SCIENCE AND MORALS : A REPLY. 497 



be dealt with " chemically," even in the best appointed " laboratory " ; 

 or where the balances and crucibles are kept by which the various 

 theories of the nature of the Basque language may be tested ; or what 

 reagents will extract the truth from any given history of Rome, and 

 leave the errors behind as a residual calx ? 



I really can not answer these questions, and unless Mr. Lilly can, 

 I think he would do well hereafter to think more than twice before 

 attributing such preposterous notions to his fellow-men, who, after all, 

 as a learned counsel said, are vertebrated animals. 



The whole thing perplexes me much ; and I am sure there must be 

 an explanation which will leave Mr. Lilly's reputation for common 

 sense and fair dealing untouched. Can it be — I put this forward quite 

 tentatively — that Mr. Lilly is the victim of a confusion, common 

 enough among thoughtless people, and into which he has fallen un- 

 awares ? Obviously, it is one thing to say that the logical methods of 

 physical science are of universal applicability, and quite another to 

 affirm that all subjects of thought lie within the province of physical 

 science. I have often declared my conviction that there is only one 

 method by which intellectual truth can be reached, whether the subject- 

 matter of investigation belongs to the world of physics or to the world 

 of consciousness ; and one of the arguments in favor of the use of 

 physical science as an instrument of education which I have oftenest 

 used is that, in my opinion, it exercises young minds in the apprecia- 

 tion of inductive evidence better than any other study. But while I 

 repeat my conviction that the physical sciences probably furnish the 

 best and most easily appreciable illustrations of the one and indivisible 

 mode of ascertaining truth by the use of reason, I beg leave to add 

 that I have never thought of suggesting that other branches of knowl- 

 edge may not afford the same discipline ; and assuredly I have never 

 given the slightest ground for the attribution to me of the ridiculous 

 contention that there is nothing true outside the bounds of physical 

 science. Doubtless people who wanted to say something damaging, 

 without too nice a regard to its truth or falsehood, have often enough 

 misrepresented my plain meaning. But Mr. Lilly is not one of these 

 folks, at whom one looks and passes by, and I can but sorrowfully 

 wonder at finding him in such company. 



So much for the three theses which Mr. Lilly has nailed on to a 

 page of this " Review." I think I have shown that the first is inaccurate, 

 that the second is inaccurate, and that the third is inaccurate ; and 

 that these three inaccurates constitute one prodigious, though I doubt 

 not unintentional, misrepresentation. If Mr. Lilly and I were dialectic 

 gladiators, fighting in the arena of the "Fortnightly," under the eye of 

 an editorial lanista, for the delectation of the public, my best tactics 

 would now be to leave the field of battle. For the question whether I 

 do, or do not, hold certain opinions is a matter of fact, with regard to 

 which my evidence is likely to be regarded as conclusive — at least until 

 vol. xxx. — 32 



