229 
(laughter) ; and as all that will appear in our Journal of Transactions, I will 
not elaborate it further. Mr. Row’s remarks in reference to the lachrymal 
duct and the evidences of design in the channel cut from the Alban Lake, are 
very valuable ; but in my paper you will find it stated that the argument 
from design is only useful to those who admit design, and is therefore useless 
against those who oppose design. I have tried to take the argument on 
a lower ground. Instead of Paley’s watch, I have taken the case of an 
inorganic piece of matter like a stone, and argued that as you cannot attri- 
bute its tendency downwards to itself, you must attribute it to some power 
analogous to that of our throwing a stone and making it move in a particular 
direction. As to what fell from Mr. Titcomb, I am sorry he was obliged to 
go away at an early period of the evening, but I told him before he went 
that I should notice one of his observations with which I could not agree, 
and which I am sure he will not maintain when he comes to reconsider it. I 
refer to his observation as to the necessary existence not of the Deity merely, 
but of the world with all that it contains. He quite admits with me that 
while the necessity for the existence of an eternal being is tenable, you 
cannot logically maintain the existence of more than one, and still less of a 
congeries of eternal principles all contradictory to one another, such as good 
and evil, matter and mind. I have Mr. Titcomb’s own authority for saying 
you cannot defend that. One must be eternal, and one only. Then I quite 
agree with what Mr. Wainwright said, and I disagree with what Mr. Tit- 
comb said as to mathematical proof of the existence of the Deity. Of 
course the proof is not mathematical, but it is quite as strong as any mathe- 
matical proof whatever ; and if Mr. Wainwright had only read the paper as 
he usually does, he would have found that I took up the position which Mr. 
Nichols, my disputant, required and really disposed of it. I think we might 
have been spared some of the arguments upon Darwinism, which really did 
not arise out of my paper at all ; but as to what fell from Mr. Brooke with 
reference to rarefaction, I am always ready to acknowledge it when I ain 
wrong, and I admit that on this point I fell into a blunder which I am 
obliged to him for having exposed. I knew, of course, that as the weather 
gets cold it does condense and make our humid air the reverse of rarefied ; 
but I always understood that in the dry regions of the air and near the poles 
air was rarefied by cold. But I suppose that view is only a popular 
error. As to the term “ attraction of cohesion,” I was not criticising the 
term from a scientific point of view, but only pointing out that those phrases 
did not throw much light on the question here argued about the immateriality 
of all those substances. When Mr. Brooke reads the argument again, I 
think he will find I am referring to our ideas on the subject. I had no 
intention of disputing the propriety of the term, and I have pointed out, in 
using the argument elsewhere, an illustration of the attraction of cohesion 
which is a very forcible one, by putting two smooth plates of glass together 
when you have an enormous attraction produced by the attraction of cohesion. 
I do not know any better experiment, but still I do not think it enlightens 
us very much. I quite agree with Mr. Wainwright as to not making conces- 
S 
