Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

soning utterly unfit for moral and political discussions; of a kind of reasoning which may so readily be turned to purposes of falsehood that it ought to receive no quarter, even when by accident it may be employed on the side of truth.

Our objection to the essay of Mr. Mill is fundamental. We believe that it is utterly impossible to deduce the science of government from the principles of human nature.

questions must be answered in the affirmative. But, if any one of the three be answered in the affirmative, his whole system falls to the ground. If the interest of the middle rank be identical with that of the people, why should not the powers of government be intrusted to that rank? If the powers of government were intrusted to that rank, there would evidently be an aristocracy of wealth; and "to constitute an aristocracy of wealth, though it were a very numerous one, would," according to Mr. Mill, "leave the community without protection, and exposed to all the evils of unbridled power." Will not the same motives which induce the middle classes to abuse one kind of power induce them to abuse another? If their interest be the if it were new, and as much zeal as if same with that of the people they will govern the people well. If it be opposite to that of the people they will advise the people ill. The system of universal suffrage, therefore, according to Mr. Mill's own account, is only a device for doing circuitously what a representative system, with a pretty high qualification, would do directly.

What proposition is there respecting human nature which is absolutely and universally true? We know of only one: and that is not only true, but identical; that men always act from self-interest. This truism the Utilitarians proclaim with as much pride as

it were important. But in fact, when explained, it means only that men, if they can, will do as they choose. When we see the actions of a man we know with certainty what he thinks his interest to be. But it is impossible to reason with certainty from what we take to be his interest to his actions. One man goes without a dinner that So ends this celebrated Essay. And he may add a shilling to a hundred such is this philosophy for which the thousand pounds: another runs in debt experience of three thousand years is to give balls and masquerades. One to be discarded; this philosophy, the man cuts his father's throat to get professors of which speak as if it had possession of his old clothes: another guided the world to the knowledge of hazards his own life to save that of navigation and alphabetical writing; an enemy. One man volunteers on a as if, before its dawn, the inhabitants forlorn hope: another is drummed out of Europe had lived in caverns and of a regiment for cowardice. Each of eaten each other! We are sick, it these men has, no doubt, acted from seems, like the children of Israel, of self-interest. But we gain nothing by the objects of our old and legitimate knowing this, except the pleasure, if it worship. We pine for a new idolatry. be one, of multiplying useless words. All that is costly and all that is orna- In fact, this principle is just as reconmental in our intellectual treasures dite and just as important as the great must be delivered up, and cast into the truth that whatever is, is. If a philosofurnace and there comes out this Calf! pher were always to state facts in the Our readers can scarcely mistake our following form "There is a shower: object in writing this article. They but whatever is, is; therefore, there is will not suspect us of any disposi-a shower,"-his reasoning would be tion to advocate the cause of absolute perfectly sound; but we do not appremonarchy, or of any narrow form of hend that it would materially enlarge oligarchy, or to exaggerate the evils of the circle of human knowledge. And popular government. Our object at present is, not so much to attack or defend any particular system of polity, as to expose the vices of a kind of rea

it is equally idle to attribute any importance to a proposition which, when interpreted means only that a man had rather do what he had rather do.

If the doctrine, that men always act | rally considered as one of the strongest from self-interest, be laid down in any of our feelings. It is the most formidother sense than this-if the meaning able sanction which legislators have of the word self-interest be narrowed been able to devise. Yet it is notoso as to exclude any one of the mo-rious that, as Lord Bacon has obtives which may by possibility act on served, there is no passion by which any human being, the proposition that fear has not been often overcome. ceases to be identical; but at the same Physical pain is indisputably an evil; time it ceases to be true. yet it has been often endured, and even welcomed. Innumerable martyrs have exulted in torments which made the spectators shudder; and, to use a more homely illustration, there are few wives who do not long to be mothers.

What we have said of the word "self-interest" applies to all the synonymes and circumlocutions which are employed to convey the same meaning; pain and pleasure, happiness and misery, objects of desire, and so forth.

Is the love of approbation a stronger The whole art of Mr. Mill's essay motive than the love of wealth? It is consists in one simple trick of legerde-impossible to answer this question genemain. It consists in using words of the sort which we have been describing first in one sense and then in another. Men will take the objects of their desire if they can. Unquestionably-but this is an identical proposition for an object of desire means merely a thing which a man will procure if he can. Nothing can possibly be inferred from a maxim of this kind. When we see a man take something we shall know that it was an object of his desire. But till then we have no means of judging with certainty what he desires or what he will take. The general proposition, however, having been admitted, Mr. Mill proceeds to reason as if men had no desires but those which can be gratified only by spoliation and oppression. It then becomes easy to deduce doctrines of vast importance from the original axiom. The only misfortune is, that by thus narrowing the meaning of the word desire the axiom becomes false, and all the doctrines consequent upon it are false likewise.

