undertook to show that Secularism was sufficient for the well

being of mankind. I heard his opening statement, and a portion of Dr. Sexton's reply. Mr. Watts's definition of Secularism struck me as a little singular. I have heard him lecture a great deal at different times, but I never heard him speak of Secularism in a manner at all corresponding to that in which he spoke of it at Newcastle. There is almost as great a contrast between Mr. Watts as a lecturer and Mr. Watts as a debater as there is between Secularism in theory and Secularism in practice. It was almost impossible to take exception to his delineation of his pet system, it was so very finely drawn. Dr. Sexton, however, very wisely, as I thought, refused to be bound by definitions which defined nothing. In a case of speculative doppelganger it is better to get at the real body of opinion than at the mere hollow and simulative body. And so Dr. Sexton combated the Secularism that he knew, and not that species of it which he had probably just heard of for the first time. I do not wish to be understood as accusing Mr. Watts of any concealment or want of honesty, but I think he is inclined to be a little more guarded in statement when debating before an audience which he does not know, than he is before an audience with whose feeling he is perfectly acquainted. One began to think, while listening to his speech, that Secularism had a sort of copyright in science, and that its morality was entered at Stationers' Hall. You might have imagined that it was the habit of a Secularist to carry all the sources of scientific knowledge in his hat, and the solar system in his waistcoat pocket. Equally, you might have thought that a Secularist was so very moral a person that he couldn't sneeze for fear of infringing some imaginary moral law. It was a little surprising after this, to hear Mr. Watts ask Dr. Sexton whether he really thought that a Secularist could be a moral man. It was still more surprising to hear him admit during the second night's debate, that morality had no absolute existence, but might, and indeed did, change from age to age, just like the fashions in hats and periwigs.

Dr. Sexton opened the debate on the second evening, and he showed that so far as science was concerned, neither Christians nor Secularists had an exclusive right to it; that so far as morality was concerned, that also was a thing independent of speculative opinion; and that so far as intelligible system was concerned, Secularism was a mere chaos of contradictions. Incidentally, he showed how much the professions of Secularists were in excess of their performances. They had done nothing in science; they had made no new discoveries in morality; and as to practical work, they had not established a single Sunday School, nor hit on any organised method of improving the con

dition of the people. I think the most partial person would scarcely have called Mr. Watts's reply conclusive; and it was sometimes bitterly personal. For instance, he accused his opponent of teaching Secularism when he did not believe in, or at any rate, understand it. Then he went further than this, and accused Dr. Sexton of using every means to become the President of the Secular Society -an accusation which called forth a reply from the Doctor, and such a storm of disapprobation from the audience as made Mr. Watts for some time inaudible. Yet he displayed much dexterity in avoiding difficulties, and showed that, however deficient he may be as a reasoner, he is undoubtedly an effective debater.

I was present during the whole of the second night's discussion, but only for about an hour on each of the two concluding evenings. On Monday, the 10th of April, I was riding up from North Shields to Newcastle, and I found myself in company with two men who occupied almost the whole of the journey in discussing the debate. Their knowledge of such matters dated back to a remote period, and they spoke quite familiarly of the debate between "Joe Barker" and Dr. Cooke. Then came a comparison of Dr. Sexton and Mr. Watts with these debaters of a former day, and some references to most of the gentlemen who have debated in the North of England since. The impression of these men seemed to be that Mr. Watts was ૧. canny speaker," but that he was unequally matched against Dr. Sexton. This seemed to be the impression of a large portion of the four nights' audience, although it is only fair to state that a number of persons were of opinion that Mr. Watts came off victorious. "He's 'nihilated him the neet," one man exclaimed repeatedly, as he left the room after the third night's discussion. My own opinion was the reverse of this. The speech which was supposed to have "'nihilated" Dr. Sexton was a loud and violent declamation on the persecutions of Christianity. It did not so much as touch on anything which had gone before; but it was the last speech of the evening, and it gave Mr. Watts an opportunity of doing what is vulgarly known as "launching out." Violent declamation must always be effective in debate, but one would suppose that a person with Mr. Watts's opinions would avoid it. He has such a lordly contempt of the emotions, and is addicted to such an idolising estimate of the majesty and power of the intellect! One would suppose, if one could judge his opinions apart from the manner in which they are expressed, that a Christian is all emotion, and a Secularist all intelligence. Yet Mr. Watts is nothing if he is not emotional, and he never maintains merely the average coolness for a space of two minutes and a half. At the beginning of the speech of which I am now writing, he

unctuously expressed pity for Dr. Sexton. He did not think that he had fallen so low as to prostrate his heart and his intellect before the idol of a mere superstition. Here was a pretty thing to be said by a gentleman who was continually professing a warm attachment to his opponent! Why does Mr. Watts so infelicitiously copy the manner of Mr. Job Trotter? There is a sense of fairness in a Newcastle audience, and people here don't care for Job Trotterisms. They laughed ironically at Mr. Watts when he began speaking in this style, and I observed that he was much less personal afterwards.

I find it very difficult to leave Mr. Watts's peculiarities. In speaking of the persecutions of opposing Christian sects, he said that they were the legacy left by the "unique Jesus." I heard him make use of this same phrase at Manchester some years ago, and I thought it was very happy at the time. But a good thing stales with repetition, and Mr. Watts repeated this phrase so often, that I was irresistibly reminded of a story which Oliver Wendell Holmes tells about a lecturer who went out to tea. The lady of the house spoke to him about his perpetual wanderings from place to place, and in reply, he compared himself to the Huma, a bird remarkable for its travelling propensities. Years afterwards the lecturer went to the same house, the same speech was made about his travels from place to place, and it evoked precisely the same comparison.

