“Fortes creantur fortibus et bonis,
  ... neque imbellera feroces
     Progenerant aquilae columbam”

—­this excellent writer took a more just measure of the book which Jeffrey thought unreadable.

“My more immediate object in writing is to remind you of John Mill’s book [System of Logic], of which I have lately been reading a considerable part, and I have done so with the conviction that it is one of the most remarkable productions of this nineteenth century.  Exceedingly debatable indeed, but most worthy of debate, are many of his favourite tenets, especially those of the last two or three chapters.  No man is fit to encounter him who is not thoroughly conversant with the moral sciences which he handles; and remembering what you told me of your own studies under Dugald Stewart, I cannot but recommend the affair to your own personal attention.  You will find very few men fit to be trusted with it.  You ought to be aware that, although with great circumspection, not to say timidity, Mill is an opponent of Religion in the abstract, not of any particular form of it.  That is, he evidently maintains that superhuman influences on the mind of man are but a dream, whence the inevitable conclusion that all acts of devotion and prayer are but a superstition.  That such is his real meaning, however darkly conveyed, is indisputable.  You are well aware that it is in direct conflict with my own deepest and most cherished convictions.  Yet to condemn him for holding, and for calmly publishing such views, is but to add to the difficulties of fair and full discussion, and to render truth (or supposed truth), less certain and valuable than if it had invited, and encountered, and triumphed over every assault of every honest antagonist.  I, therefore, wish Mill to be treated respectfully and handsomely.”

Few of Mr. Napier’s correspondents seem to have been more considerate.  At one period (1844) a long time had passed without any contribution from Sir James Stephen’s pen appearing in the Review.  Mr. Senior wrote a hint on the subject to the editor, and Napier seems to have communicated with Sir James Stephen, who replied in a model strain.

“Have you any offer of a paper or papers from my friend John Austin?  If you have, and if you are not aware what manner of man he is, it may not be amiss that you should be apprised that in these parts he enjoys, and deservedly, a very high and yet a peculiar reputation.  I have a great attachment to him.  He is, in the best sense of the word, a philosopher, an earnest and humble lover of wisdom.  I know not anywhere a larger minded man, and yet, eloquent as he is in speech, there is, in his written style, an involution and a lack of vivacity which renders his writings a sealed book to almost every one.  Whether he will be able to assume an easier and a lighter manner, I do not know.  If not, I rather fear for him when he stands at your bar.  All I ask