’It is not that Sir W. Hamilton’s erudition is not frequently of real use to him on particular questions of philosophy.  It does him one valuable service:  it enables him to know all the various opinions which can be held on the questions he discusses, and to conceive and express them clearly, leaving none of them out.  This it does, though even this not always; but it does little else, even of what might be expected from erudition when enlightened by philosophy.  He knew, with extraordinary accuracy, the [Greek:  hoti] of each philosopher’s opinions, but gave himself little trouble about the [Greek:  dihoti].  With one exception, I find no remark bearing upon that point in any part of his writings.  I imagine he would have been much at a loss if he had been required to draw up a philosophical estimate of the mind of any great thinker.  He never seems to look at any opinion of a philosopher in connection with the same philosopher’s other opinions.  Accordingly he is weak as to the mutual relations of philosophical doctrines.  One of the most striking examples of this inability is in the case of Leibnitz,’ &c.

Here we find in a few sentences the conclusion which Mr Mill conceives to be established by his book.  We shall state how far we are able to concur with it.  He has brought the matter to a direct issue, by weighing Sir W. Hamilton in the balance against two other actual cotemporaries; instead of comparing him with some unrealized ideal found only in the fancy of critics and reviewers.

Comparing Sir W. Hamilton with Dr Brown, we cordially subscribe to the opinion of Mr Mill.  We think that Dr Brown has ’done far greater service to the world than Sir W. Hamilton, in the origination and diffusion of important thought.’  To speak only of two chief subjects in the field of important thought—­Causality and the Freedom of the Will—­we not only adopt the conclusions of Dr Brown, but we admire both his acuteness and his originality in vindicating and illustrating the first of the two, while we dissent entirely from the views of Sir W. Hamilton.  This alone would be sufficient to make us approve the superiority assigned by Mr Mill to Dr Brown.  We discover no compensating item to be placed to the credit of Sir W. Hamilton:  for the great doctrine of the Relativity of Knowledge, which is our chief point of philosophical brotherhood with him, was maintained by Brown also.