80 
The Chairman.— It now becomes ray duty to convey the expression of 
our thanks to Mr. Ground for what I think we must all feel to have been a 
very ably-reasoned and well-conducted argument, which has been successful 
so far as I can judge, in proving the hollowness of the system he attacks. 
There are, perhaps, some minor points which I might have wished to have 
seen somewhat differently treated. I would rather not have seen so 
very much admiration for Mr. Herbert Spencer combined with the 
reasoning of the paper ; which proves so successfully that if this “ writer ” 
is indeed a “ giant ” in philosophy, he is but a giant stuffed with straw. 
I cannot, therefore, give my assent to some of the concluding 
remarks in the paper, especially where the writer says, “Very much of 
what he (Mr. Herbert Spencer) has written will stand in lines of 
unfading truth and beauty, and he will have the honour of lifting the 
human intellect to a higher plane of thought and life.” I do not see 
what powers of the “giant ” have been so much developed in the 4,000 pages 
of the book referred to ; for if all those 4,000 pages rest on an utter 
fallacy, as I most fully and freely believe they do, what have we to consider 
but something to perplex and bewilder us, and to lead to those dreadful 
consequences which have been so well pointed out? Voltaire is reported 
to have said, “ Ce n’est la logique qiii nianque auxhommes, mais Ic qioint 
de dAparV’ We cannot surrender our common sense, even to a giant in 
philosophy who has unified everything. We cannot give up to Mr. 
Herbert Spencer those points which are so ably and well pointed out as 
the fallacies on which his whole system is built. Mr. Herbert Spencer 
tells us about force. What does he mean by “ force ” ? He does not 
know himself. I cannot learn from him, nor can the whole of the 
philosophy of the present day tell me what “force” is. (Hear, hear.) Still 
less can it explain to me in what way “force,” as a term, is to be explained. 
For instance, the attraction of atoms in the atomic theory is as much proved 
as any theory can be by chemical change, and so forth ; but it is utterly 
inexplicable by anything like what the word “ force ” implies. 
The Hon. Secretary. — The following short letter has been received from 
the Rev. Canon Saumarez Smith, D.D., Principal of St. Aidan’s Theological 
College, Birkenhead: — 
“ FrincipaVs Lodge, St. Aidants College, Birkenhead. 
“30«/i April, 1881. 
“ Mr. Ground’s paper seems to me a clear, able, and suggestive criticism, 
and one that admirably points out how, admire as we may the mental 
energy and grasp of Mr. Herbert Spencer, we cannot regard his ambitious 
argument as really philosophical. He does not accept, simply and sincerely, 
‘ the deliverance of consciousness,’ and so becomes, whether he would wish 
to be regarded so or not, onesided and illogical.” 
Professor O’Dell. — I have studied mind under many phases, both sane 
and insane, civilized and uncivilized ; I have also studied Mr. Herbert 
Spencer’s works to a great extent. There is one thing that strikes me as 
