I.Thomas Brown
The politicians and economists，of whom I have spoken，took first principles for granted，the intellectual temperament，which made certain methods congenial to them，would no doubt have led them to an analogous position in philosophy，Bentham had touched upon philosophical points in a summary way，and James Mill，as we shall see，gave a more explicit statement，But such men as Ricardo and Malthus had no systematic philosophy，though a certain philosophy was congenial to their methods，Desire to reach a solid groundwork of fact，hearty aversion to mere word-juggling，and to effeminate sentimentalism，respect for science and indifference to，if not contempt for，poetry，resolution to approve no laws or institutions which could not be supported on plain grounds of utility，and to accept no theory which could not be firmly based on verifiable experience，imply moral and intellectual tendencies，in which we may perhaps say that the Utilitarians represent some of the strongest and most valuable qualities of the national character，taking these qualities for granted，let us consider how the ultimate problems presented themselves to the school thus distinguished.
I have already observed that the Scottish philosophy，taught by Reid and Dugald Stewart，represented the only approach to a living philosophical system in these islands at the beginning of the century，it held this position for a long period.
Mill，who had heard Dugald Stewart's lectures，knew nothing of German thought.
He was well read in French philosophers，and in harmony with one leading sect.The so-called idéologues，1who regarded Condillac as representing the true line of intellectual progress，were in France the analogues of the English Utilitarians.Destutt de Tracy and Cabanis were their most conspicuous leaders in this generation.The philosophy of Reid and Stewart crossed the channel，and supplied the first assailants of the idéologues with their controversial weapons.Thus，until the German influence came to modify the whole controversy，the vital issue seemed to lie between the doctrine of Reid or 'intuitionism'on the one hand，and the purely 'experiential'school on the other，whether，as in France，it followed Condillac，or，as in England，looked back chiefly to Hartley.Both sections traced their intellectual ancestry to Locke and Hobbes，with some reference to Bacon，and，by the French writers，to Descartes.
Stewart，again，as I have said，was the accepted Whig philosopher.It is true that the Whig sat habitually in the seat of Gallio.Jeffrey，whether he fully realised the fact or not，was at bottom a sceptic in philosophy as in politics.John Allen，the prophet of Holland House，was a thorough sceptic，and says 2that Horner，one of Stewart's personal admirers，was really a follower of Hume.The Whigs were inclined to Shaftesbury's doctrine that sensible men had all one religion，and that sensible men never said what it was.Those who had a more definite and avowable creed were content to follow Stewart's amiable philosophising.Brougham professed，let us hope，sincerely，to be an orthodox theist，and explained the argument from design in a commentary upon Paley.Sydney Smith expounded Reid and Stewart in lectures which showed at least that he was still a wit when talking 'philosophy'at the Royal institution；and，though he hated 'enthusiasm'in dissenters，evangelicals，and tractarians，and kept religion strictly in its place --a place well outside of practical politics --managed to preach a wholesome，commonplace morality in terms of Christian theology.
The difference between the Whig and the Radical temper showed itself in philosophical as in political questions.The Radical prided himself on being logical and thoroughgoing，while the Whig loved compromise，and thought that logic was very apt to be a nuisance.The systematic reticence which the Utilitarians held to be necessary prevented this contrast from showing itself distinctly on the surface.The Utilitarians，however，though they avoided such outspoken scepticism as would startle the public，indicated quite sufficiently to the initiated their essential position.It implied what they fully recognised in private conversation --a complete abandonment of theology.They left the obvious inferences to be drawn by others.In philosophy they could speak out in a well-founded confidence that few people were able to draw inferences.I will begin by considering the doctrine against which they protested；for the antagonism reveals，I think，the key to their position.
When Stewart was obliged by infirmity to retire from the active discharge of his duties，he was succeeded by Thomas Brown (1778-1820).Brown had shown early precocity，and at the age of fifteen had attracted Stewart's notice by some remarks on a psychological point.He published at twenty a criticism of Darwin's Zoonomia，and he became one of the Edinburgh Review circle.
When the Review was started he contributed an article upon Kant.
In those happy days it was so far from necessary to prepare oneself for such a task by studying a library of commentators that the young reviewer could frankly admit his whole knowledge to be derived from Villers'Philosophie de Kant (1801).3Soon afterwards he took an important share in a once famous controversy.John Leslie，just elected to the mathematical chair at Edinburgh，was accused of having written favourably of Hume's theory of causation.Whigs and Tories took this up as a party question，4and Brown undertook to explain in a pamphlet what Hume's theory was，and to show that it did not lead to atheism.Leslie's friends triumphed，though it does not appear how far Brown's arguments contributed to their success.
