gour. I have a certain difficulty in speaking of
Manning's reply; because it has apparently come to be understood that we
are bound to pay insincere compliments to a good man's understanding
when he disagrees with our views. Now I am quite willing to admit that
Manning was a most amiable and well-meaning person; but I am unable to
consider him seriously as a reasoner. The spectacle which he presented
on this occasion, at least, was that of a fluent popular preacher,
clutched by a powerful logician, and put into a witness-box to be
thoroughly cross-examined. The one quality I can discover in his
articles is a certain dexterity in evading plain issues and covering
inconsistencies by cheap rhetoric. The best suggestion to be made on
his side would be that he was so weak an advocate that he could not do
justice to the argument.

The controversy with W. G. Ward was of different character. Ward, with
his usual courtesy to intellectual antagonists, had corresponded with
Fitzjames, in whose writings he was much interested. He now challenged
his opponent to republish a paper upon 'necessary truths,' which had
been read to the Metaphysical Society. Fitzjames accordingly reproduced
it with a comment, and Ward replied in the next number. Ward was
undoubtedly a man of much dialectical ability, and, I think, in some
directions more familiar than his opponent with metaphysical subtleties.
Fitzjames considered himself to have had the best of the argument, and
says that the 'Tablet' admitted his superiority. I presume, however,
that Ward would have returned the opposite verdict. I am the less
inclined to pronounce any opinion because I believe that most competent
people would now regard the whole discussion as turning upon a false
issue. In fact, it was the old question, so eagerly debated by J. S.
Mill and Ward, as to the existence of intuitions and 'necessary truths.'
Neither Mill's empiricism nor Ward's belief in intuitions 'in the sense
required' would, I fancy, be now regarded as satisfactory. I think that
Fitzjames was greatly superior in vigour of expression; but the argument
is not one to be answered by a single Yes or No.

I cannot even touch such controversies here. My only desire is to
indicate Fitzjames's intellectual attitude. It is sufficiently manifest
in these articles. He argues that Ward's position is really suicidal.
Certain things are pronounced by Ward to be impossible even for
Omnipotence--as, for example, to make