The ethical question thus raised was afterwards discussed by Sir James
Mackintosh, in the Dissertation contributed by him to the seventh
edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, page 284-313 (Whewell's
Edition). Sir James Mackintosh notices the part taken in the controversy
by Macaulay, in the following words: "A writer of consummate ability,
who has failed in little but the respect due to the abilities and
character of his opponents, has given too much countenance to the abuse
and confusion of language exemplified in the well-known verse of Pope,

'Modes of self-love the Passions we may call.'

'We know,' says he, 'no universal proposition respecting human nature
which is true but one--that men always act from self-interest.'" "It
is manifest from the sequel, that the writer is not the dupe of the
confusion; but many of his readers may be so. If, indeed, the word
"self-interest" could with propriety be used for the gratification of
every prevalent desire, he has clearly shown that this change in the
signification of terms would be of no advantage to the doctrine which he
controverts. It would make as many sorts of self-interest as there
are appetites, and it is irreconcilably at variance with the system of
association proposed by Mr Mill." "The admirable writer whose language
has occasioned this illustration, who at an early age has mastered every
species of composition, will doubtless hold fast to simplicity, which
survives all the fashions of deviation from it, and which a man of
genius so fertile has few temptations to for sake."

When Macaulay selected for publication certain articles of the Edinburgh
Review, he resolved not to publish any of the three essays in question;
for which he assigned the following reason:--

"The author has been strongly urged to insert three papers on the
Utilitarian Philosophy, which, when they first appeared, attracted
some notice, but which are not in the American editions. He has however
determined to omit these papers, not because he is disposed to retract a
single doctrine which they contain, but because he is unwilling to offer
what might be regarded as an affront to the memory of one from whose
opinions he still widely dissents, but to whose talents and virtues he
admits that he formerly did not do justice. Serious as are the faults of
the Essay on Government, a critic, while noticing those faults, should
have abstained from using contemptuous language respecting the h