under whom. It would be more amusing, to be sure, and more
reputable, if they would take up the old republican cant and
declaim about Brutus and Timoleon, the duty of killing tyrants
and the blessedness of dying for liberty. But, on the whole,
they might have chosen worse. They may as well be Utilitarians
as jockeys or dandies. And, though quibbling about self-interest
and motives, and objects of desire, and the greatest happiness of
the greatest number, is but a poor employment for a grown man, it
certainly hurts the health less than hard drinking and the
fortune less than high play; it is not much more laughable than
phrenology, and is immeasurably more humane than cock-fighting."

Macaulay inserted in the Edinburgh Review of March, 1829, an
article upon Mr Mill's Essay. He attacked the method with much
vehemence; and, to the end of his life, he never saw any ground
for believing that in this he had gone too far. But before long
he felt that he had not spoken of the author of the Essay with
the respect due to so eminent a man. In 1833, he described Mr
mill, during the debate on the India Bill of that year, as a
"gentleman extremely well acquainted with the affairs of our
Eastern Empire, a most valuable servant of the Company, and the
author of a history of India, which, though certainly not free
from faults, is, I think, on the whole, the greatest historical
work which has appeared in our language since that of Gibbon."

Almost immediately upon the appearance of the article in the
Edinburgh Review, an answer was published in the Westminster
Review. It was untruly attributed, in the newspapers of the day,
to Mr Bentham himself. Macaulay's answer to this appeared in the
Edinburgh Review, June, 1829. He wrote the answer under the