249 
With regard to Buckle’s “ science of statistics,” there is really no such thing 
as a science of statistics, and such a title is a misnomer altogether. And 
with regard to his theory that “ the laws which regulate the moral world 
are more uniform in their operation than those which govern the physical 
universe,” we must not forget, with respect to any number of particular 
events occurring within a specified time, that nine-tenths of them have been 
caused by individual free will, or man’s free action. Mr. Buckle, in his idea 
that suicides are not determined by the human will, seems to forget that 
three-fourths of them are occasioned probably by some wrong — “ the oppres- 
sor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,” that Shakespeare speaks of. So that 
even if you deny the operation of free will in the case of the suicide himself, 
you cannot deny it in the case of him who causes it. Then with regard to 
marriages, Mr. Buckle’s assertion that marriages are ruled by the price of 
corn is the very best proof of their depending upon human volition. What 
“ a living ” is to a clergyman, the low price of corn, or cheap food, is to the 
masses ; and it is most desirable that the masses should always act in the 
prudent w 7 ay that these statistics would seem to prove they generally do. 
I thank Mr. Bow very much for bringing forward this subject, because it 
really is by a right understanding of these great questions of human freedom 
that we can understand that God is not the author of evil, which the Positive 
philosophy would make Him, — only that it denies His existence altogether. 
Bev. Dr. Irons. — I must beg your indulgence for a moment, while I tell 
you a story connected with marriage statistics. An old gentleman of eighty 
married a girl of seventeen, and it led to most unhappy results, and even- 
tually to a case in the law courts. The late Judge Cresswell, who told me 
the story, (before whom the case was heard,) said in summing up that it 
too often happened that marriages contracted between January and May 
were most unfortunate. A day or two afterwards he received a letter from 
the secretary to a certain Statistical Society, asking him to furnish the society 
with the statistics upon which the statement was founded that marriages 
solemnized between the months of January and May were always so un- 
fortunate ! (Laughter.) While the learned judge was puzzled what to reply, 
he afterwards got another letter from the same gentleman, telling him 
he need not answer his inquiry, as he (the secretary) “ had been given to 
understand that his Lordship’s statement would admit of another interpre- 
tation than that which he had placed upon it.” (Laughter.) 
The Chairman. — I do not altogether agree with all that has fallen from 
Mr. Warington, although I go some way w r ith him. I cannot but believe that 
man has a freedom of will which especially applies to moral actions, where 
there is any need of conscience to sit as a judge between right and wrong. 
So far as I can understand the argument used by Mr. Bow in his paper, it 
is that man has as strong a proof of the freedom of his will as he has of his 
own existence — not of the existence of any other person, mind, but of his 
own existence. I want to know if I possess freedom of will. I say I do ; 
and to put an end to it, is to deprive me of my moral faculties, and of all 
choice between good and evil. A Scotch anecdote which I have heard per- 
tinently illustrates this question. A Presbyterian minister of strong Calvin- 
