88 
differ. I would say at once that the consciousness of one individual is not 
the test to another man of truth or error — that virtue is a thing that is inde- 
pendent of the consciousness of any particular individual. Whose conscious- 
ness are we to take ? Is it to be that of Mr. Spencer or of some one else ? 
For, the more individuals we take, the more difference we find in individual 
minds. Therefore, I should differ from ^Ir. Spencer in making any question 
of mendacity or trustworthiness dependent merely on the consciousness of 
an individual. I would rather appeal to the verdict of mankind, and say there 
is a spiritual element independent of these things, and that on this point 
Mr. Spencer falls short of the truth. Another objection to his theory is the 
terribly nugatory character it possesses. It must necessarily follow that if 
we once accept it we shall find that all good things will cease ; and if there 
be no future, why should we not say, “ Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we 
die”? But the common sense of humanity — to use no higher argument — at 
once condemns this. The paper before us contains so many propositions 
that it is impossible to deal with them aU. We can but touch on a few 
points as they arise, and I must conclude by thanking the author for a very 
interesting and useful paper on a subject of much importance. 
Mr. L. T. Dibdin. — I have heard a great many papers read in this room, 
but never one that seemed to me more clear. It deals with a great 
subject so ably as to be almost inimitable. I think that whenever 
Mr. Herbert Spencer comes to read this paper, and to reply to it, as I 
consider he is bound to do, he will have no easy task. I am not alto- 
gether disposed to concur in all the statements that have been made 
upon the paper, and should like to allude to the remarks of one speaker, 
who seemed to say that the great argument to be applied to this subject 
was that adduced by Mr. Herbert Spencer himself, and founded on con- 
sciousness. Everybody admits that the argument from consciousness is 
a very strong argument, but I do not think it can be fiiirly carried to 
the extent to which that speaker carried it ; if so, it would have been 
unnecessary to write this paper. The argument from consciousness 
must not be pressed too strongly, so as entirely to overweight and 
countervail arguments of a purely logical character ; because, though I 
admit that if the result of argument were found to be in direct contradiction 
to the teaching of mere consciousness, probably with the majority of mankind 
consciousness would decide the matter, yet it will not do, unless there be 
absolute contradiction, to assume this. I say so for this reason : conscious- 
ness is not always a safe guide, and we cannot always lay down the precise 
conditions under which it is a safe guide. But I should like to call 
attention to something in the paper we have heard read to-night. I 
do not wish to throw any doubt upon it as not being clear; on the 
contrary, it is one of the clearest argued papers I ever read, but when 
one has read it only for the first time one may very fairly fad to 
grasp its full intention. This may have been the case in regard to the 
argument of the author on the quotation from Herbert Spencer, given 
on the 69th and following page of the paper. I do no know whether I 
