industrialism Carlyle as a guide is untrustworthy,
great is his merit as an inspirer. His influence was needed to
counteract the cold prosaic narrowness of the Utilitarian teaching. He
called attention to an aspect of the economic question which the
Utilitarian Radicals ignored, namely, the inadequacy of self-interest as
a social bond. To Carlyle is largely due the higher ethical conceptions
and quickened sympathies which now exist in the spheres of social and
industrial relationships. Unhappily his implicit faith in intuitionalism
led him to deride political economy and everything pertaining to man's
material life. Much there was in the writings of the economists to call
for severe criticism, and if Carlyle had treated the subject with
discrimination he would have been a power for good; but he chose to pour
the vials of his contempt upon political economy as a science, and upon
modern industrial arrangements, with the result that many of the most
intelligent students of sociology have been repelled from his writings.
In this respect he contrasts very unfavourably with Mill, who,
notwithstanding the temptations to intellectual arrogance from his
one-sided training, with quite a chivalrous regard for truth, was ever
ready to accept light and leading from thinkers who differed from him in
temperament and methods. There may be conflicting opinions as to which
of the two men was intellectually the greater, but there can be no doubt
that Mill dwelt in an atmosphere of intellectual serenity and nobility
far removed from the foggy turbulence in which Carlyle lived, moved, and
had his being. Between the saintly apostle of Progress and the barbaric
representative of Reaction there was a great gulf fixed.

As was natural, the _Latter-day Pamphlets_ were treated as a series of
political ravings. For that estimate Carlyle himself was largely
responsible. He deprived himself of the sympathy of intelligent readers
by the violence of his invective and the lack of discrimination in his
abuse. Much of what Carlyle said is to be found in Mill's
_Representative Government_, said, too, in a quiet, rational style,
which commands attention and respect. Mill, no more than Carlyle, was a
believer in mob rule. He did not think that the highest wisdom was to
be had by the counting of heads. Thinkers like Mill and Spencer did not
deem it necessary to pour contempt on modern tendencies. They suggested
remedies on the lines of these tendencies. The