wings; and that one, whose office it was to point out the sources and distinctions of morality, should have endeavoured to perplex so plain a question as the fallen condition of humanity,* which even the heathens acknowledged, and the more eminent moralists among them made the groundwork of their philosophy.'-P. 372.

Whether the disposition which Mr Douglas evinces to carp at and malign the opinions of Mr Stewart, is grounded in ignorance or prejudice, we do not know; but sure we are, that he cannot for a moment mislead any one who has even a slight acquaintance with the writings of that philosopher, whose ingenuousness and candour are not the least conspicuous and admirable qualities of his truly great character.

Where, we ask this presuming writer, is the evidence that Mr Stewart 'sedulously shuts his eyes in the manner described?above all, where is the evidence of his 'encouraging others to re'joice in sparks of their own kindling?' Where does Mr Stewart endeavour' (as it is perspicuously expressed) to perplex so plain a question as the fallen condition of humanity P' Mr Stewart, while endeavouring to meet the argument against the Divine Goodness drawn from the existence of moral evil, finds it necessary to determine what is the actual amount of that evil, and to free the representations of it from exaggeration. And this, forsooth, is to perplex so plain a question as the fallen 'condition of humanity! Will Mr Douglas venture to say that the ostensible purpose of Mr Stewart's argument was other than what we have represented? Will he deny that this purpose was a pious purpose? Will he exhibit even the shadow of a reason for presuming that Mr Stewart had any other purpose than the ostensible one? Unfortunately, however, for Mr Stewart, the

*What light does Mr Douglas suppose the fallen condition of humanity' to throw on the sources and distinctions of morality ?'

6

Mr Douglas, completely overlooking the aim of Mr Stewart's argument, seems to have fixed himself wholly on an ambiguous expression of the latter. Mr Stewart says, a distinction which I shall afterwards have 'occasion to illustrate, between absolute and relative rectitude, will enable me to explain away a much greater proportion of the apparent wickedness of our species.' The phrase to explain away' usually includes, we believe, the idea of a dishonest intention. How little Mr Stewart's intention was of this kind (supposing him so weak as openly to profess it,) may be gathered from the mode in which he does explain away' a part of human wickedness. This is merely by asserting the principle that a man's wickedness must be reckoned by what he knowingly and intentionally commits, and not by what is done ignorantly and unintentionally. Mr Douglas does not notice this.

effect of his argument was to weigh somewhat heavily against a doctrine, above all others a favourite at present with a certain religious party amongst us-that of the total depravity of the human heart;-(meaning-or, if not this, what does it mean? that men hate what is right, simply as being right, and love what is wrong, simply as being wrong,) and this effect, Mr Stewart had been guilty of overlooking. The point which he proposed to examine was, indeed, one of pure fact; and probably he may have thought that the establishment of a fact could never interfere with a true doctrine. But he ought to have known better. He ought to have known that when a theological dogma and a fact come into collision, we must maintain the dogma, and close our philosophic shutters' to the fact.

เ

It is melancholy to behold such a want of candour and fairness. Surely that must be a diseased state of religious feeling, which can thus convert into poison the most wholesome nutriments of piety to God and charity to man-which could thus prompt the aspersion (without the shadow of a ground) * of one who never published a sentence that was not fitted to enlarge the intellect, and better the heart-one who, in the very act which has given occasion to these bigoted and uncharitable reflexions, was employing the resources of his profound philosophy and attractive eloquence in strengthening the foundations of religion, natural and revealed!

Before closing our remarks on this work, it is necessary to mention that the author in several places speaks as if he had brought to light a mental faculty before undiscovered. His first allusion to it occurs in the following words :

To conceive the sensations of touch and hardness separate from the extension to which they are united, is beyond the reach of philosophy to attain. So much stronger is the mind to build than to pull down, so much

*Mr Stewart, in entering generally on the subject of the existence of moral evil, has these words - Premising only, that after all that reason can allege on this subject, there still remains insuperable difficulties con'nected with it, which nothing but revelation can explain; and, on commencing the subordinate enquiry as to the amount of the evil, he remarks -'When I speak of the preponderancy of moral good in the world, I dó not mean to draw any inference in favour of the secret springs of human conduct, as they appear in the sight of that Being who alone is acquainted with every thought of the heart, but only to illustrate the kind provision 'which is made in the constitution of man, and in the circumstances of his condition, for the growth and enlture of those dispositions which are favourable to the happiness of individuals and to the good order of society.' -Book III. ch. 3, § 1.

stronger (we must use a new term for an unnoticed power) is construction than abstraction.'-P. 163.

