504 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



he and Grote were republicans in principle, but they regarded the 

 monarchy as preferable to the exposing of the highest dignity of the 

 state to competition. From my latest conversations with Mill, I think 

 he coincided in the view that simple cabinet government would be the 

 natural substitute for monarchy. 



It was in 1861 that he turned his thoughts to a review of Hamil- 

 ton's " Philosophy." Writing to me in November, he says, " I mean 

 to take up Sir William Hamilton, and try if I can make an article on 

 him for the ' Westminster.' " He chose the " Westminster " when he 

 wanted free room for his elbow. He soon abandoned the idea of an 

 article. In December he said : " I have now studied all Sir W. Ham- 

 ilton's works pretty thoroughly, and see my way to most of what I 

 have got to say respecting him. But I have given up the idea of do- 

 ing it in anything less than a volume. The great recommendation of 

 this project is, that it will enable me to supply what was prudently left 

 deficient in the 'Logic,' and to do the kind of service which I am 

 capable of to rational psychology, namely, to its * Polemik.' " 



He was interrupted for a time by the events in America. In Janu- 

 ary, 1862, he wrote his paper on the civil war in "Fraser." He ex- 

 pected it to give great offense, and to be the most hazardous thing for 

 his influence that he had yet done. 



After spending the summer in a tour in Greece and Asia Minor, he 

 wrote again on the American question, in a review of Cairnes's book 

 in the "Westminster." This done, he set to the " Hamilton," which 

 was the chief part of his occui^ation for the next two years. His in- 

 terruptions were the article on John Austin in the " Edinburgh," in 

 October, 1863, the two articles on Comte in the end of 1864, and the 

 revision of the " Political Economy." 



I had a great deal of correspondence with him while he was en- 

 gaged with Hamilton. He read all Hamilton's writings three times 

 over, and all the books that he thought in any way related to the sub- 

 jects treated of. Among other things, he wrote me a long criticism 

 of Ferrier's " Institutes. " " I thought Ferrier's book quite sui generis 

 when I first read it, and I think so more than ever after reading it 

 again. His system is one of pure skepticism, very skillfully clothed in 

 dogmatic language." He was much exercised upon the whole subject 

 of indestructibility of force. His reading of Spencer, Tyndall, and 

 others landed him in a host of difiiculties, which I did what I could to 

 clear up. His picture of Hamilton grew darker as he went on ; chiefly 

 from the increasing sense of his inconsistencies. He often wished 

 that he was alive to answer for himself. " I was not prepared for the 

 degree in which this complete acquaintance lowers my estimate of the 

 man and of his speculations. I did not expect to find them a mass of 

 contradictions. There is scarcely a point of importance on which he 

 does not hold conflicting theories, or profess doctrines which suppose 

 one theory while he himself holds another. It almost goes against me 



