MENTAL AND MORAL SCIENCE MANUAL.”

285

logical abstract in the Mental and Moral Science treatise. The specific object contemplated by the paper was ever present with me in all succeeding work.

In the beginning of January, Robertson left for London, and, on the 8th, gave his inaugural address at University College.

Going myself to London in May, I delivered, at the Royal Institution, on the 18th, a Friday evening lecture, "On the Correlation of Force in Relation to Mind,"-printed in Macmillan, in September. At the lecture were present, among others, Sir William Grove, Herbert Spencer, and Dr. Frankland. The interest of the lecture was partly physical, and partly psychological. On the physical side, was promulgated for the first time the distinction of Molar and Molecular in the enumeration of the correlated forces. The designation "molar," as representing the mechanical forces, was given to me in private conversation by Graham; and I made use of it on all occasions when these forces had to be classified. Its appropriateness was at once perceived by Herbert Spencer; and it was henceforth adopted in his own expository handling of the forces. Wishing to give me the credit of the suggestion, he asked me if I claimed the authorship,— which I could not do.

On the psychological side, the question was

raised as to the precise mode of including mind with the correlated forces. The thorough-going alliance of mind and nerve being assumed, and its being understood that nerve force was a member of the correlated group, and, further, that nerve-action might or might not be accompanied with consciousness, the point was: Did consciousness, as such, involve a definite expenditure of the force? The question is one proper to be put in reference to the relation of mind and body, but is, to all appearance, insoluble. It was afterwards discussed in my article in Mind, entitled "Mind and Body," relative to Mr. Malcolm Guthrie's On Mr. Spencer's Unification of Knowledge (vol. viii., p. 402).

This year, the Government appointed a Royal Commission on the supply of water to the metropolis. As Clark was both unable and disinclined to offer himself as a witness, I volunteered to the Duke of Richmond to appear before the Commission and state what I knew on the subject. It was entirely a work of supererogation; but I received an invitation, and appeared on the 29th of May. Partly from my experience at the Board of Health, which gave me a complete knowledge of the Board's futile Bagshot scheme, and partly from my long intimacy with Clark, I was able to make out a case for volunteering as I did to instruct the Commission. By this time, however, Clark had lost all

LECTURE ON CORRELATION OF FORCE AND MIND. 287

personal interest in the success of his purifying process. Not only the original patent of fourteen years, but the renewal for other seven years, was now exhausted.

The last service that Clark was able to render to myself was in settling the title of the volume now in progress. Several forms had been discussed between us, and, at last, we came to the title actually employed, which has been generally accepted as peculiarly suitable. The combination Mental and Moral Science was occasionally adopted by the Civil Service Commission for the range of topics covered by the work.

Winter Session, 1867-68, and Recess following.

In November, 1867, I read a paper at the Philosophical Society on "The Retentive Power of the Mind with Reference to Education," the first of the papers prepared in anticipation of the volume on Education as a Science.

On the 21st of November of this year, Thomas Clark died. I had had communications with him on various matters besides the title already referred to, and was not prepared for his passing away so speedily. I had occasion to prepare a sketch of his life for the Chemical Society,-which was afterwards read before the Aberdeen Philosophical Society, and printed in the Transactions of that body.

In the end of 1867, I had had my attention directed to James Mill's early life by some researches of Masson into the College records where his name appeared. I communicated the circumstances to John Mill; but he declined to entertain them, as shown in the letter reproduced in the actual biography.

In the month of April, 1868, occurred the publication of Mental and Moral Science. In May, I went to London, and delivered the second course of lectures at the Royal Institution, on "Common Errors on the Mind"; use being made of the paper on the subject which I had read at the Philosophical Society. The scope of the course is shown by its appearance in part in the Fortnightly Review, and, ultimately, in Practical Essays.

The work of the summer included the contributions to the new edition of James Mill's Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind, and also the revision of the Senses for a third edition.

As to the Senses, the preface indicates the more important amendments; among these being the classification of Reflex Acts obtained from the recent Physiological work of Vulpian, to which, as yet, no material improvement has been suggested. It was to this edition that Grote contributed his Analysis of the De Animâ of Aristotle. This was founded on a request that he would furnish me with a brief sketch of Aristotle's treatment of psychology proper; but, on sitting down to the work, he could not refrain from an exhaustive review of the whole treatise. This was not required for my

FURTHER WORK IN PSYCHOLOGY.

289

purpose, and was somewhat out of proportion; but he felt that he might not again be able to overtake this portion of the Aristotelian writings, on which he had been already occupied for five or six years, and it would ultimately find a place in the final result of his labours. point of fact, it was reprinted in the posthumous work on Aristotle brought out the year after his death. It was, consequently, dropped from the fourth edition of The Senses and the Intellect.

In

The following abstract comprises an account of the part taken by me in the new edition of James Mill's Analysis :

J. S. Mill having undertaken a thorough revision of his father's Analysis, I took part in a number of leading topics; he at the same time giving his own views on the several points. My first annotations related to James Mill's handling of the several Senses, both as to the order and as to the doctrines connected with each; being much the same as had already been embodied in my other volumes. So with Mill's chapter on the Idea, considered as a product, result, or trace of sensation. The burning question of Sense-Evolution was handled in part, but chiefly with reference to the supposed growth in the individual lifetime. Mill's great deficiency of view in respect to the laws of Association, which had already been animadverted upon by Hamilton, had to be met by showing the independent standing of the law of similarity.

James Mill's chapter on Consciousness led to critical remarks upon the proper use of the term both by John Mill and by myself. Nevertheless, the handling came short of the niceties of the case, chiefly from the extremely wayward employment of consciousness as a leading term. The mistake was made of regarding the word as co-extensive with mind as a whole. This I endeavoured to show