lias given us his warning. Certainly, it would simplify our conception of 
the matter if vital force were reducible to another mode of motion. It is, 
no doubt, very inconvenient that there should be such a material difference 
between Professor Huxley and boiled mutton (laughter) ; but somehow or 
other we do differ from pigs, or from white of egg. Chemists are undoubtedly 
unable to explain the difference between the elementary form of original 
substance which builds up organised bodies in its living and in its dead state ; 
but I do maintain that it is an offence against the true Baconian method to 
assume that vital energy is only another mode of force. There is not the 
smallest proof that the cessation of vital energy produces the development 
of any other force that is measurable, — that the difference between the living 
and the dead is molecular motion. It was a reproach against the scien- 
tific men of bygone years, that they discussed the question of whether a 
living or a dead fish weighed the heavier ; but the question was not so 
utterly absurd if we assume that vital energy is merely a form of molecular 
motion. I do not say it follows that if that were so it would affect the 
weight of the fish, but it would undoubtedly affect molecular motion in 
some direction. There must be a distinct, ponderable, or measurable amount 
of force expendable in some other way, and those who assume that the living 
and the dead are the same, are bound to get over the chasm which undoubtedly 
exists between the living and the dead, and show what is the force of which 
they speak, to measure it and show why it should not be expressed by foot- 
pounds as much as any other form of molecular motion. But I must say, 
that when we take the popular expositions of this question we are met by 
very ugly results. Not that ugly results justify bad science, but they make 
us strict in our inquiries as to what is bad science. There are many persons 
who, owing to the spread of science, — and it certainly is for the most part 
spread very thin, — teach a good deal more than they suppose. AYhen these 
persons say that men are mere machines, — mere self-acting organisms, — 
they forget that the people they are instructing are quite sharp enough to 
say, “Then we are not responsible.” (Hear, hear.) Perhaps I am getting 
beyond the philosophical and into the theological, if I say there is a deeper 
danger behind ; “ God is not the God of the dead, but of the living all faith 
in God, all religion, morality, and responsibility would be at an end if man 
were a mere machine. I do not mean to say that those who take different 
views from mine about vital force necessarily differ from me on these funda- 
mental questions ; but I do say to them, “ Be very careful how you use the 
expressions so commonly employed ; be very carefnl how you accept what, 
after all, are utterly unproved hypotheses, — even if they be more than vague 
metaphors— as to men being machines ; — or you will find that a logical con- 
clusion is drawn by those who are intelligent enough to seize any mode of 
escape from personal responsibility, and sharp enough to make a very ugly 
use of this freedom from responsibility.” (Hear, hear.) 
Mr. E. Charlesworth, F.G.S. (a visitor).— I hope I may be allowed, 
while paying the highest possible compliment to the author of the brilliant 
