coats would be left in the hall, but there would be no owners left to put them on again.” [But only one flash of the sort was elicited.  One of the speakers at an early meeting insisted on the necessity of avoiding anything like moral disapprobation in the debates.  There was a pause; then W.G.  Ward said:  “While acquiescing in this condition as a general rule, I think it cannot be expected that Christian thinkers shall give no sign of the horror with which they would view the spread of such extreme opinions as those advocated by Mr. Huxley.”  Another pause; then Huxley, thus challenged, replied:  “As Dr. Ward has spoken, I must in fairness say that it will be very difficult for me to conceal my feeling as to the intellectual degradation which would come of the general acceptance of such views as Dr. Ward holds.”  ("Life of W.G.  Ward” by Wilfrid Ward page 309.)

No amount of argument could have been more effectual in supporting the claim for mutual toleration than those two speeches, and thenceforward such forms of criticism were conspicuous by their absence.  And where honesty of conviction was patent, mutual toleration was often replaced by personal esteem and regard.  “Charity, brotherly love,” writes Huxley, “were the chief traits of the Society.  We all expended so much charity, that, had it been money, we should every one have been bankrupt.”

The special part played in the society by Huxley was to show that many of the axioms of current speculation are far from being axiomatic, and that dogmatic assertion on some of the cardinal points of metaphysic is unwarranted by the evidence of fact.  To find these seeming axioms set aside as unproven, was, it appears from his “Life,” disconcerting to such members of the society as Cardinal Manning, whose arguments depended on the unquestioned acceptance of them.  It was no doubt the observation of a similar attitude of mind in Mr. Gladstone towards metaphysical problems which provoked Huxley to reply, when asked whether Mr. Gladstone was an expert metaphysician—­“An expert in metaphysics?  He does not know the meaning of the word.”

In addition to his share in the discussions, Huxley contributed three papers to the society.  The first, read November 17, 1869, was on “The views of Hume, Kant, and Whately on the logical basis of the doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul,” showing that these thinkers agreed in holding that no such basis is given by reasoning, a part, for instance, from revelation.  A summary of the argument appears in the essay on Hume ("Collected Essays” 6 201 sq.)

On November 8, 1870, he read a paper, “Has a Frog a Soul? and if so, of what Nature is that Soul?” Experiment shows that a frog deprived of consciousness and volition by the removal of the front part of its brain, will, under the action of various stimuli, perform many acts which can only be called purposive, such as moving to recover its balance when the board on which it stands is inclined, or scratching where it