On Compromise

The essay examines the moral and practical limits of accommodation in thought and conduct, distinguishing three forms—suspension of opinion, restraint of expression, and postponement of action—and offering principles to judge when each is defensible. It scrutinizes common arguments for tolerating error, analyses the influence of political temper, historical method, the press, and religious conformity on public honesty, and weighs the duties of intellectual responsibility against convenience or popularity. The author argues for candid conviction combined with social patience, warns against self-deception and intellectual opportunism, and proposes tests to distinguish prudent compromise from dishonest or harmful capitulation.