of them; but it was not for holding | result was wrought by no supernatural means, this doctrine that we blamed them. nor produced by any unparallelable concatenation of events. It was foretold by no oracles, and ushered by no portents; but was brought about by the quiet and reiterated exercise of God's first gift of common sense.” In attacking them we no more meant to attack the "greatest happiness principle" than when we say that Mahometanism is a false religion we mean to deny the unity of God, which is the first article of the Mahometan creed; -no more than Mr. Bentham, when he sneers at the Whigs, means to blame them for denying the divine right of kings. We reasoned throughout our article on the supposition that the end of government was to produce the greatest happiness to mankind. Mr. Bentham gives an account of the manner in which he arrived at the discovery of the "greatest happiness principle." He then proceeds to describe the effects which, as he conceives, that discovery is producing in language so rhetorical and ardent that, if it had been written by any other person, a genuine Utilitarian would certainly have thrown down the book in disgust. "The only rivals of any note to the new principle which were brought forward, were those known by the names of the 'moral sense,' and the original contract.' The new principle superseded the first of these, by presenting it with a guide for its decisions; and the other, by making it unnecessary to resort to a remote and imaginary contract for what was clearly the business of every man and every hour. Throughout the whole horizon of morals and of politics, the consequences were glorious and vast. It might be said without danger of exaggeration, that they who sat in darkness had seen a great light. The mists in which mankind had jousted against each other were swept away, as when the sun of astronomical science arose in the full de velopment of the principle of gravitation. If the object of legislation was the greatest happiness, morality was the promotion of the same end by the conduct of the individual; and by analogy, the happiness of the world was the morality of nations. 66 All the sublime obscurities, which had haunted the mind of man from the first formation of society,—the phantoms whose steps had been on earth, and their heads among the clouds,-marshalled themselves at the sound of this new principle of connection and of union, and stood a regulated band, where all was order, symmetry, and force. What men had struggled for and bled, while they saw it but as through a glass darkly, was made the object of substantial knowledge and lively apprehension. The bones of sages and of patriots stirred within their tombs, that what they dimly saw and followed had become the world's common heritage. And the great Mr. Bentham's discovery does not, as we think we shall be able to show, approach in importance to that of gravitation, to which he compares it. At all events, Mr. Bentham seems to us to act much as Sir Isaac Newton would have done if he had gone about boasting that he was the first person who taught bricklayers not to jump off scaffolds and break their legs. Does Mr. Bentham profess to hold out any new motive which may induce men to promote the happiness of the species to which they belong? Not at all. He distinctly admits that, if he is asked why government should attempt to produce the greatest possible happiness, he can give no answer. "The real answer," says he, "appeared to be, that men at large ought not to allow a government to afflict them with more evil or less good than they can help. What a government ought to do is a mysterious and searching question, which those may answer who know what it means; but what other men ought to do is a question of no mystery at all. The word ought, if it means anything, must have reference to some kind of interest or motives; and what interest a government has in doing right, when it happens to be interested in doing wrong, is a question for the schoolmen. The fact appears to be, that ought is not predicable of governments. The question is not why governments are bound not to do this or that, but why other men should let them if they can help it. The point is not to determine why the lion should not eat sheep, but why men should not eat their own mutton if they can.' The principle of Mr. Bentham, if we understand it, is this, that mankind ought to act so as to produce their greatest happiness. The word ought, he tells us, has no meaning, unless it be used with reference to some interest. But the interest of a man is synonymous with his greatest happiness :and therefore to say that a man ought to do a thing, is to say that it is for his greatest happiness to do it. say that mankind ought to act so as to produce their greatest happiness, is to say that the greatest happiness is the greatest happiness-and this is all! And to Does Mr. Bentham's principle tend to make any man wish for anything happiness, than to their not knowing how to obtain it-less to their neglecting to do what they did, than to their not being able to do what they wished, or not wishing to do what they ought. Thus frivolous, thus useless is this philosophy, "controversiarum ferax, operum effeta, ad garriendum prompta, ad generandum invalida."