than has been displayed in any of the remarks made to-night. Perhaps I 
may almost consider that I deserved such criticism ; because in attacking 
some of the views that are put forward one is obliged to use pretty clear, 
and sometimes very plain, language, otherwise little interest is excited, 
and there is not much likelihood of a response. There is a certain number 
of assertions that have been put forward, — I will not place the word 
dogmatic ” before “ assertions,” — by scientific men during the last few 
years, which undoubtedly do require, on the part of those who advance 
them, a great deal of explanation. I have alluded to several of these in my 
paper ; I dare say I could easily find twenty, and I think I could find fifty, 
but I have not thought it necessary to do so. I have taken, as an example, 
the assertion that man is a machine and that all his actions are mechanical. 
Now, this is very imaginative, very pretty, and appears, at first sight, very 
clear ; but, when we come to consider it carefully, it does not require much 
science to see that man is without any single attribute to which it is right 
to apply the word “ machine.” A machine has certain characteristics which 
are totally different from any a man can find in himself, and if he goes to 
those who have knowledge, and asks for an explanation, he will find that it 
is much nearer the truth to say man is not a machine, and has not a single 
action which can answer to that description. Of late years many such state- 
ments have been put forward, and they have excited much interest, not only 
among the public at large, but in such societies as this. It seems to me 
that the Victoria Institute may \vell take up some of these views and 
discuss them, as we have been discussing certain statements to-night, 
but going, perhaps, a little more into detail. I have had fault found with 
me for not putting forward arguments or stating the circumstances that have 
led me to make certain dogmatic assertions in opposition to certain other 
dogmatic assertions. It would take up the entire night to bring forward the 
whole of the facts that have induced me to draw the cooclusions I have set 
forth, as against the assertion that vital action is merely a change in the form 
of energy. The question is, of course, a very large one. A good deal has 
been said and written about it, and there is a great deal more that might be 
said ; but, as several speakers have remarked to-night, in this age, although 
it may truly be called the age of thought, we are certainly desperately 
tyrannised over. There can be no doubt about the fact that people natu- 
rally feel some diffidence in giving their opinions on such matters as I have 
dealt with, although their opinions may be right, and not only do they fear 
to give their opinions, but they are also afraid to discuss these subjects and 
ask questions upon them ; for there is no more searching mode of discussing 
jnany of these matters than that of putting questions. For instance, it is 
said, that man is like an ape. Suppose I were to ask Professor Huxley in 
what points man is like an ape ? Do you think he would answer me i 
No ; he would try to put me aside ; otherwise he would have to state where 
the resemblance lay, bone for bone, muscle for muscle. Then I should reply, 
‘ ‘ Take a bone ; w’hich bone will you have ? ” Then he would select a bone. 