In

rally even in the case of an individual
with whom we are very intimate. We
often say, indeed, that a man loves
fame more than money or money more
than fame. But this is said in a loose
and popular sense; for there is scarcely
a man who would not endure a few
sneers for a great sum of money, if he
were in pecuniary distress; and scarcely
a man, on the other hand, who, if he
were in flourishing circumstances, would
expose himself to the hatred and con-
tempt of the public for a trifle.
order, therefore, to return a precise an-
swer even about a single human being,
we must know what is the amount of
the sacrifice of. reputation demanded
and of the pecuniary advantage offered,
and in what situation the person to
whom the temptation is proposed stands
at the time. But, when the question is
propounded generally about the whole
species, the impossibility of answering
is still more evident. Man differs from
man; generation from generation; na-
tion from nation. Education, station,
sex, age, accidental associations, produce
infinite shades of variety.

When we pass beyond those maxims which it is impossible to deny without Now, the only mode in which we can a contradiction in terms, and which, conceive it possible to deduce a theory therefore, do not enable us to advance of government from the principles of a single step in practical knowledge, human nature is this. We must find we do not believe that it is possible to out what are the motives which, in a lay down a single general rule respect-particular form of government, impel ing the motives which influence human rulers to bad measures, and what are actions. There is nothing which may those which impel them to good meanot, by association or by comparison,sures. We must then compare the effect become an object either of desire or of of the two classes of motives; and, acaversion. The fear of death is gene-cording as we find the one or the other

to prevail, we must pronounce the form, of government in question good or bad. Now let it be supposed that, in aristocratical and monarchical states, the desire of wealth and other desires of the same class always tend to produce misgovernment, and that the love of approbation and other kindred feelings always tend to produce good government. Then, if it be impossible, as we have shown that it is, to pronounce generally which of the two classes of motives is the more influential, it is impossible to find out, a priori, whether a monarchical or aristocratical form of government be good or bad.

another.

description of actions either motive will lead, how can we possibly deduce a theory of government from the nature of man?

How, then, are we to arrive at just conclusions on a subject so important to the happiness of mankind? Surely by that method which, in every experimental science to which it has been applied, has signally increased the power and knowledge of our species,-by that method for which our new philosophers would substitute quibbles scarcely worthy of the barbarous respondents and opponents of the middle ages,-by the method of Induction;-by observing the present state of the world,-by assiduously studying the history of past ages,-by sifting the evidence of facts,

Mr. Mill has avoided the difficulty of making the comparison, by very coolly putting all the weights into one of the scales, by reasoning as if no human by carefully combining and contrastbeing had ever sympathised with the ing those which are authentic,-by gefeelings, been gratified by the thanks, neralising with judgment and diffidence, or been galled by the execrations, of-by perpetually bringing the theory I which we have constructed to the test of new facts,-by correcting, or altogether abandoning it, according as those new facts prove it to be partially or fundamentally unsound. Proceeding thus, patiently,-diligently,- candidly,we may hope to form a system as far inferior in pretension to that which we have been examining and as far superior to it in real utility as the prescriptions of a great physician, varying with every stage of every malady and with the constitution of every patient, to the pill of the advertising quack which is to cure all human beings, in all climates, of all diseases.

The

The case, as we have put it, is decisive against Mr. Mill; and yet we have put it in a manner far too favourable to him. For, in fact, it is impossible to lay it down as a general rule that the love of wealth in a sovereign always produces misgovernment, or the love of approbation good government. A patient and far-sighted ruler, for example, who is less desirous of raising a great sum immediately than of securing an unencumbered and progressive revenue, will, by taking off restraints from trade and giving perfect security to property, encourage accumulation and entice capital from foreign countries. This is that noble Science of Policommercial policy of Prussia, which is tics, which is equally removed from the perhaps superior to that of any country barren theories of the Utilitarian soin the world, and which puts to shame phists, and from the petty craft, so often the absurdities of our republican bre- mistaken for statesmanship by minds thren on the other side of the Atlantic, grown narrow in habits of intrigue, jobhas probably sprung from the desire of bing, and official etiquette;-which of an absolute ruler to enrich himself. On all sciences is the most important to the other hand, when the popular esti- the welfare of nations,-which of all mate of virtues and vices is erroneous, sciences most tends to expand and inwhich is too often the case, the love of vigorate the mind,-which draws nutriapprobation leads sovereigns to spend ment and ornament from every part of the wealth of the nation on useless philosophy and literature, and dispense shows, or to engage in wanton and de-in return nutriment and ornament to structive wars. If then we can neither all. We are sorry and surprised when compare the strength of two motives, we see men of good intentions and good nor determine with certainty to what natural abilities abandon this healthful

and generous study to pore over specu- | Hume's History, and has actually got lations like those which we have been as far as the battle of Agincourt. He examining. And we should heartily assures us that he takes great pleasure rejoice to find that our remarks had in- in his new study, and that he is very duced any person of this description to impatient to learn how Scotland and employ, in researches of real utility, the England became one kingdom. But talents and industry which are now the greatest compliment that we have wasted on verbal sophisms, wretched of received is that Mr. Bentham himself their wretched kind. should have condescended to take the field in defence of Mr. Mill. We have not been in the habit of reviewing reviews; but, as Mr. Bentham is a truly great man, and as his party have thought fit to announce in puffs and placards that this article is written by him, and contains not only an answer to our attacks, but a development of the "greatest happiness principle," with the latest improvements of the author, we shall for once depart from our general rule. However the conflict may terminate, we shall at least not have been vanquished by an ignoble hand.

