of young men agreeing in fundamental principles, acknowledging Utility as their standard in ethics and politics,” “meeting once a fortnight to read essays and discuss questions conformably to the premises thus agreed on,” and “expecting the regeneration of mankind, not from any direct action on the sentiments of unselfish benevolence and love of justice, but from the effect of educated intellect enlightening the selfish feelings.”  John Stuart Mill, with that candour which is the rarest of his great qualities, gave a generous and authoritative testimony to the merit of these attacks upon his father, and his father’s creed, which Macaulay himself lived to wish that he had left unwritten.

["The author has been strongly urged to insert three papers on the Utilitarian Philosophy, which, when they first appeared, attracted some notice. * * * 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. * * It ought to be known that Mr. Mill had the generosity, not only to forgive, but to forget the unbecoming acrimony with which he had been assailed, and was, when his valuable life closed, on terms of cordial friendship with his assailant.”—­Preface to Macaulay’s Collected Essays.]

He was already famous enough to have incurred the inevitable penalty of success in the shape of the pronounced hostility of Blackwood’s Magazine.  The feelings which the leading contributors to that periodical habitually entertained towards a young and promising writer were in his case sharpened by political partisanship; and the just and measured severity which he infused into his criticism on Southey’s “Colloquies of Society” brought down upon him the bludgeon to whose strokes poetic tradition has attributed the death of Keats.  Macaulay was made of harder stuff, and gave little heed to a string of unsavoury invectives compounded out of such epithets as “ugly,” “splay-footed,” and “shapeless;” such phrases as “stuff and nonsense,” “malignant trash,” “impertinent puppy,” and “audacity of impudence;” and other samples from the polemical vocabulary of the personage who, by the irony of fate, filled the Chair of Moral Philosophy at Edinburgh.  The substance of Professor Wilson’s attacks consisted in little more than the reiteration of that charge of intellectual juvenility, which never fails to be employed as the last resource against a man whose abilities are undoubted, and whose character is above detraction.

“North.  He’s a clever lad, James.

“Shepherd.  Evidently; and a clever lad he’ll remain, depend ye upon that, a’ the days of his life.  A clever lad thirty years auld and some odds is to ma mind the maist melancholy sight in nature.  Only think of a clever lad o’ three-score-and-ten, on his deathbed, wha can look back on nae greater achievement than having aince, or aiblins ten times, abused Mr. Southey in the Embro’ Review.”