321 
ME. MORSHEAD'S REPLY. 
I have read carefully through the foregoing discussion without being able 
to discover that any of the points raised in my paper have been touched. 
In reply to Mr. Row I may remark that the words “ reason ” and “ intel- 
ligence ” are used interchangeably by that careful writer Dugald Stewart. 
I have not, however, used these terms quite synonymously, but have em- 
ployed them in their ordinarily accepted meanings. I have not, as a matter 
of fact, used the terms u reason ” and “ reasoning ” convertibly : — the ex- 
pression used in the fourteenth section of my paper is “ power of reason- 
ing,” and it is surely unnecessary for me to state that, under any circum- 
stances, <k reasoning ” does not always mean 11 argument,” and that when 
I deny brutes the power of reasoning I do not mean to say that they are 
unable to argue. I am of course unable to say whether what 1 call u natural 
sagacity ” may, or may not, include a large share of what Mr. Row calls 
w reason.” As to the statement that I have “ confounded reason, intelligence, 
and other attributes,” I should perhaps have more fully apprehended the 
extent of the confusion if Mr. Row had given a definition of the difference 
which he holds to exist between reason and intelligence. 
With regard to the Chairman’s remarks on my paper, — “ that it comes to 
no conclusion ; ” that il there has been no real comparison instituted between 
the “ psychology of the brute and of man and that “ we have had no 
definition of instinct,” — I can merely say that the “ conclusion” of my paper 
is distinctly stated in the six opening lines thereof, and that my view of 
instinct is clearly laid down both in the present and my former paper. If 
the Chairman had any objection to my definition, I regret he did not explain 
that objection. The comparison between the psychology of the brute and 
man runs through every paragraph of my paper, the object of which is to 
show that all the actions of the brute may be referred to an instinctive 
source (third section) : and I did not think it incumbent upon me to show 
that all the actions of man do not proceed from an instinctive source. This 
view is held practically at least — by the Fatalists, with whom I purpose 
dealing in a future paper. 
I beg to express my thanks to the Rev. J. B. Owen for his explanation of 
the sense in which I employed the term “ automatic.” 
I cannot but think that the value of the discussion would have been 
enhanced had my paper been sent beforehand to those likely to join in 
the debate, for then they would not have been under the disadvantage of 
discussing the paper unprepared* 
By a new arrangement, in force since the beginning of this year, 1871, 
copies of the papers to be discussed are distributed a week before- 
hand. — E d. 
VOL. V. 2 C 
