90 
assumption, as to the introduction of mind, runs through the whole of this 
material philosophy. Mr. Herbert Spencer, of cour.se, treats the subject 
from a philosophical point of view ; men like Professor Tyndal treat it from 
an experimental point of view, but whenever they attempt to formulate any 
system, and to bind mind to matter, they do exactly the same thing, 
and assume the point where mind is initiated. I notice that the paper before 
us is full of strong language. IMr. Ground uses some hard expressions in regard 
to Mr. Herbert Spencer, in phrases that strike very oddly, especially on a 
lawyer’s ear. But is there not a cause for this ? In page 76 the author 
says, “ Some of the consequences of this sin we stated at the beginning in 
the shape of hundreds and thousands of lives bereft of all faith in God and 
the unseen, through this far-extending falsehood ! ” This is the reason why 
these matters are not mere matters to be discussed, like any ordinary intel- 
lectual propositions, on the result of which serious consequences do not 
depend ; they are, on the contrary, matters of the very first importance. 
I know that I ought not to enter upon political topics here, but I cannot 
help referring to the significant commentary which the question, probably at 
this moment in the Bradlaugh debate in the House of Commons, affords 
on the present subject. It should ever be remembered that the philosophy 
of Mr. Herbert Spencer is but a higher and refined development of the 
coarse and brutal atheism of IMr. Bradlaugh. (Hear.) 
Professor Griffith. — In reference to the first passage in the paper 
quoted by the last speaker, the author, after giving a very beautiful 
extract from Mr. Herbert Spencer’s book, says : “ All this we may concede, 
adding only this proviso — that as every antecedent force which generates an 
action must operate in the same region as that action, must be in mdem 
materia’' I should like to ask, first of all, what is it he means by in eadem 
materia. ? and next, what is his authority for the introduction of this exotic 
proviso ? Where is his proof that cause and effect must always be in the 
same plane ? Touch fire, and it shall give you pain. Do fire and pain 
belong to the same sphere of being ? Strike the keys of the piano artisti- 
cally and you have music. In that case you have, first of aU, mental energy 
moving the fingers and then the piano. Next, something in the ear is moved 
by air- vibrations, and the nerves are set a-going. Then follows musical feeling. 
I therefore ask, cannot causes in one plane produce effects on quite a 
different plane ? Let us touch another point : “ The magician is going to 
pass from the extended beam of light (for to the scientific imagination the 
matter of which light is composed has surface and weight as manifestly as a 
cannon-ball), he is going to travel logically from this extended beam of 
light to the unextended mind.” I must ask, is this quite fair ? lam sure 
the author means honestly ; but I am none the less convinced that this is 
based on a serious misapprehension. Mr. Herbert Spencer is the last man 
in the world to mistake visualization for particles of matter, or to confound 
mere physical light, even on the old corpuscular theory with the immediate 
act of seeing. Light, or the force of light, does not consist in dead particles 
of matter, but in the energy, the divine or God-given energy, which has sent 
