distinguishing peculiarities of the national intellect than any other of our Scottish thinkers. His prevailing tendency, as Stewart has remarked, is in the direction of over-refinement and false simplification-springing in great measure from a restless desire of new, startling, and splendid results. This habit of mind interfered with calmness, impartiality, and circumspection in the preliminary but essential part of the work of a theorist in mental science, viz., observation of phænomena. There are indeed few thinkers whose view of phænomena, when this is adduced as the basis of a theory, is to be received with more caution than that of Brown. His speculative theories are very much the product of an ingenious intellect that sets itself to assort facts in accordance with a ruling hypothesis.1

The course of Brown's thinking on several important fundamental points, both in Psychology and Metaphysics, is in direct antagonism to the results of Reid and Stewart. His identification of consciousness with feeling, and of physical with efficient cause, his virtual abolition of the distinction between perception and sensation, and between the primary and secondary qualities of matter, and consequently of the doctrine of an intuitive perception-his confusion of will and desire, and his theory of simple and relative suggestion as a sufficient statement of the intellectual or cognitive element in human consciousness-indicate a retrograde tendency in Philosophy. Brown, by an intellect which was prodigal of refinements and pointed subtleties, and by a fancy in the fine lights of which even his least satisfactory analyses win a temporary acceptance ;-but especially by a skilful tracking and delineation of the hidden workings of human feeling-in which the reflex of his own individuality is conspicuous-turned aside, in some degree, the course of speculation in Scotland, from the channel in which it had begun to flow. But he failed in permanently giving it an opposite direction; and his writings are now more generally regarded as

1 This character of Brown's philosophical writings may probably be traced, in part, to the circumstances in which many of them were undertaken, imply

ing hasty composition and punctual delivery; and, in part, to a physical constitution always feeble and excitable.

f

simply a brilliant episode in the course of the philosophical thinking of the century, which has followed an earlier and more powerful impulse.1

From the year 1809 until the close of his life, Mr. Stewart lived, in comparative retirement, at Kinneil House, Linlithgowshire, which was generously placed at his service by his friend the late Duke of Hamilton. Kinneil is about twenty miles west from Edinburgh. Embowered amid stately trees, commanding to the north and west a view of long ranges of the Highland hills, and situated on the shores of the Firth of Forth, whose ample waters flowing from west to east, carry the eye forwards into seemingly boundless distance, the baronial mansion of Kinneil was a very favourite residence of Mr. Stewart. His retirement was almost exclusively devoted to maturing and arranging the philosophical labours of his previous life, his reflective activity being interrupted only by friendly intercourse, and the calls of those strangers whom the lustre of his name led to pay a passing visit at Kinneil. Henceforward Mr. Stewart's life is even more than usually devoid of any incident of outward interest, and is to be read in the writings which he gave in succession to the world. From Kinneil were dated, in 1810, the Philosophical Essays; in 1813 (but only

1 Dr. Brown's biographer, in a note to the abridgment of his Life prefixed to the Lectures (p. xxx), seeks to fasten on Mr. Stewart (whom however he does not name), some unspeakable degree of moral obliquity in connexion with his estimate of Brown-in fact, a malicious attempt to depreciate Brown's fame. The whole charge rests on a note appended to the third volume of the Elements, and relative passage in the text, which appeared after the Life of Brown. The note certainly does not rate highly Brown's philosophical talent, nor the speculative results which he reached; for Mr. Stewart, while recognising his general ability, holds him to have been deficient in certain fundamental qualifications of the speculative

thinker, and is, of course, far from approving Brown's doctrines, seeing these are, in general, precisely the reverse of his own. Those points, however, are surely legitimate grounds for difference of opinion. Mr. Stewart's previous testimonies to Brown's character and talents contain nothing inconsistent with the statements he finally made. Even if they did, they were made before the publication of Brown's Lectures, consequently before materials for a final estimate were presented. In all this there is obviously no ground for a moral charge; unless, indeed, it be a crime to express an estimate of Brown as a philosopher, which happens to fall short of that formed by his biographer.

2 The Philosophical Essays were

published in 1814), the second volume of the Elements; in 1815, the First, and in 1821, the Second part of the Dissertation;1 in 1826 (but only published in 1827), the third volume of the Elements; and in 1828, a few weeks before his death, the Philosophy of the Active and Moral Powers.2 The last mentioned work, with the relative part of the Outlines, embody the results of his properly ethical speculations.3

Dr. Brown died at an early age, in April 1820. His death left Mr. Stewart sole Professor of Moral Philosophy, and thus rendered the appointment of a colleague or successor necessary. Mr. Stewart was naturally exceedingly solicitous that the chair should be suitably filled. He did not immediately resign the professorship, and there was even a desire on the part of some that he would again attempt a course of lectures. His advanced age and the state of his health rendered

translated, in part, into French by Huret, in 1828, with the title, Essais Philosophiques sur les Systèmes de Locke, Berkeley, Priestley, Horne Tooke, traduits par Huret. 1828, 1 vol. 8vo.

