ave made the experiment; and it has succeeded far beyond our most
sanguine expectations. A chosen champion of the School has come forth
against us. A specimen of his logical abilities now lies before us;
and we pledge ourselves to show that no prebendary at an anti-Catholic
meeting, no true-blue baronet after the third bottle at a Pitt Club,
ever displayed such utter incapacity of comprehending or answering an
argument as appears in the speculations of this Utilitarian apostle;
that he does not understand our meaning, or Mr Mill's meaning, or Mr
Bentham's meaning, or his own meaning; and that the various parts of his
system--if the name of system can be so misapplied--directly contradict
each other.

Having shown this, we intend to leave him in undisputed possession of
whatever advantage he may derive from the last word. We propose only to
convince the public that there is nothing in the far-framed logic of the
Utilitarians of which any plain man has reason to be afraid; that this
logic will impose on no man who dares to look it in the face.

The Westminster Reviewer begins by charging us with having
misrepresented an important part of Mr Mill's argument.

"The first extract given by the Edinburgh Reviewers from the Essay was
an insulated passage, purposely despoiled of what had preceded and
what followed. The author had been observing, that 'some profound and
benevolent investigators of human affairs had adopted the conclusion
that, of all the possible forms of government, absolute monarchy is the
best.' This is what the reviewers have omitted at the beginning. He
then adds, as in the extract, that 'Experience, IF WE LOOK ONLY AT THE
OUTSIDE OF THE FACTS, appears to be divided on this subject;' there are
Caligulas in one place, and kings of Denmark in another. 'As the surface
of history affords, therefore, no certain principle of decision, WE MUST
GO BEYOND THE SURFACE, and penetrate to the springs within.' This is
what the reviewers have omitted at the end."

It is perfectly true that our quotation from Mr Mill's essay was, like
most other quotations, preceded and followed by something which we did
not quote. But, if the Westminster Reviewer means to say that either
what preceded or what followed would, if quoted, have shown that we put
a wrong interpretation on the passage which was extracted, he does not
understand Mr Mill rightly.

Mr Mill undoubtedly says that, "as the surface of history affords
no certain pr