202 
that the doctrine of the conservation of force meant that force could not he 
lost ; yet we are told by Mr. Laming that “ those who teach the ‘ conserva- 
tion of energy’ assert that force can be lost.” If that is so, I shall give up 
the doctrine which hitherto I have been accustomed to hold. Then Mr. 
Laming says : — 
“ Motion is alleged to change into heat, but to produce heat is to establish 
dynamic force ; whereas to produce motion, which is alleged to be correlative 
to heat, is to change dynamic into static force. Besides which, the allegation 
violates an axiom by imputing to a single cause two effects, each equal to 
itself ; for it imputes to motion heat, on the one hand, equal to the motion, 
and, on the other, physical reaction equal to the energy which has caused the 
motion.” 
But those who hold the doctrine do not do that. They say, If you get 
motion as the result of your motive power, you get no heat ; but if any 
portion of that motive power is resisted and unable to pass on as motion, it 
immediately appears as heat. Therefore, instead of imputing two effects to 
the same cause, each equal to it, the two effects are only equal to the original 
cause when taken together, that part which causes the heat not having caused 
any part of the motion. But if we were to discuss the various matters 
contained in this paper fully, I am afraid we should have to lay down all the 
foundations afresh from the very beginning. 
The Chairman. — The subject is a very difficult one, and it has been 
somewhat imperfectly dealt with in the paper ; but even imperfect papers 
are useful, if only for the purpose of laying down debatable matter for dis- 
cussion. And of this we have had a good example to-night. 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
REPLY BY MR. LAMING. 
The paper I have had the honour to submit to the Institute has been 
deemed worthy of a searching criticism, which of itself, considering the 
profundity of the subject, is occasion for self-gratulation. 
I have described God in popular language “ as ever filling space,” which is 
objected to by Mr. Row as imputing extension to Spirit ; and he proposes 
to replace the expression by saying, more philosophically, that God “is 
present at every point of space.” The lesson being thus exactly enunciated, 
he need no longer entertain the idea of extension as an attribute of God in 
common with all material things, and yet be able to conceive the Creator 
as having the creation in Himself, both its mind and matter, because ail is in 
space, the nothing ever present with Himself. Mr. Row, however, adopting 
the popular language in the philosophic sense of “ ever filling,” proceeds to 
say, “ If the Deity has extension, and all created and finite things are also in 
extension, it will follow that all finite things are contained in Him.” Mr. 