During the last evening of the debate the discussion turned very much on the moral teachings of Christianity. When I entered the room Mr. Watts was quoting from Gregory and Smith -two of his favourite authors, by the way, for we had Gregory and then Smith, Smith and then Gregory, every evening, ad lib. He seemed to have grown weary of the discussion: a man close to my elbow said that he was "used up," for he concluded his speech before he had exhausted his time, and Dr. Sexton had to complain that he had given him nothing to which to reply. There had, however, in a previous part of the debate been some references to Confucius and the philosophers of Greece and Rome. Mr. Watts had contended that Christ made no new discoveries in morals, and that all his distinctive teachings might be found in the works of philosophers who had preceded him. He even went so far as to assert that the moral doctrines of Christianity were the same as those of the Essenes, and he seemed to be ignorant of the fact that there is very strong reason to suppose that the Essenes were merely secret societies of early Christians. Dr. Sexton, I think, knows a great deal more about the heathen philosophers than Mr. Watts, and he quoted from Homer, Hesiod, and succeeding poets and philosophers, to show what the moral teachings of these people really were.

The exposition was very damaging to Mr. Watts's side of the argument, and because it did not admit of a reply, he declared it to be unfair. His last speech was an address to the audience, and had very little to do with the matter in dispute. It was, in fact, an appeal to those emotions which Mr. Watts so curiously despises. A great deal of it was very manly in tone, though the effect of the manliness was spoiled by an affectation of pity for his opponent. Mr. Watts said he did not wish any person in the audience to espouse one side or the other because of what had been said in the debate; he wished to make them think for themselves. In the end, of course, they would come to his own very reasonable way of thinking. He re-affirmed his friendly sentiments towards Dr. Sexton, and only regretted that he did not see out of his (Mr. Watts's) eyes. This ingenuous assumption of superior intelligence also called forth an ironical laugh from the audience; but Mr. Watts sat down amidst a very hearty round of applause. Dr. Sexton concluded the debate by a speech, in which he referred to several unsettled points, and reciprocated Mr. Watts's friendly sentiments. He was repeatedly applauded throughout, and when he concluded he was vociferously cheered.

The audience seemed to be perfectly satisfied with the course which the debate had taken, but it appeared to have made no change in the sentiments of those who were present. Dr Sexton was so heartily received in Newcastle, that he will no doubt be encouraged to pay it another visit before any long time has elapsed.

AARON WATSON.

ON THE DECEASE OF A DEAR GRANDCHILD.

September, 1874. Aged six months.

Being the third son; the former two having had a much briefer span of earth-life.

Too fragile for earth, he has fled!
O say not, "the loved one is dead:"
He has gone to the light.
In earth's murky shadows immured
He six months, all patient, endured,
Ere taking his flight.

Friends lovingly sought to detain
Their darling below, but in vain;
Say not they were wrong:
But beckoning angels, all fair,
And two of his brothers o'er there-
Attractions so strong-

O'ercoming the trammels of earth,
Have led to his heavenly birth

In the land of the blest.
No pain, grief, or sickness can now
O'ershadow his infantile brow,

Where he is at rest.

Let's think of the measureless bliss
And unalloyed joys that are his,

In yon happy spheres;
Then shall we rejoice at his gain,
And, ceasing from sorrow and pain,
Dry up our fond tears.

E. S.

OCCASIONAL LEAVES FROM MY NOTE BOOK.

in

THE greater part of my time since the last chapter of these Notes appeared has been spent away from home. I have had a three week's lecturing tour in the Provinces, which involved a considerable amount of travelling, and the delivery of a larger number of lectures than is usually crowded into that short space of time. The details connected with some of these will, I have no doubt, prove interesting. Before leaving home, however, addition to my usual Sunday Services, I gave two lectures on Spiritualism in the neighbourhood of London, one at Brixton, on the 16th of March, and the other at Finchley on the 20th. The first of these was given under the auspices of the Brixton Psychological Society, and was on the "Philosophy of Spiritualism, with Criticism of Adverse Theories invented to account for the Phenomena," and the other was mainly brought about by the active exertions of Mr. Everitt and Mr. Dawson Rogers, both of whom reside in the neighbourhood, and was entitled "Where are the Dead? Is it possible to hold Converse with the Departed?" Both lectures were tolerably well attended and created a great amount of interest. Especially was this the case with the latter one, a large audience having assembled, all of whom appeared much interested in what I had to say. As this was the first lecture on the subject of Spiritualism that had ever been given in the neighbourhood, it promises well for the future, and I have no doubt that a second lecture would prove even more attractive than the last, as the interest of the people is now fairly excited in this great question.

On Friday, March 31st, I left London by the Midland train for Derby, where I had been announced to lecture that evening on "How I became converted from Scepticism to Spiritualism." On reaching my destination I found that a considerable amount of interest was being felt in the subject, and_that_there was every prospect of a very successful meeting. I made my way to Mr. Adshead's, in Victoria Street, and here met Mr. and Mrs. Vernon, of Fole Mills, and some other friends. The chair had been announced to be taken by the Rev. C. Badland, M.A., the Unitarian minister of the town. This gentleman I also met at tea at Mr. Adshead's, and I spent with him pleasant afternoon in conversing upon various topics of interest. I learned from Mr. Adshead that amongst the numerous persons who had applied for tickets for the evening lecture was the proprietor of a ladies' school, who was desirous of securing admission for the whole of her pupils. I think this circumstance is quite new in the experience of lecturers on Spiritualism. I may remark that