ll,
and W. K. Clifford of a scientific agnosticism; Mr. Frederic Harrison of
Positivism; and Dr. Martineau, Mr. Ruskin, Mr. R. H. Hutton, of various
shades of rational theology. There were others, such as Mark Pattison
and Professor Henry Sidgwick, whom I should shrink from putting into any
definite class. Mr. Gladstone, Lord Selborne, and Fitzjames may perhaps
be described as intelligent amateurs, who, though occupied with more
practical matters, were keenly interested in philosophical speculations.
These names are enough to show that there was no lack of debating
talent.

Fitzjames took the liveliest interest in these discussions, to which at
various times he contributed papers upon 'necessary truths,'
'mysteries,' the 'proof of miracles,' the 'effect upon morality of a
decline in religious faith,' and the 'utility of truth.' He enjoyed some
vigorous encounters with various opponents: and according to Mr. Hutton
his 'mighty bass' exercised 'a sort of physical authority' over his
hearers. The meetings were of course strictly private; and reports of
the debates, had reports been possible, would have been a breach of
confidence. Yet as the Society has excited a certain interest, I will
venture to record part of my impressions. I was not a member of the
Society in its early, and, as I take it, most flourishing days; and I
only once, for example, heard a few words from W. G. Ward, who was then
one of the more conspicuous interlocutors. But I had the honour of
membership at a later period, and formed a certain estimate of the
performances.

I remarked, in the first place, what was not strange, that nobody's
preconceived opinions were changed, nor even, so far as I know, in the
smallest degree affected by the discussions. Nor were they calculated to
affect any serious opinions. Had any young gentleman been present who
had sat at the feet of T. H. Green or of Professor Sidgwick, and gained
a first class at either University, he would, as I always felt, have
remarked that the debaters did not know what they were talking about. So
far as the discussions were properly metaphysical, the remark would have
been more than plausible. With certain conspicuous exceptions, which I
shall not specify, it was abundantly clear that the talk was the talk of
amateurs, not of specialists. I do not speak from conjecture when I say,
for example, that certain eminent members of the Society had obviously
never passed that 'asses' bridge' of Engl