But I do dimly discern, in the latter moiety of this mysterious paragraph, a reproof of that use of “the extremest weapons of controversy” which is attributed to me.  Upon which I have to observe that I guide myself, in such matters, very much by the maxim of a great statesman, “Do ut des.”  If Mr. Gladstone objects to the employment of such weapons of defence, he would do well to abstain from them in attack.  He should not frame charges which he has, afterwards, to admit are erroneous, in language of carefully calculated offensiveness ("Impregnable Rock,” pp. 269-70); he should not assume that persons with whom he disagrees are so recklessly unconscientious as to evade the trouble of inquiring what has been said or known about a grave question ("Impregnable Rock,” p. 273); he should not qualify the results of careful thought as “hand-over-head reasoning” ("Impregnable Rock,” p. 274); he should not, as in the extraordinary propositions which I have just analysed, make assertions respecting his opponent’s position and arguments which are contradicted by the plainest facts.

Persons who, like myself, have spent their lives outside the political world, yet take a mild and philosophical concern in what goes on in it, often find it difficult to understand what our neighbours call the psychological moment of this or that party leader, and are, occasionally, loth to believe in the seeming conditions of certain kinds of success.  And when some chieftain, famous in political warfare, adventures into the region of letters or of science, in full confidence that the methods which have brought fame and honour in his own province will answer there, he is apt to forget that he will be judged by these people, on whom rhetorical artifices have long ceased to take effect; and to whom mere dexterity in putting together cleverly ambiguous phrases, and even the great art of offensive misrepresentation, are unspeakably wearisome.  And, if that weariness finds its expression in sarcasm, the offender really has no right to cry out.  Assuredly ridicule is no test of truth, but it is the righteous meed of some kinds of error.  Nor ought the attempt to confound the expression of a revolted sense of fair dealing with arrogant impatience of contradiction, to restrain those to whom “the extreme weapons of controversy” come handy from using them.  The function of police in the intellectual, if not in the civil, economy may sometimes be legitimately discharged by volunteers.

* * * * *

Some time ago in one of the many criticisms with which I am favoured, I met with the remark that, at our time of life, Mr. Gladstone and I might be better occupied than in fighting over the Gadarene pigs.  And, if these too famous swine were the only parties to the suit, I, for my part, should fully admit the justice of the rebuke.  But, under the beneficent rule of the Court of Chancery, in former times, it was not uncommon, that a quarrel about a few perches of worthless land, ended in the ruin of ancient families and the engulfing of great estates; and I think that our admonisher failed to observe the analogy—­to note the momentous consequences of the judgment which may be awarded in the present apparently insignificant action in re the swineherds of Gadara.