The universal belief of the 'tyrannicidium' of Julius Caesar is doubtless a fairer instance, but the whole mode of argument is unsound and unsatisfying.

Why run off from the fact in question, or the class at least to which it belongs?
The victory can be but accidental--a victory obtained by the unguarded logic, or want of logical foresight of the antagonist, who needs only narrow his positions to narrations of facts and events, in our judgment of which we are not aided by the analogy of previous and succeeding experience, to deprive you of the opportunity of skirmishing thus on No Man's land.

But this is Skelton's ruling passion, sometimes his strength--too often his weakness.

He must force the reader to believe: or rather he has an antagonist, a wilful infidel or heretic always and exclusively before his imagination; or if he thinks of the reader at all, it is as of a partizan enjoying every hard thump, and smashing 'fister' he gives the adversary, whom Skelton hates too cordially to endure to obtain any thing from him with his own liking.

No! It must be against his will, and in spite of it.