101 
he is as ignorant as they are on most points of mental and moral science. 
They accept him as a great authority, and thus a great deal of nonsense 
is swallowed by a large number of people as scientific truth. I don’t see 
how it is possible to meet him in this respect, except by sending a body 
of lecturers after him. For my own part, I think great advantage might 
be derived if a set of caustic tracts were published, taking up these 
questions. The only way of dealing with these matters is to appeal to the 
hard facts of every-day life ; if this were done, I say that, whatever powers 
of reasoning on logic or science Professor Tyndall might bring to bear upon 
this question, he would commit a moral and intellectual suicide in attempting 
to prove that he himself is simply impelled by overwhelming necessity to 
contradict the great facts of consciousness (cheers). 
Mr. D. Howard. — I have heard this paper with a rather special interest, 
because the great fact of its being written by a man, and a very able man, 
living in the full freedom of American thought, which some of us may think 
verges on licence, gives it a special interest. The accusation might be 
brought against most of us that we are too fond of our old ways, and not 
prepared for the new truths which these preachers, of what I suppose they 
would consider a new revelation, would give us. It is perfectly true that most 
of us do not desire a new revelation, but would rather say that the old is the 
better ; but if there could be a free unbiassed field for anything quite new r , I 
think you would find it on the other side of the Atlantic, where there is no 
prejudice in favour of the old, but, if anything, an over-prejudice in favour of 
the new. This, I think, does give a special value to the full, able criticism 
which we have here of Professor Tyndall’s paper. To find how thoroughly 
his novelties are no novelties at all to able thinkers on the other side of the 
Atlantic, to find that there is nothing that can turn a clear head living amidst 
all the activity and novelty of American thought, is a very satisfactory thing, 
and one well worthy our attention in dealing with this question. I must say 
that I do most fully agree with the reply made so ably by Mr. Row, that it 
is better to leave Prof. Tyndall to himself. It is undoubtedly one of the 
painful facts of the present time, that there should be so much of atheistical 
thought amongst us, but yet it is not new. It is the same old story ever 
since thinking began. There is one thing which is most astonishing, and that 
is, how a man of Prof. Tyndall’s abilities, and with all the premises before 
him, can come to such utterly false conclusions. There is only one interpre- 
tation of this that occurs to my mind, and that is fatal to Prof. Tyndall’s 
whole theory. It is that he will not see. One of the most extraordinary 
things, even in material science, is the remarkable power of the will to abuse 
the judgment. A man cannot and will not believe on the clearest evidence 
what the doctor tells him about his own health. He will not believe the 
evidence of his own senses as to some great catastrophe. He will not believe 
that ruin has come upon him. What does this show ? If thinking is a mere 
function of the brain, do we find that phenomena are obstinate, do we find 
that our balances cannot and will not turn for no reason whatever ? I never 