* The humble mechanic who discovers some slight improvement in the construction of safety lamps or steam-vessels does more for the happiness of mankind than the "magnificent principle," as Mr. Bentham calls it, will do in ten thousand years. The mechanic teaches us how we may in a small degree be better off than we were. The Utilitarian advises us with great pomp to be as well off as we can. for which he would not have wished, | The speculative truth is, that the or do anything which he would not greatest happiness is the greatest have done, if the principle had never happiness. The practical rule is very been heard of? If not, it is an utterly simple; for it imports merely that men useless principle. Now, every man should never omit, when they wish for pursues his own happiness or interest-any thing, to wish for it, or when they call it which you will. If his happi- do anything, to do it! It is a great ness coincides with the hapiness of comfort to us to think that we readily the species, then, whether he ever heard assented to the former of these great of the "greatest happiness principle " "doctrines as soon as it was stated to or not, he will, to the best of his know-us; and that we have long endealedge and ability, attempt to produce voured, as far as human frailty would the greatest happiness of the species. permit, to conform to the latter in our But, if what he thinks his happiness practice. We are, however, inclined be inconsistent with the greatest happi- to suspect that the calamities of the ness of mankind, will this new principle human race have been owing, less to convert him to another frame of mind? their not knowing that happiness was Mr. Bentham himself allows, as we have seen, that he can give no reason why a man should promote the greatest happiness of others if their greatest happiness be inconsistent with what he thinks his own. We should very much like to know how the Utilitarian principle would run when reduced to one plain imperative proposition? Will it run thus-pursue your own happiness? This is superfluous. Every man pursues it, according to his light, and always has pursued it, and always must pursue it. To say that a man has done any thing, is to say that he thought it for his happiness to do it. Will the principle run thus-pursue the greatest happiness of mankind, whether it be your own greatest happiness or not? This is absurd and impossible; and Bentham himself allows it to be so. The doctrine of a moral sense may But, if the principle be not stated in be very unphilosophical; but we do one of these two ways, we cannot ima- not think that it can be proved to be gine how it is to be stated at all. pernicious. Men did not entertain Stated in one of these ways, it is an certain desires and aversions because identical proposition,-true, but utterly they believed in a moral sense, but barren of consequences. Stated in the they gave the name of moral sense to other way, it is a contradiction in a feeling which they found in their terms. Mr. Bentham has distinctly minds, however it came there. If they declined the absurdity. Are we then had given it no name at all it would to suppose that he adopts the truism? still have influenced their actions; and There are thus, it seems, two great it will not be very easy to demonstrate truths which the Utilitarian philo- that it has influenced their actions the sophy is to communicate to mankind more because they have called it the -two truths which are to produce a moral sense. The theory of the orirevolution in morals, in laws, in go-ginal contract is a fiction, and a very vernments, in literature, in the whole absurd fiction; but in practice it meant, system of life. The first of these is what the "greatest happiness principle," speculative; the second is practical. *Bacon, Novum Organum. 66 if ever it becomes a watchword of poli- | dark cloud of unmeaning words? Is it tical warfare, will mean-that is to say, so difficult for a man to cant some one whatever served the turn of those who or more of the good old English cants used it. Both the one expression and which his father and grandfather canted the other sound very well in debating before him, that he must learn, in the clubs; but in the real conflicts of life schools of the Utilitarians, a new sleight our passions and interests bid them of tongue, to make fools clap and wise stand aside and know their place. The men sneer? Let our countrymen keep 'greatest happiness principle" has al- their eyes on the neophytes of this ways been latent under the words, social sect, and see whether we turn out to be contract, justice, benevolence, patri- mistaken in the prediction which we otism, liberty, and so forth, just as far now hazard. It will before long be as it was for the happiness, real or found, we prophesy, that, as the corimagined, of those who used these ruption of a dunce is the generation words to promote the greatest happi- of an Utilitarian, so is the corruption ness of mankind. And of this we may of an Utilitarian the generation of a be sure, that the words " greatest jobber. happiness" will never, in any man's The most elevated station that the mouth, mean more than the greatest "greatest happiness principle" is ever happiness of others which is consistent likely to attain is this, that it may be a with what he thinks his own. The fashionable phrase among newspaper project of mending a bad world by writers and members of parliament-teaching people to give new names that it