to be frequent and considerable, would deprive an author of all chance of success in writing a history of philosophy.  But the study of Sir William Hamilton’s works does not prove it to us, though Mr Mill has convicted him of an erroneous estimate of Leibnitz.  We say frequent and considerable, because no historian of philosophy is exempt from the defect more or less; or rather (to pass out of the self-confidence of the Absolute into the modesty of the Relative) we seldom find any historian whose estimate of great philosophical thinkers does not often differ from our own.  Hence we are glad when ample original extracts are produced, enabling us to test the historian, and judge for ourselves—­a practice which Sir W. Hamilton would have required no stimulus to enforce upon him.  There ought, indeed, to be various histories of philosophy, composed from different points of view; for the ablest historian cannot get clear of a certain exclusiveness belonging to himself.  But, so far as we can conjecture what Sir W. Hamilton would or could have done, we think that a history of philosophy composed by him would have surpassed any work of the kind in our language.

We trust that Sir W. Hamilton’s works will long continue to be read, along with Mr Mill’s examination of them; and we should be glad if the works of other philosophers could be read along with a comment of equal acuteness and impartiality.  Any point of view which could command the adherence of such a mind as Sir W. Hamilton’s, deserves to be fully considered.  Moreover, the living force of philosophy, as directress of human intelligence, depends upon keeping up in each of her devotees a full mastery of many divergent and opposite veins of reasoning—­a knowledge, negative and affirmative, of the full case of opponents as well as of his own.

It is to Philosophy alone that our allegiance is sworn; and while we concur mostly with Mr Mill’s opinions, we number both him and Sir W. Hamilton as a noble pair of brethren, serving alike in her train.

Amicus Hamilton; magis amicus Mill; amica ante omnes Philosophia. FOOTNOTES: 

[Footnote 1:  Mr Mansel and Mr Veitch, the editors of Sir W. Hamilton’s Lectures on Metaphysics, posthumously published, say in their preface (p. xiii.)—­

’For twenty years—­from 1836 to 1856—­the courses of logic and metaphysics were the means through which Sir William Hamilton sought to discipline and imbue with his philosophical opinions the numerous youth who gathered from Scotland and other countries to his classroom; and while, by these prelections, the author supplemented, developed, and moulded the national philosophy, leaving thereon the ineffaceable impress of his genius and learning, he, at the same time and by the same means, exercised over the intellects and feelings of his pupils an influence which, for depth, feeling, and elevation, was certainly never surpassed by that of any philosophical instructor.  Among his pupils there are not a few who, having lived for a season under the constraining power of his intellect, and been led to reflect on those great questions regarding the character, origin, and bounds of human knowledge, which his teaching stirred and quickened, bear the memory of their beloved and revered instructor inseparably blended with what is highest in their present intellectual life, as well as in their practical aims and aspirations.’]