206 
lines of thought and investigation to which Professor Stokes has alluded, in 
order to obtain any satisfactory decision upon this subject. It is in vain to 
debate man’s physical nature without reference to his whole nature ; and we 
are bound, in any fair discussion of the question, to take into consideration 
the moral nature of man, as well as his physical and intellectual constitution. 
(Hear, hear.) I have only to say that I am much indebted to the authorities 
of this Institute for affording me the opportunity of hearing this interesting 
paper. I had not contemplated offering any observations on the subject, 
and I have only done so in response to the Chairman’s request, feeling, as I 
do very deeply, that I am unable to do anything to advance the subject 
beyond the point to which it has been taken in the admirable paper of 
Professor Stokes. (Applause.) 
Professor Lionel S. Beale, F.R.S. — I need scarcely say that we all feel 
greatly indebted to Professor Stokes for his valuable paper. It seems to me 
that the subject is one that concerns everybody, and that it ought not to be 
considered the exclusive monopoly of scientific men. I confess that while, 
as Professor Stokes is aware, I heartily agree with him in every word he has 
said, I am inclined to go even further than he does in the same direction. 
Indeed, I am not sure that it is quite right to speak as tenderly as 
Professor Stokes has done of those who have taken up the views to which 
he has drawn our attention. A great many scientific men have not been 
in the habit of putting their doctrines before us in the gentle and considerate 
way suggested by Professor Stokes, and some of them have unquestionably 
laid down the law they declare shall be obeyed in the most peremptory 
manner. They do not say, for example, “Let us discuss how or why it is 
that a tree grows upwards ; ” but rather they declare, “ The tree grows up- 
wards in obedience to certain physical laws, which have existed from the 
foundation of the world, and will exist to the end.” When we come to ask 
them to explain these physical laws, what do we get ? We are told that 
they can explain a good deal, and by-and-by, at some time near or distant, 
everything is to be fully accounted for by physical law. But, when we 
say, “ Can you tell us how non-living and inorganic matter comes to be living 
matter ? ” all the answer we get is, “ This must be due to the properties of 
the original particles. The creation of matter, they say, does not concern us. 
Every particle of matter has been created and endowed with certain original 
properties, and it is in obedience to those properties, and the conditions 
under which the subsequent work has been carried on, that the results we 
see have been produced. If the mind could only go back to the first 
creation of matter, and had sufficient knowledge to understand what were 
the properties with which it was originally endowed, our intelligence, if 
sufficient, would enable us to fully explain how and why everything is 
produced at the present day, and will be produced in the future.” (Applause.) 
This, then, is what it really amounts to ; and the issue is simply this, Are 
we, and everything living, merely matter, and are all vital actions, all 
thoughts, and feelings due to the mere properties of matter ; or are they 
not ? (Hear, hear.) Can science account for the formation — I will not say 
