82 
becomes weak. Now in the case of the Earl of Beaconsfield we find that 
this was not the case, and I might mention hundreds of other cases of 
eminent men who have retained all their mental power when the body 
was more feeble than at any other time, and I regard this as a great proof 
of the fact that the mind is independent of the brain and of the corporeal 
system. Canon Liddon, in his sermon at St. Paul’s Cathedral on the 
occasion referred to, says : — “ If he (the Earl of Beaconsfield) had ceased to 
exist, it would be natural only to reconsider again and again the years of 
varied and brilliant effort which closed on Tuesday ; but in that temple of 
truth they might not thus palter with reality. None ceased to exist at 
death, and when the human mind gave some evidence of many-sided and 
vigorous power up to the very moment of dissolution, we seemed to have 
before us a sensible basis” (I bring this forward as a strong argument 
that the mind ceases not after death) “for an independent conviction” (and 
I put this in opposition to the theories of Mr. Herbert Spencer) “ that it 
lived after the catastrophe which had rent it from the body.” (Applause.) 
The Eight Hon. the Lord O’Neill. — I have really very little to say upon 
this subject. I perfectly agree with the argument used by the author of the 
paper which has been read to us to-night. The only matters for notice on 
my part that would occur to me are some of what may be called the 
obiter dicta in the paper. There was one thing I rather regretted to learn, 
and that was that the doctrine of evolution has become the accepted 
doctrine among scientific men all over the world. I had hoped that 
that was not the case. There have been many very eminent men who 
have refused to accept that doctrine, — among others the well-knoAvn 
Dr. Virchow, who says we are further from arriving at such a conclusion 
now than we have ever been. But, however, I do not profess to know 
much about the state of the case, only I should hope that there are many 
practical men who do not believe in that doctrine. I have myself taken 
occasion more than once before this Institute to express my belief that even 
if that doctrine were established it would not be found to contradict 
Scripture ; but at the same time I do not think it can be accepted as a 
scientific doctrine, and it has certainly the primd facie appearance of con- 
tradicting Scripture. I should, therefore, regret very much to think that it 
was becoming the universal doctrine of scientific men. I think this is all I 
need say on the subject, beyond the remark that I quite agree in all the 
conclusions arrived at on the main subject of the paper. (Applause.) 
The Chairman. — I may say that I noticed the same expression myself, 
and entirely concur in the observations made by Lord O’Neill on the 
subject ; but I think it would be well to remember that “ The doctrine of 
evolution” defines nothing. The term implies many theories and views, 
of which the only consistent one is that of Haeckel, who traces evolution 
from no creative act “ in the beginning ” — who, in fact, considers matter 
eternal. Now, Darwin does not take this ground, but speaks of a Creator, 
and his system is very different from that of Haeckel ; while Wallace, again, 
makes man a being with a spirit, and quite a different creation from the 
