by 
Mr. McDougall which is, I think, a little unfortunate. He speaks of 
“ psychic force” ; but that phrase has already been used for a totally 
different force to the one he suggests. Mr. Crookes has used it for quite 
another purpose ; and, however appropriate it may be for Mr. McDougall’s 
meaning, I think it would lead to confusion to employ it in a new sense. 
The Chairman. — It seems to me that there are one or two arguments 
which may be used respecting that potentiality of matter which is asserted 
by materialists — its potentiality, of its own accord as it were, to enter into 
the formation of all organized beings. Undoubtedly the particles of matter 
are capable of entering into those combinations which constitute all organ- 
ized beings, when that property is called into action, but not otherwise. 
The meaning I wish to express is this : take for example a field ; you have 
the various elements of matter composing the soil, and the various elements 
composing the atmosphere — the oxygen, nitrogen, aqueous vapour, and 
other gaseous matter which composes the atmosphere overlying the field. 
AVe know perfectly well that from these same elements ten thousand 
different vegetable organisms may be produced ; but how are they produced ? 
