343 
Fisher) moved a good deal among the working classes on the south side of 
the water, and he knew many who a few years ago were steady church-goers 
who would now say to him, — “ We are Materialists, and do not believe 
a word of whar you say.” The author had stated at the end of his paper 
that the difficulties to be overcome in connexion with this question were 
enormous ; but these difficulties were all built on the assumption that nature 
was body and void. But he would ask, What moved the body ? They were 
told that nothing was done without a cause. What was it moved the atoms ? 
A cause was needed. Then, again, atoms had all the appearance of being 
manufactured articles. Motion could not be produced without a cause, 
neither could life, instinct, mind, conscience, nor the moral faculty. Even 
the scientific theorist assumed everything. “ Give me a cause of life or of 
organisation,” was very much like saying, “ Give me a fulcrum, and I will move 
the world.” The scientist was without the fulcrum. How to counteract 
the antagonist views that had been spoken of was no easy matter. It must 
be remembered that such views were more agreeable than the truth ; they 
released the mind from ties that would otherwise be binding, and gave 
freedom. It was the old cry over again ; men wished to be like God, and 
to have no superior. 
Mr. T. K. Callard, F.G.S., referring to the second page of the paper, 
said that, although the author seemed to accept Darwin’s data, yet that 
his statements in regard to Darwin’s hypothesis were in half irony. 
Mr. Dibdin said that was so, and the author put it that even if what he 
had stated as to Darwin were granted, still, he adds, “the question of 
original causation is not even approached by the physical researches to which 
I have alluded.” 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
