interest.'" "It is manifest from the sequel, that the writer is
not the dupe of the confusion; but many of his readers may be so.
If, indeed, the word "self-interest" could with propriety be used
for the gratification of every prevalent desire, he has clearly
shown that this change in the signification of terms would be of
no advantage to the doctrine which he controverts. It would make
as many sorts of self-interest as there are appetites, and it is
irreconcilably at variance with the system of association
proposed by Mr Mill." "The admirable writer whose language has
occasioned this illustration, who at an early age has mastered
every species of composition, will doubtless hold fast to
simplicity, which survives all the fashions of deviation from it,
and which a man of genius so fertile has few temptations to for
sake."

When Macaulay selected for publication certain articles of the
Edinburgh Review, he resolved not to publish any of the three
essays in question; for which he assigned the following reason:--

"The author has been strongly urged to insert three papers on the
Utilitarian Philosophy, which, when they first appeared,
attracted some notice, but which are not in the American
editions. 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. Serious as are the
faults of the Essay on Government, a critic, while noticing those
faults, should have abstained from using contemptuous language