may succeed to the dignity which to old things reminds us of Walter has been enjoyed by the "original conShandy's scheme for compensating the tract," by the "constitution of 1688," loss of his son's nose by christening and other expressions of the same kind. him Trismegistus. What society wants We do not apprehend that it is a less is a new motive-not a new cant. If flexible cant than those which have preMr. Bentham can find out any argu- ceded it, or that it will less easily furment yet undiscovered which may nish a pretext for any design for which induce men to pursue the general a pretext may be required. The "orihappiness, he will indeed be a great ginal contract" meant in the Convention benefactor to our species. But those Parliament the co-ordinate authority whose happiness is identical with the of the Three Estates. If there were to general happiness are even now pro-be a radical insurrection to-morrow, the moting the general happiness to the "original contract" would stand just as very best of their power and know- well for annual parliaments and uniledge; and Mr. Bentham himself versal suffrage. The "Glorious Conconfesses that he has no means of stitution," again, has meant everything persuading those whose happiness is not identical with the general happiness to act upon his principle. Is not this, then, darkening counsel by words without knowledge? If the only fruit of the "magnificent principle" is to be, that the oppressors and pilferers of the next generation are to talk of seeking the greatest happiness of the greatest number, just as the same class of men have talked in our time of seeking to uphold the Protestant constitution just as they talked under Anne of seeking the good of the Church, and under Cromwell of seeking the Lord-where is the gain? Is not every great question already enveloped in a sufficiently in turn the Habeas Corpus Act, the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, the Test Act, the Repeal of the Test Act. There has not been for many years a single important measure which has not been unconstitutional with its opponents, and which its supporters have not maintained to be agreeable to the true spirit of the constitution. Is it easier to ascertain what is for the greatest happiness of the human race than what is the constitution of England? If not, the "greatest happiness principle" will be what the "principles of the constitution" are, a thing to be appealed to by everybody, and understood by everybody in the sense which suits him best. It will mean cheap ber. But this direction would be utbread, dear bread, free trade, protect-terly unmeaning, as it actually is in ing duties, annual parliaments, septen- Mr. Bentham's philosophy, unless it nial parliaments, universal suffrage, Old were accompanied by a sanction. In Sarum, trial by jury, martial law-every- the Christian scheme, accordingly, it is thing, in short, good, bad, or indifferent, accompanied by a sanction of immense of which any person, from rapacity or force. To a man whose greatest happifrom benevolence, chooses to undertake ness in this world is inconsistent with the defence. It will mean six-and- the greatest happiness of the greatest eight pence with the attorney, tithes at number is held out the prospect of an the rectory, and game-laws at the ma- infinite happiness hereafter, from which nor-house. The Statute of Uses, in ap- he excludes himself by wronging his pearance the most sweeping legislative fellow-creatures here. reform in our history, was said to have This is practical philosophy, as pracproduced no other effect than that of tical as that on which penal legislation adding three words to a conveyance. is founded. A man is told to do someThe universal admission of Mr. Ben- thing which otherwise he would not do, tham's great principle would, as far as and is furnished with a new motive for we can see, produce no other effect than doing it. Mr. Bentham has no new that those orators who, while waiting motive to furnish his disciples with. for a meaning, gain time (like bankers He has talents sufficient to effect anypaying in sixpences during a run) by thing that can be effected. But to inuttering words that mean nothing would duce men to act without an inducement substitute "the greatest happiness," or is too much, even for him. He should rather, as the longer phrase," the great-reflect that the whole vast world of est happiness of the greatest number," morals cannot be moved unless the for "under existing circumstances," 66 now that I am on my legs,"-and "Mr. Speaker, I, for one, am free to say.” In fact, principles of this sort resemble those forms which are sold by law-stationers, with blanks for the names of parties, and for the special circumstances of every case-mere customary headings and conclusions, which are equally at the command of the most honest and of the most unrighteous claimant. It is on the filling up that everything depends. mover can obtain some stand for his engines beyond it. He acts as Archimedes would have done, if he had attempted to move the earth by a lever fixed on the earth. The action and reaction neutralise each other. The artist labours, and the world remains at rest. Mr. Bentham can only tell us to do something which we have always been doing, and should still have continued to do, if we had never heard of the "greatest happiness principle”—or else to