126 
that I have not seen the reason for it here. Mr. Row gave us one or two 
anecdotes of dogs, but it appeared to me that every one of the instances he 
gave us could be satisfactorily accounted for by the simple association of ideas. 
Mr. Row. — Surely that is intellectual ? 
Mr. Wainwright. — That association of ideas is sufficiently dealt with by 
Mr. Morshead in the passage which follows the reference to the parrot 
declining to crack a hollow nut. He altogether repudiates the idea of going 
by syllogistic threes. He says, — 
“ Every action, whether of man or of brute, may be regarded as the result 
of a syllogistic process. But a syllogism is merely the artificial imitation of 
a natural process ; it is a logical instrument, contrived for the purpose of 
demonstrating that which was not. previously evident to the perception. It 
is a proof that man has the power of contemplating the operations of his own 
mind, a power which the brute does not possess, so far as is shown by any 
evidence to the contrary ; and this self-consciousness is very different from 
the consciousness of physical individuality with which Mr. Pike endeavours 
to confuse it. To state the case in other words, the lightness of the nut 
conveys to the parrot the impression of worthlessness ; the necessary factors 
of the psychological operation which precede the rejection of the nut are 
nothing more than memory, which is an involuntary agent, and feeling or 
instinct.” 
An expression used by Captain Fishbourne gives us the key to the whole 
matter. He has spoken of the “blind instinct” of the animal. We find an 
authentic statement, the evidence of which has never yet been put out of 
court, and that statement tells us that the difference between the animal 
called man and the other animals is in — call it spirit if you will — in the spirit, 
which has nothing earthly about it, or naturally sinking — that spirit of man 
which goeth upward. There is in man the breath of the Almighty, which 
gives him understanding ; and that I take to be the only possible solution 
of the matter. Mr. Row has given us anecdotes of dogs. Now, I have seen 
performing birds, which did most wonderful things ; but surely Mr. Row 
would not say that they were guided in what they did by reason. They were 
taught to climb up sticks, to draw a small carriage about, and to go through 
a variety of performances. I have also seen a performing horse — 
Mr. Reddie. — And there are even performing fleas, you know. (Laughter.) 
Mr. Wainwright. — Yes, but I never watched them, I am happy to say. 
The performing horse I saw do a variety of things, and it was made to indicate 
the day of the week, and do other feats of that description ; but in all that 
it did, it obeyed some signal from its master, either in what he did or in the 
inflection of his voice when he spoke. The whole performance, so far as the 
horse was concerned, was simply and purely the result of the association of 
ideas— 
The Chairman. — But if you grant the association of ideas, does not that 
imply intelligence ? Can you have the association of ideas without intel- 
ligence ? 
Mr. Wainwright.- — Well, I have not yet heard any definition of what 
you mean by intelligence. I hold that you can have the association of ideas 
apart from human intelligence — 
