conclusions, prefaced its dissent by such remarks as these: "Mr. Goldwin Smith is clearly master of a power of expression which has scarcely a rival amongst us. His language has a native strength and purity which rises not seldom into true poetry. He is, too, obviously possessed by real convictions and a genuine enthusiasm for moral greatness. These lectures have fine thoughts, stamped in noble words." The publication of these lectures roused a good deal of controversy. They attacked and ridiculed the theories of Mr. Buckle and the Positivists with reference to the feasibility of reducing history to a science. The Positivists rose en masse to repel the attack, and for some weeks the controversy was carried on with great energy and determination. It can hardly be said that the discussion was productive of any permanent benefit to mankind, or that the question was conclusively settled on either side. We all know the proverb about a man convinced against his will. It is difficult to see, indeed, how either of the parties to the controversy could possibly carry conviction to the mind of the other, for they were not even agreed as to preliminaries. The lecturer represented the theory of the Necessarians, with reference to moral statistics, to be that the human will is bound by a law compelling the same number of men to commit the same number of crimes within a certain cycle. The Necessarians scouted this exposition of their doctrines, and claimed that their true theory is that the same number of men with exactly the same characters, and in exactly the same circumstances, will commit the same number of crimes. "And," said they, "the value of the law is this—that as we can change the characters, we can in precisely the same proportion diminish the crime." The lecturer rejoined—"The cycle, curiously enough, coincides with the period of a year, which is naturally selected by the Registrar-General for his reports." "Truly, a rare bit of wit," was the response; "does the Professor suppose the law to be less true of a period often years or six months? Some limits for the observation must be taken. Why not tell us that the observation curiously enough coincides with the political division called France, or curiously enough applies only to murder and suicide?" "But," said the Professor, "these statistics tell us only the outward act; not its inward moral character." "Did they ever profess to tell us more?" asked the other side: "so far as history is concerned, that is all that is required." And so the controversy went on through column after column. It thus appeared that the contending parties were