do something which we have no conThe "greatest happiness principle" ceivable motive for doing, and therefore of Mr. Bentham is included in the shall not do. Mr. Bentham's principle Christian morality; and, to our think- is at best no more than the golden ing, it is there exhibited in an infinitely rule of the Gospel without its sanction. more sound and philosophical form than Whatever evils, therefore, have existed in the Utilitarian speculations. For in in societies in which the authority of the New Testament it is neither an the Gospel is recognised may, a fortiori, identical proposition, nor a contradic- as it appears to us, exist in societies in tion in terms; and, as laid down by which the Utilitarian principle is reMr. Bentham, it must be either the one cognised. We do not apprehend that or the other. "Do as you would be it is more difficult for a tyrant or a perdone by: Love your neighbour as your-secutor to persuade himself and others self:" these are the precepts of Jesus that in putting to death those who Christ. Understood in an enlarged sense, these precepts are, in fact, a direction to every man to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest num oppose his power or differ from his opinions he is pursuing "the greatest happiness," than that he is doing as he would be done by. But religion gives majority of the community. The question of parliamentary reform will share the same fate if once an association be formed in the public mind between Reform and Utilitarianism. him a motive for doing as he would be done by: and Mr. Bentham furnishes him no motive to induce him to promote the general happiness. If, on the other hand, Mr. Bentham's principle mean only that every man should pursue We bear no enmity to any member his own greatest happiness, he merely of the sect; and for Mr. Bentham we asserts what everybody knows, and re-entertain very high admiration. We commends what everybody does. know that among his followers there It is not upon this " greatest happi-are some well-intentioned men, and ness principle" that the fame of Mr. some men of talents: but we cannot Bentham will rest. He has not taught say that we think the logic on which people to pursue their own happiness; they pride themselves likely to improve for that they always did. He has not their heads, or the scheme of morality taught them to promote the happiness which they have adopted likely to imof others, at the expense of their own; prove their hearts. Their theory of for that they will not and cannot do. morals, however, well deserves an arBut he has taught them how, in some ticle to itself; and perhaps, on some most important points, to promote their future occasion, we may discuss it more own happiness; and, if his school had fully than time and space at present emulated him as successfully in this allow. respect as in the trick of passing off truisms for discoveries, the name of Benthamite would have been no word for the scoffer. But few of those who consider themselves as in a more especial manner his followers have anything in common with him but his faults. The whole science of Jurisprudence is his. He has done much for political economy; but we are not aware that in éither department any improvement has been made by members of his sect. He discovered truths; all that they have done has been to make those truths unpopular. He investigated the philosophy of law; he could teach them only to snarl at lawyers. We entertain no apprehensions of danger to the institutions of this country from the Utilitarians. Our fears are of a different kind. We dread the odium and discredit of their alliance. We wish to see a broad and clear line drawn between the judicious friends of practical reform and a sect which, having derived all its influence from the countenance which they have imprudently bestowed upon it, hates them with the deadly hatred of ingratitude. There is not, and we firmly believe that there never was, in this country a party so unpopular. They have already made the science of political economy-a science of vast importance to the welfare of nations-an object of disgust to the The preceding article was written, and was actually in types, when a letter from Mr. Bentham appeared in the newspapers, importing that, "though he had furnished the Westminster Review with some memoranda respecting the greatest happiness principle,' he had nothing to do with the remarks on our former article." We are truly happy to find that this illustrious man had so small a share in a performance which, for his sake, we have treated with far greater lenity than it deserved. The mistake, however, does not in the least affect any part of our arguments; and we have therefore thought it unnecessary to cancel or cast anew any of the foregoing pages. Indeed, we are not sorry that the world should see how respectfully we were disposed to treat a great man, even when we considered him as the author of a very weak and very unfair attack on ourselves. We wish, however, to intimate to the actual writer of that attack that our civilities were intended for the author of the "Preuves Judiciaires," and the "Defence of Usury"—and not for him. We cannot conclude, indeed, without expressing a wish-though we fear it has but little chance of reaching Mr. Bentham-that he would endeavour to find better editors for his compositions. If M. Dumont had not |