AcceptingMill’sview，itisremarkablethatthegreaterrorofhisownschool，whichprofessedtobebaseduponexperience，wastherejectionofhistory；andthegreatmeritoftheaprioriand’intuitionist’schoolwaspreciselytheirinsistenceuponhistory。TothisIshallhavetoreturnhereafter。Meanwhile，MillproceedstoshowhowColeridge，byarguingfromthe’idea’ofchurchandstate，hadatleastrecognisedthenecessityofshowingthatpoliticalandsocialinstitutionsmusthaveasufficientreason，andbejustifiedbysomethingmorethanmereobstinateprejudice。MenlikePittandSirRobertPeel，iftheyacceptedColeridge’ssupport，wouldhavetoaltertheirwholeposition，Coleridge’sdefenceofhisidealchurchwasatoncetheseverestsatireupontheexistingbodyandaproof，asagainstBenthamandAdamSmith，oftheadvantagesofanendowedclassforthecultivationanddiffusionoflearning。Coleridge，moreover，thoughheobjectedtotheReformBill，showedhimselfabetterreformerthanLordJohnRussell。HeadmittedwhattheWhigsrefusedtosee，thenecessityofdiminishingtheweightofthelandownerinterest。Landownerswerenottobeultimatesourcesofpower，buttorepresentonefactorinareasonedsystem。Inshort，byadmittingthatallsocialarrangementsinsomesensewereembodimentsofreason，headmittedthattheymustalsobemadetoconformtoreason。
ColeridgeandBentham，then，arenotreallyenemiesbutallies，andtheywieldpowerswhichare’oppositepolesofonegreatforceofprogression。’31thequestion，however，remains，howthephilosophyofeachleaderisreallyconnectedwithhispracticalconclusions。Mill’sviewwouldapparentlybethatColeridgesomehowmanagedtocorrecttheerrorsorfillthegapsoftheUtilitariansystem——averynecessarytask，asMilladmits——whileColeridgewouldhaveheldthatthoseerrorsweretheinevitablefruitofthewholeempiricalsystemofthought。TheReasonmustberestoredtoitsrightfulsupremacyovertheUnderstanding，whichhadbeenworkingitswickedwillsincethedaysofLockeandtheeighteenthcentury。Theproblemisawideone。I
mustbecontenttoremarktheinevitableantithesis。Whetherenemiesorallies，theUtilitariansandtheirantagonistswereseparatedbyagulfwhichcouldnotbebridgedforthetime。Themenofcommon-sense，whohadnophilosophyatall，wereshockedbytheimmediatepracticalapplicationsofUtilitarianism，itshostilitytotheoldorderwhichtheyloved，itsapparenthelplessnessinsocialquestions，itsrelegationofallprogresstotheconflictofselfishinterests，itsindifferencetoallthevirtuesassociatedwithpatriotismandlocalties。Bymorereflectiveminds，itwascondemnedasrobbingtheworldofitspoetry，stiflingthereligiousemotions，andevenquenchingsentimentingeneral。Thefewwhowishedforaphilosophyfoundtherootofitserrorsintheassumptionswhichreducedtheworldtoachaosofatoms，outwardlyconnectedandcombinedintomeredeadmechanism。Theworld，forthepoetandthephilosopheralike，mustbenotacongeriesofseparatethings，butinsomesenseaproductofreason。
Thought，notfact，mustbetheultimatereality。Unfortunatelyorotherwise，thepoeticalsentimentcouldnevergetitselftranslatedintophilosophicaltheory。Coleridge’srandomanddiscursivehintsremainedmerehints——
asuggestionatbestforfuturethought。Mill’scriticismshowshowfartheycouldbeassimilatedbyasingularlycandidUtilitarian。Tohim，wesee，theyrepresentedmainlythetruththathisownparty，followingthegeneraltendencyoftheeighteenthcentury，hadbeenledtoneglectthevitalimportanceoftheconstructiveelementsofsociety；thattheyhadsacrificedordertoprogress，andthereforeconfoundedprogresswithdestruction，andfailedtoperceivetherealimportanceinpasttimesevenoftheinstitutionswhichhadbecomeobsolete。Socialatomismorindividualism，therefore，impliedatotalmisconceptionofwhatMillcallsthe’evolutionofhumanity。’
