opponent, he draws himself up, looks sternly at the objector, and then says the very same thing as before, only with a louder voice and more confident manner. He becomes more intensely and enthusiastically positive, by way of making up for the interruption, of braving the confutation, and of showing the world that nothing whatever in the universe will ever make him think one hair-breadth more favourably than he does think, than he ever has thought, and than his family ever thought before him. About our state of mind, our views of things, our ends and objects, our doctrines, our defence of them, he absolutely refuses to be enlightened.... The most overwhelming refutations of the calumnies brought against us do us no good at all. We were tempted, perhaps, to say to ourselves, 'What _will_ they have to say in answer to this? Now at last the falsehood is put down for ever, it will never show its face again.' Vain hope! Such is the virtue of prejudice--it is ever reproductive; future story-tellers and wonder-mongers, as yet unknown to fame, are below the horizon, and will unfold their tale of horror, each in his day, in long succession." ... "Perhaps it is wrong to compare sin with sin, but I declare to you, the more I think of it, the more intimately does this Prejudice seem to me to corrupt the soul, even beyond those sins which are commonly called more deadly. And why? because it argues so astonishing a want of mere natural charity or love of our kind. They can be considerate in all matters of this life, friendly in social intercourse, charitable to the poor and outcast, merciful towards criminals, nay, kind towards the inferior creation, towards their cows, and horses, and swine; yet, as regards us, who bear the same form, speak the same tongue, breathe the same air, and walk the same streets, ruthless, relentless, believing ill of us, and wishing to believe it. They are tenacious of what they believe, they are impatient of being argued with, they are angry at being contradicted, they are disappointed when a point is cleared up; they had rather that _we_ should be guilty than _they_ mistaken; they have no wish at all we should not be unprincipled rogues and bloodthirsty demons. They are kinder even to their dogs and their cats than to us. Is it not true? can it be denied? is it not portentous? does it not argue an incompleteness or hiatus in the very structure of their moral nature? has not something, in their case, dropped out of the list of natural qualities proper to man?" * * * * *