285 
sounds are conveyed to the brain, but is the brain acted upon by the inspira- 
tion of the soul ? — for I grant there is an endowment, — or is it enabled to 
look at material things itself being a spiritual element ? 
Dr. Haughton. — If the author of the paper were here, I would be glad to 
ask him whether he speaks his own sentiments or endeavours to convey to 
us those of the anthropologists whom he condemns ? In the second section 
I find this sentence : “ Nature, in man and animals, like everything in us 
and about us, is a chaos, without method.” That certainly surprises me very 
much, if it be intended as a statement of the author’s own views. 
The Chairman. — That is not intended for the author’s own opinion. 
In fact throughout the first two sections he alludes to the opinions of 
others. 
Dr. Haughton. — But there is a scientific question which bears some- 
what on the actual opinions held by Dr. Hitchman, upon which I have 
a word to say. If you look at the second section again, you will find that 
he says : “ Professor Huxley, like Dr. Carl Vogt, sneers at the idea 
of spirit or vitality, yet is ready enough to admit the existence of a 
‘ subtle influence ,’ even in the essential operations of protoplasm con- 
sidered as the physical basis of life and mind in animated nature.” 
Now, you will notice that here he makes the words “ spirit” and “vitality” 
interchangeable synonyms, and at the tenth section you 'vtfill see it stated — 
“ Even when the mental principle, which is certainly not of an exclusively 
material nature, has been divided and subdivided over and over again ” ; 
and then in another passage, — “ The truth is, mind in these lower animals 
is divisible, whether it be or be not identical with their vital principle.” 
Now, here you have spirit and vitality made synonymous in the second 
section, while in the tenth you have the mental principle, which I presume 
is in the lower animals the only spirit they can possibly possess, declared 
to be divisible over and over again. It is certainly a new thing to me 
that any kind of spirit is capable of being divided and subdivided; that 
is not my idea as regards spirit. I can understand matter being divisible, 
but I cannot understand this as being the case with spirit. The only 
way in which such a condition can be connected with mind is by sup- 
posing that the mind itself is the manifestation of material organization. 
If he takes that view (A Voice. — “That is his view apparently; 
mind and spirit with him appear to be different things.”) Well, he takes 
the view that the mind can be divided over and over again. That I must 
repeat is a thing which I cannot conceive. I can understand that the mental 
operations in the lower animals may be supposed to be dependent upon the 
physical organization, and that if the physical organization is divided, such 
mental operations as they may be supposed to have may be manifested in 
two or three different ways ; but how the mental can be “ divided,”— how 
spirit can be divided, — is a thing which I confess I cannot imagine. Nor do 
I admit that “ spirit ” is a word that should be used as synonymous with 
“ vitality. ’ I think that the idea in the author’s mind is the old notion of what 
was called the “ vital principle/’ by which everything going on in the body 
