It followed from the composition of the society that the papers read were less commonly upon technical questions of metaphysics, such as “Matter and Force” or “The Relation of Will to Thought,” than upon those of more vivid moral or religious interest, such as “What is Death?” “The Theory of a Soul,” “The Ethics of Belief,” or “Is God Unknowable,” in which wide scope was given to the emotions as well as the intellect of each disputant.

The method of the Society was for the paper to be printed and circulated among the members before the meeting, so that their main criticisms were ready in advance.  The discussions took place after a dinner at which many of the members would appear; and if the more formal debates were not more effectual than predicted by J.S.  Mill, the informal discussions, almost conversations, at smaller meetings, and the free course of talk at the dinner table, did something to realise the primary objects of the society.  The personal rapprochement took place, but not philosophic compromise or conversion.  Whether or not the tone adopted after this period by the clerical party at large was affected by the better understanding on the part of their representatives in the Metaphysical Society of the true aims of their opponents and the honest and substantial difficulties which stood in the way of reunion, it is true that the violent denunciations of the sixties decreased in number and intensity; the right to free expression of reasoned opinion on serious fact was tacitly acknowledged; and, being less attacked, Huxley himself began to be regarded in the light of a teacher rather than an iconoclast.  The question began to be not whether such opinions are wicked, but whether from the point of view of scientific method they are irrefragably true.

The net philosophical result of the society’s work was to distinguish the essential and the unessential differences between the opposite parties; the latter were to a great extent cleared up; but the former remained all the more clearly defined in logical nakedness for the removal of the side issues and the personal idiosyncrasies which often obscured the main issues.  Indeed, when this point was reached by both parties, when the origins and consequences of the fundamental principles on either side had been fully discussed and mutual misunderstandings removed to the utmost, so that only the fundamentals themselves remained in debate, there was nothing left to be done.  The society, in fact, as Huxley expressed it,] “died of too much love.”

[Indeed, it is to be noticed that, despite the strong antagonism of principle and deductions from principle which existed among the members, the rule of mutual toleration was well kept.  The state of feeling after ten years’ open struggle seemed likely to produce active collision between representatives of the opposing schools at close quarters.] “We all thought it would be a case of Kilkenny cats,” [said Huxley many years afterwards.] “Hats and