It is said to be a frequent consequence of the discovery of an important truth, that not only does it at once recommend itself to the understandings of mankind, but every man feels as if it were quite familiar to him, and only wonders how he had never happened to perceive and proclaim it. Apparently Mr Douglas has conceived that the mere mention of the power which he calls construction, or the plastic power, was all that was necessary to secure its permanent reception into systems of mental philosophy; for he has dispensed with giving us any explanation of its nature. Nor can we say that we are able, from an examination of the different passages where the mention of it occurs, * to supply the deficiency. The following is that which seems to contain the fullest description of it: —

'But the greatest oversight of all, (and with regard to this there is no exception,) is the nearly entire omission of the constructive process of the mind, and the consequent difficulties that arise respecting abstraction. Now, it is construction that is the remarkable process; abstraction is merely a partial untying of that knot which the mind has complicated for itself. All our perceptions and sensations, all our notions of suggestion, and the reflections of our own thoughts, enter the mind singly; and if abstraction could arrive at that limit, which, however, it can scarcely ever hope to reach, of restoring them to their primitive simplicity and unmixed individuality, all that it would effect would be merely to reach the point from which the mind originally set out. If there were no faculty like construction, which united, there would be no need of abstraction to disunite.'-P. 250.

From any thing we can divine of the nature of the power of construction, here alluded to, we cannot perceive how it differs from the principle of association. At all events, they are so like, that it would not have been too much to expect that Mr Douglas himself should have enabled us to discriminate them.

We regret that, in our account of this work, we have so often felt ourselves obliged to use a tone of dissatisfaction. The author is of what we reckon the orthodox school of metaphysics. He is free from all quackery and affectation; he is no setter-forth of strange technicalities. If he is obscure, (as he too often is,) he is not so for purposes of mystery and imposition. The work is throughout composed with taste and elegance;-it is easy, natural, and varied. Indeed, we are not without some suspicion that Mr Douglas has been rather more intent on attaining the graces

* See pages 173, 203, 246, 253, 300.

of fine writing, than on presenting distinct notions and lucid expositions. Yet he is never forced or artificial. Nor, on the whole, should we pronounce him wanting in judgment; at least we should feel inclined to place much more confidence in the soundness of his conclusions, than in the regularity or correctness of the process by which he arrives at them. Of those reflections of a more contemplative cast in which he occasionally indulges— such as evince attentive observation and deep feeling rather than skilful reasoning-rather a perception of the beautiful and the good than of the true-we have given some specimens, and should have been at no loss for more, had our limits permitted us to extract them.

ART. III.1. Speeches delivered at a Public Meeting for the Formation of a British India Society, held in the Freemasons' Hall, Saturday, July 6, 1839. The Right Hon. Lord Brougham in the chair. London: Printed for the British India Society. 1839.

2. British India Society: Reasons why it is the interest of every person in the United Kingdom to promote the objects of this Society. Published by the Committee of the Society. London. September: 1839.

3. An Appeal from the Inhabitants of British India to the Justice of the People of England: a Popular Enquiry into the Operation of the System of Taxation in British India. By JOHN CRAWFURD, Esq. London: 1839.

E remarked some time ago, regarding England, that the

WE room for rational improvement is so great, that any

person, really master of the case, would know that much must be lost, whilst nothing is to be gained, by running off into 'extravagant misrepresentations or conclusions.' This sentiment is emphatically true with respect to our empire in India. It is equally certain that that knowledge of the principles and practical working of the administration of our vast possessions in that quarter-the attainment of which, in any degree satisfactory to themselves, the ablest of those who have zealously pursued it from their earliest manhood, have found sufficient to оссиру the best years of their lives-is not to be arrived at

* This observation is especially applicable to the Land-Revenue. 'Every

VOL. LXX. NO. CXLII.

2 c

'per saltum'-by the mere impulse of the most sincere philánthropy: still less is it to be gathered from the lips of declaimers at public meetings, or from the pamphlets of partisans. There is not, in truth, any royal road to this knowledge more than to geometry: it must needs be painfully learned; and those, however honest, who will form headlong conclusions, either on their own very insufficient information, or on the ex parte statements of others, who have clients to serve or old grudges to pay off, will assuredly fall into much error;-will make themselves, and, in some degree, the general cause of benevolence, ridiculous; and if they are happily prevented, by calmer and wiser men, from doing any considerable mischief, will certainly miss of good. These considerations have sprung from the perusal of the publications before us. The first two are the manifestoes of a society which was established in July last, with the benevolent design of bettering the condition of our fellow-subjects—the 'natives of British India.' The last is the work of a gentleman, (who, we observe, is a member of the society's Committee of Management,) known to be intimately acquainted with the history and present condition of the Indo-Chinese nations; but whose residence, during his employment in the East, having been almost exclusively confined to the Malayan peninsula and islands; and his short service to the west of the Ganges, to the medical staff; he does not possess, as we shall presently show, that measure of information respecting the difficult subject which he has treated, which alone could render him a safe guide to his colleagues and the public.

We would premise two other observations. First, we think that the Society, the names of some of whose members are an ample guarantee for their individual philanthropy—and which states, in its committee's address of July 1839, that it will 'suggest, and labour to secure, the delay of all specific plans ' of amelioration, until every doubt respecting the nature and ' extent of alleged existing evils, and the necessity of remedying them, is entirely removed'—would have acted both wisely and charitably, if, in this early stage of its endeavours to ob

man who has long been employed in the management of the revenues of Bengal,' says Mr Shore, in his Minute of 10th Feb. 1790, will, if candid, allow that his opinion on many important points has often varied, and that the information of one year has been rendered dubious by that of another.' The select committee of the House of Commons, which drew up the fifth report, remarks on this passage and its context, that they have no reason to suppose that the intricacy of the subject is overrated.'