Thismarksacriticalpoint。The’Germano-Coleridgians’hadatheoryofevolution。Byevolution，indeed，wasmeantadialecticalevolution；theevolutionof’ideas’orreason，inwhicheachstageofhistoryrepresentsamomentofsomevastandtranscendentalprocessofthought。Evolution，sounderstood，seemedrightlyorwronglytobemeremysticismorintellectualjuggling。Ittookleaveoffact，ormanagedbysomeillegitimateprocesstogivetoacrudegeneralisationfromexperiencetheappearanceofapurelylogicaldeduction。Inthisshape，therefore，itwasreallyopposedtoscience，althoughthetimewastocomeinwhichevolutionwouldpresentitselfinascientificform。32Meanwhile，theconcessionsmadebyJ。S。
Millwerenotapprovedbyhisfellows，andwouldhavebeenregardedaslittleshortoftreasonbytheolderUtilitarians。Thetwoschools，ifColeridge’sfollowerscouldbecalledaschool，regardedeachother’sdoctrinesassimplycontradictory。Inappealingtoexperienceandexperiencealone，theUtilitarians，astheiropponentsheld，hadreducedtheworldtoadeadmechanism，destroyedeveryelementofcohesion，madesocietyastruggleofselfishinterests，andstruckattheveryrootsofallorder，patriotism，poetry，andreligion。Theyretortedthattheircriticswereblindadherentsofantiquatedprejudice，andsoughttocovesuperstitionanddespotismeitherbyunprovabledogmaticassertions，orbytakingrefugeinacloudymysticaljargon，whichreallymeantnothing。
Theydidnotloveeachother。
Notes：
1。SeeDictionaryofNationalBiography，under’GeorgeGrote。’Bentham’sMS。
isintheBritishMuseum，andshows，Ithink，thatGrote’sshareintheworkwasagooddealmorethanmereediting。IquotefromareprintbyTruelove1875。ItwasprivatelyreprintedbyGrotehimselfin1866。
2。Cf。Hobbes’sdefinition：
’Fearofpowerinvisiblefeignedbythemind，orimaginedfromtalespubliclyallowed，[is]RELIGION：notallowed，SUPERSTITIONS。Andwhenthepowerimaginedistrulysuchasweimagine，TRUERELIGION。’-
Works，Molesworth，iii，45。
3。’PhilipBeauchamp，’ch。
ii，pp。11-15。
4。Ibid。，p。17。
5。’PhilipBeauchamp，’p。
21。
6。Ibid。，pp。22and104。
7。’PhilipBeauchamp，’ch。
iii。
8。’PhilipBeauchamp，’ch。
iv。
9。Ibid。，p。45，ch。v。
10。Ibid。，p。52，ch。vi。
11。’PhilipBeauchamp，’ch。
viii。
12。Ibid。，partii，ch。i。
13。Ibid。，p。80，partii，ch。ii。
14……’PhilipBeauchamp，’
pp。97，99。
15。Ibid。，p。101。
16。Ibid。，p。103。
17。’PhilipBeauchamp，’p。
163。
18。Ibid。，p。122。
19。ThewriterswereChalmers，Kidd，Whewell，SirCharlesBell，Roget，Buckland，Kirby，andProut。Theessaysappearedfrom1833to1835。TheversatileBroughamshortlyafterwardseditedPaley’sNaturalTheology。
20。’PhilipBeauchamp。’p。
88。
21。Froude’sCarlyle，i，215；ii，93。
22。Mill’sDissertations，i，235；ii。130。
23。GeorgeBorrow’svehementdislikeofScottastheinventorofPuseyismandmodernJesuitismofallkindsischaracteristic。
24。Prelude，bk。xiii。
25。Coleridge’sLetters1890，pp。643-49。
26。MrHutchinsonStirlinginsistsuponthisintheFortnightlyReviewforJuly1867。
Heproves，Ithink，thatColeridge’sknowledgeofthevariousschemesofGermanphilosophyandofthepreciserelationofKant，Fichte，andSchellingwasaltogetherdesultoryandconfused。Howfarthisisimportantdependsuponwhetherweattachmuchorlittleimportancetoprecisecombinationsofwordsusedbythesephilosophers。
27。Dissertations，i，392-474。
28。Ibid。，i，424。
29。Dissertations，i，437。
30。Ibid。，i，425-27。
31。Dissertations，i，437。
32。Coleridge’sHintstowardstheFormationofamoreComprehensiveTheoryofLife，editedbyS。B。Watson，in1848，isacuriousattempttoapplyhisevolutiondoctrinetonaturalscience。Lewes，inhisLettersonComte’sPhilosophyoftheSciences，saysthatitisa’shamelessplagiarism’fromSchelling’sErsterEntwurf，etc。Itseems，asfarasIcanjudge，thatColeridge’sdoctrinesaboutmagnetism，reproduction，irritability，sensibility，etc。，are，infact，adaptedfromSchelling。Thebookwasintended，asMrE。H。
Coleridgetellsme，forachapterinaworkonScrophula，projectedbyGillman。AsColeridgediedlongbeforethepublication，hecannotbedirectlyresponsiblefornotacknowledgingobligationstoSchelling。Unfortunatelyhecannotclaimthebenefitofagoodcharacterinsuchmatters。Anyhow，Coleridge’soccasionalexcursionsintosciencecanonlyrepresentavagueacceptanceofthetranscendentalmethodrepresented，asIunderstand，byOken。