of idealism, where nothing grows but the
dependent and transitory productions of a delusive and constantly shifting
consciousness.

But is there no other way in which the question can be resolved? We think
that there is. In the following demonstration, we think that we can
vindicate the objective reality of things--(a vindication which, we would
remark by the way is of no value whatever, in so far as that objective
reality is concerned, but only as being instrumental to the ascertainment
of the laws which regulate the whole process of sensation;)--we think that
we can accomplish this, without, on the one hand, forcing consciousness to
overstep itself, and on the other hand, without reducing that reality to
the delusive impressions of an understanding born but to deceive. Whatever
the defects of our proposed demonstration may be, we flatter ourselves
that the dilemma just noticed as so fatal to every other solution, will be
utterly powerless when brought to bear against it: and we conceive, that
the point of a third alternative must be sharpened by the controversialist
who would bring us to the dust. It is a new argument, and will require a
new answer. We moreover pledge ourselves, that abstruse as the subject is,
both the question, and our attempted solution of it, shall be presented to
the reader in such a shape as shall _compel_ him to understand them.

Our pioneer shall be a very plain and palpable illustration. Let A be a
circle, containing within it X Y Z.

[Illustration]

X Y and Z lie within the circle; and the question is, by what art or
artifice--we might almost say by what sorcery--can they be transplanted
out of it, without at the same time being made to overpass the limits of
the sphere? There are just four conceivable answers to this
question--answers illustrative of three great schools of philosophy, and
of a fourth which is now fighting for existence.

1. One man will meet the difficulty boldly, and say--"X Y and Z certainly
lie within the circle, but I believe they lie without it. _How_ this
should be, I know not. I merely state what I conceive to be the fact. The
_modus operandi_ is beyond my comprehension." This man's answer is
contradictory, and will never do.

2. Another man will deny the possibility of the transference--"X Y and Z,"
he will say, "are generated within the circle in obedience to its own laws.
They form part and parcel of the sphere; and every endeavour to regard
them as endowed