89 
have gathered the force of Mr. Ground’s comment upon that; but it would 
seem that Mr. Herbert Spencer begins by laying down the doctrine of the 
growth of energies — the development of one energy out of another, and that 
he then assumes the connexion between mental and bodily energies — asserting 
that all our energies are developed out of other energies, and that therefore 
the mental energies may be developed out of the physical energies. This 
brings us to what is the real vice of the whole of Mr. Herbert Spencers 
reasoning, and that is, that he does not show the point when the advance 
from the lower stages of creation to the higher comes in. Whatever may be 
the case as to evolution, whether it is a true doctrine or not, I do not say ; 
but every philosopher will admit that it is a very plausible theory, and 
so long as Mr. Herbert Spencer is simply evolving one physical existence out 
of another — not a higher one — he has a fair field in which he may have a 
great deal to say; and afterwards, also, when he has introduced mind, and 
is trying to bring that from a lower to a higher state, he has a good 
deal to say which I think Mr. Ground will admit is very difficult to answer ; 
but it is on this point ivhere mind comes in that I think it impossible to 
follow Mr. Herbert Spencer’s arguments. This quiet passing over of 
the very critical point of the case, reminds me of a story told of an eminent 
living judge who was once a very successful advocate. He was arguing 
before the late Lord , who in his latter days suffered a good deal 
from a tendency to go to sleep on the bench. The advocate’s case was very 
good up to a certain point, where, however, it was very weak. Knowing where 
this weak point was, the advocate was very loud and sonorous till he came 
to it, when he adopted a very soothing tone of voice, and Lord went 
to sleep. After he had got over the weak point he became very loud and 
demonstrative again, the result being that Lord woke up and 
decided in his favour. Now, this seems to be very much like the way 
in which Mr. Herbert Spencer treats the introduction of mind into 
the universe. There is another assumption that follows on this as a 
sort of corollary, and that is, that the growth of mind is proportionate 
to the development of the physical existence ; that is to say, that as we get 
into the higher types of physical existence mind must necessarily show a 
higher phase of development. These two assumptions go to the bottom of 
what has been criticised in the paper to-night. There is one point about 
the eye to which attention is drawn on page 74. It is very beauti- 
fully put, and the passage is one that we may well read over again 
when we get home. It reminds me of a paper read many years ago by 
the late Eev. W. Mitchell. I am sure that Dr. Irons and other old 
members of the Institute will weU remember how, in the early days of the 
Institute, when Mr. Eeddie occupied the Secretary’s chair, Mr. Mitchell 
read a paper on LyeU’s development of the eye from a physical point of 
view, and how he demolished that theory altogether, and by that paper laid, 
to some extent, the foundation of the high reputation of this Institute. 
This criticism on the same argument, from a logical point of view, is a 
fitting corollary to the other. I should like to point out how the same 
