Since it is evident that, even if it were, my proposition that "_x_P entails _x_Q" does _not_ follow from "_x_P * _x_Q," would still be true; and hence also my contention that (2) does not follow from (1). So much by way of arguing that we are not bound to hold that all relational properties are internal in the particular sense, with which we are now concerned, in which to say that they are means that in every case in which a thing A has a relational property, it follows from the proposition that a term has _not_ got that property that the term in question is _other_ than A. But I have gone further and asserted that some relational properties certainly are _not_ internal. And in defence of this proposition I do not know that I have anything to say but that it seems to me evident in many cases that a term which _has_ a certain relational property _might_ quite well not have had it: that, for instance, from the mere proposition that this is this, it by no means follows that this has to other things all the relations which it in fact has. Everybody, of course, must admit that if all the propositions which assert of it that it has these properties, do in fact follow from the proposition that this is this, we cannot see that they do. And so far as I can see, there is no reason of any kind for asserting that they do, except the confusion which I have exposed. But it seems to me further that we can see in many cases that the proposition that this has that relation does _not_ follow from the fact that it is this: that, for instance, the proposition that Edward VII was father of George V _is_ a _mere_ matter of fact.