"Huxley makes no difference between dead and living and roasted matter, and he confuses together the living thing, the stuff upon which it feeds, and the things formed by it, or which result from its death. A muscle is protoplasm; nerve is protoplasm; a limb is protoplasm; the whole body is protoplasm, and of course bone, hair, shell, etc., are as much 'the physical basis of life' as albuminous matter and roast mutton. But surely it would be less incorrect to speak of such 'protoplasms' as the physical basis of death or the physical basis of roast than to call dead and roasted matter the physical basis of life. Huxley says lobster-protoplasm may be converted into human protoplasm, and the latter again turned into living lobster. But the statement is incorrect, because in the process of assimilation what was once 'protoplasm' is entirely disintegrated, and is not converted into the new tissue in the form of protoplasm at all; and I must remark that sheep cannot be transubstantiated into man, even by 'subtle influences,' nor can dead protoplasm be converted into living protoplasm, or a dead sheep into a living man. And what is gained by calling the matter of dead roast mutton and that of a living growing sheep by the same name? If the last is the physical basis of life, one does not see how the first can be so too, unless roast mutton and living sheep are identical." 1

Plain-speaking, this of Dr. Beale's; but its irresistible force is found in the well-earned celebrity of its author-" the foremost microscopist of the English-speaking world.” 2

1 Dr. Beale's "Protoplasm," ut sup., pp. 100, 101. 2 "Beale's protoplasmic theory now takes the place of the cell theory. General opinion is now in accord, as respects the facts, with Dr. Beale's statements on the

16. "It is significant that Huxley himself, some sixteen years ago, drew a distinction between living and non-living matter, which he now, without any explanation, utterly ignores. He remarked that the stone, the gas, the crystal, had an inertia, and tended to remain as they were unless some external influence affected them; but that living things were characterised by the very opposite tendencies. He referred

6

also to the faculty of pursuing their own course' and the 'inherent law of change in living beings.' In 1853, the same authority actually found fault with those who attempted to reduce life to mere attractions and repulsions,' and 'considered physiology simply as a complex branch of mere physics.' He also remarked that 'vitality is a property inherent in certain kinds of matter.'" Now, however, as we have seen, there is but one kind of matter, "variously modified;" and "vitality" has no better status than "aquosity!"

17. Nor is it less "significant" to note Mr. Huxley's various, though incidental admissions, and to contrast them with the dogmatism of his

nucleus in 1860." (Dr. John Drysdale: "Protoplasmic Theory of Life." London, 1874.)

1 Dr. Beale: ut sup., p. 101.

mere assertions. We look for certainty and find only probability: e.g.,-" It is more than probable that when the vegetable world is thoroughly explored we shall find all plants in possession of the same powers." The premises then have still to be collected; and yet the conclusion has been confidently proclaimed. Compare this

more than probable" vaticination concerning vegetables with the positive assertion "that the powers of ALL the different forms of living things were substantially one, that their forms were substantially one, and, finally, that their composition was also substantially one." Again, he says, "So far as the conditions of the manifestations of the phenomena of contractility have yet been studied." Now this "so far" is not "yet" by any means "very far." But what is meant by "the manifestations of the phenomena"? The manifestations are the phenomena! and they completely refute Mr. Huxley's latest theory. Again, we hear that it is "the rule rather than the exception," or that "weighty authorities have suggested" that such and such things "probably occur," or, while contemplating the nettle-sting, that such “possible complexity" in other cases dawns upon one." On other occasions he admits that 1 Scotsman, November 9, 1868.

"perhaps it would not yet be safe to say that all forms," etc. Nay, not only does he directly say that "it is by no means his intention to suggest that there is no difference between the lowest plant and the highest, or between plants and animals," but he directly proves what he says, for he demonstrates in plants and animals an essential difference of power. Plants can assimilate inorganic matters, animals not, etc.

can

18. "Mr. Huxley's ideas as to the composition of protoplasm have already been noticed, and it has been shown that they are clearly opposed to the known facts of science. Here a simple alternative presents itself; either Mr. Huxley is familiar with the elementary facts of organic chemistry, in which case he would be aware of the impossibility of such a composition; or he is not so, on which supposition it was at least indiscreet to found an important practical doctrine like that of human automatism on a purely fanciful chemical theory. Which alternative is to be adopted may perhaps receive some illustration from a parallel passage in the essay 'On the Formation of Coal,'1

1 "Critiques and Addresses," pp. 109, 110.

L

where, referring to the burning of coal, it is said:

"Heat comes out of it, light comes out of it, and if we could gather together all that goes up the chimney, and all that remains in the grate of a thoroughly-burnt coal-fire, we should find ourselves in possession of a quantity of carbonic acid, water, ammonia, and mineral matters, exactly equal in weight to the coal!'

"It requires but the most elementary acquaintance with the subject to recognise that the 'quantity' of these products would be at least twice, probably thrice, as great as the original weight of the coal. A due consideration and comparison of these facts will enable the reader to estimate at its true value the science from which such stupendous consequences are so confidently deduced."1

19. "How such doctrines came to be received can only be accounted for in Professor Huxley's own words when treating on some other antagonistic 'teaching,' which he says was only 'tolerable on account of the ignorance of those

by whom it was accepted.'

Referring to some

anatomical question, he says further that 'it would, in fact, be unworthy of serious refutation,

1 Dr. Elam: "Automatism and Evolution;" Contemporary Review, October, 1876, pp. 729, 730.