As to the greater part of the sect, it is, we apprehend, of little consequence what they study or 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.

WESTMINSTER REVIEWER'S
DEFENCE OF MILL.
(JUNE 1829.)

Article
Article

The Westminster Review. No. XXI.
XVI. Edinburgh Review. No. XCVII.
on Mill's Essays on Government, &c.
WE have had great reason, we think,
to be gratified by the success of our
late attack on the Utilitarians. We
could publish a long list of the cures
which it has wrought in cases pre-
viously considered as hopeless. Deli-
cacy forbids us to divulge names; but
we cannot refrain from alluding to two
remarkable instances. A respectable
lady writes to inform us that her son,
who was plucked at Cambridge last
January, has not been heard to call
Sir James Mackintosh a poor ignorant
fool more than twice since the appear-
ance of our article. A distinguished
political writer in the Westminster and
Parliamentary Reviews has borrowed

Of Mr. Bentham himself we shall endeavour, even while defending ourselves against his reproaches, to speak with the respect to which his venerable age, his genius, and his public services entitle him. If any harsh expression should escape us, we trust that he will attribute it to inadvert

[ocr errors]

ence, to the momentary warmth of controversy,- to anything, in short, rather than to a design of affronting him. Though we have nothing in common with the crew of Hurds and Boswells, who, either from interested motives, or from the habit of intellectual servility and dependence, pamper and vitiate his appetite with the noxious sweetness of their undiscerning praise, we are not perhaps less competent than they to appreciate his merit, or less sincerely disposed to acknowledge it. Though we may sometimes think his reasonings on moral and political questions feeble and sophistical-though we may sometimes smile at his extraordinary languagewe can never be weary of admiring the amplitude of his comprehension, the keenness of his penetration, the exuberant fertility with which his mind pours forth arguments and illustrations. However sharply he may

speak of us, we can never cease to revere in him the father of the philosophy of Jurisprudence. He has a full right to all the privileges of a great inventor; and, in our court of criticism, those privileges will never be pleaded in vain. But they are limited in the same manner in which, fortunately for the ends of justice, the privileges of the peerage are now limited. The advantage is personal and incommunicable. A nobleman can now no longer cover with his protection every lackey who follows his heels, or every bully who draws in his quarrel: and, highly as we respect the exalted rank which Mr. Bentham holds among the writers of our time, yet when, for the due maintenance of literary police, we shall think it necessary to confute sophists, or to bring pretenders to shame, we shall not depart from the ordinary course of our proceedings because the offenders call themselves Benthamites.

Whether Mr. Mill has much reason to thank Mr. Bentham for undertaking his defence, our readers, when they have finished this article, will perhaps be inclined to doubt. Great as Mr. Bentham's talents are, he has, we think, shown an undue confidence in them. He should have considered how dangerous it is for any man, however eloquent and ingenious he may be, to attack or defend a book without reading it and we feel quite convinced that Mr. Bentham would never have written the article before us if he had, before he began, perused our review with attention, and compared it with Mr. Mill's Essay.

aristocracy are good, but that Mr. Mill had not proved them to be bad; not that democracy is bad, but that Mr. Mill had not proved it to be good. The points in issue are these: whether the famous Essay on Government be, as it has been called, a perfect solution of the great political problem, or a series of sophisms and blunders; and whether the sect which, while it glories in the precision of its logic, extols this Essay as a masterpiece of demonstration be a sect deserving of the respect or of the derision of mankind. These, we say, are the issues and on these we with full confidence put ourselves on the country.

;

It is not necessary, for the purposes of this investigation, that we should state what our political creed is, or whether we have any political creed at all. A man who cannot act the most trivial part in a farce has a right to hiss Romeo Coates: a man who does not know a vein from an artery may caution a simple neighbour against the advertisements of Dr. Eady. A complete theory of government would indeed be a noble present to mankind; but it is a present which we do not hope and do not pretend that we can offer. If, however, we cannot lay the foundation, it is something to clear away the rubbish; if we cannot set up truth, it is something to pull down error. Even if the subjects of which the Utilitarians treat were subjects of less fearful importance, we should think it no small service to the cause of good sense and good taste to point out the contrast between their magnificent pretensions and their miserable performances. Some He has utterly mistaken our object of them have, however, thought fit to and meaning. He seems to think that display their ingenuity on questions we have undertaken to set up some of the most momentous kind, and on theory of government in opposition to questions concerning which men cannot that of Mr. Mill. But we distinctly reason ill with impunity. We think it, disclaimed any such design. From the under these circumstances, an absolute beginning to the end of our article, duty to expose the fallacy of their arguthere is not, as far as we remember, ments. It is no matter of pride or of a single sentence which, when fairly pleasure. To read their works is the construed, can be considered as indi- most soporific employment that we eating any such design. If such an know; and a man ought no more to expression can be found, it has been be proud of refuting them than of dropped by inadvertence. Our object having two legs. We must now come was to prove, not that monarchy and to close quarters with Mr. Bentham,

« AnteriorContinuar »