1 Translated into French-Histoire Abrégée des Sciences Métaphysiques, depuis la Renaissance des Lettres en Europe. Traduction par J. Buchon. 1823, 3 vols. 8vo. Mr. Stewart refers to his labours in connexion with the second part of the Dissertation in the following letter to M. Prévost, 1816:—

"Since I had last the pleasure of writing to you, I have been as constantly occupied as my health and spirits would permit, with the sequel of my Dissertation, a task for the execution of which I consider myself as, in some measure, pledged to the public, and which, in case of accidents, I am anxious to bring to a close with all possible expedition. If I had foreseen all the labour it was to cost me, and the complete interruption it was to give to my other pursuits, I should scarcely have undertaken it. Instead of following out my own speculations, I have been forced to turn over a multitude of

books, which I had very little curiosity to open again, and which, in my present retreat (about twenty miles from Edinburgh), I can seldom command at the moment when I wish to consult them. I have however made considerable progress, and am in hopes that as I approach nearer to our own times, my subject will gain some additional interest with the great mass of readers."

2 Translated into French-Philosophie des Facultés Actives et Morales de l'Homme, traduite par MM. Simon et Huret. Paris, 1834.

3 Among Mr. Stewart's writings, the paper read by him before the Royal Society of Edinburgh (published in the Transactions, vol. vii. p. 1), giving an account of James Mitchell, born deaf and blind, is worthy of special notice, both from the great interest which he manifested in the case, as a subject of philosophical investigation, and the benevolent, though unsuccessful, efforts which he made, in order to place Mitchell under a regular course of education, suited to his circumstances. The case is fully detailed in the third volume of the Elements, p. 300, et seq.

this impossible. He eventually tendered his resignation on the 20th June 1820.

An expectation was entertained that Sir James Mackintosh, before whom the claims of all other candidates were waived, would accept the offer of the chair. But this proved groundless. Mr. Stewart gave his cordial support, in the first instance, to his friend Mr. Macvey Napier, already known to the world of letters, by his able essay on the Scope and Influence of the Philosophical Writings of Bacon, and then editor of the Supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica. Mr. Napier, however, withdrew from the contest at an early period. There were now but two principal candidates in the field. The one was John Wilson, then in his youthful prime, and already known to the world by the first-fruits of a genius which proved itself highly versatile, and was prodigal of its riches,-but hardly fitted to wreathe with his other laurels those gathered on the heights of speculation. The other was Sir William Hamilton-bearing the repute of a career at Oxford among the most remarkable on record-whose marvellous speculative genius, though destined at a later period to become one of the greatest powers of the age, was as yet only very partially appreciated even by the reflective few,-his lofty ideal of excellence, and profound analytical insight, probably acting as checks on its early display,—but already versed in all subtleties, and laden with stores from regions of knowledge where no compeer had been.

Mr. Stewart, on the retirement of Mr. Napier, gave his warm support to the latter of those candidates. The appointment was, however, conferred on Mr. Wilson, by a large majority; the vote being 21 to 9.

Mr. Stewart was highly dissatisfied with the conduct of the Town-Council, throughout the whole course of the business connected with the election of the new professor. The following letter, addressed to Mr. James Gibson, W.S., afterwards Sir James Gibson-Craig, Bart.,1 is interesting, both from its general reference to the matter of the election, and its bearing on one 1 Communicated by his son, James T. Gibson-Craig, Esq.

whose name was afterwards to cast so great a lustre on the University, from an appropriate sphere in which he was meanwhile excluded:

KINNEIL HOUSE, 12th May 1820.

MY DEAR SIR,-I am truly sorry to learn that there is now so very little probability that Mackintosh will accept of the vacant professorship. For this, however, I was in some measure prepared, as I was never very sanguine in my hopes (whatever his own wishes might be) that his political friends would consent to such a measure. I must own that I was not equally prepared for the sequel of your letter, having always flattered myself with the idea, that in the event of his retiring from the field, the choice of the Patrons of the University would, in the next instance, have fallen on Sir William Hamilton. It is but very lately that I have formed an acquaintance with that gentleman, so that I can scarcely speak of his merits from my own knowledge; but all I have seen of him confirms the very high character which I have heard, from the best authority, he bore in the University of Oxford, as a man of uncommon learning and talents. What weighs with me still more on this occasion, is the strong testimonies I have received. from some of his private friends (above all from Lord Archibald Hamilton), in favour both of his abilities and of his worth. It is therefore with the sincerest regret that I can offer nothing but unavailing wishes for his success. As to my coming to Edinburgh at present, and waiting on any of the magistrates, it is a step which nothing can induce me to submit to. If my opinion and advice be wanted, the Patrons of the University know where I am to be found; and, everything considered, I cannot help thinking, that the application should rather come from them to me than from me to them. In the course of my conversation with Mr. Trotter about Macvey Napier, I told him decidedly, that whoever my successor might be, I was resolved that my name should not remain in the new Commission; a circumstance which may help to account for the qualified language which I understand from your letter is now held