superficial, the other more scientific | of the external semblance of power,and accurate. Mr. Mill, since he chose of power recognised by the theory of to reason a priori, ought to have clearly the constitution, he is palpably wrong. pointed out in which sense he intended In England, for example, we have had to use words of this kind, and to have for ages the name and form of a mixed adhered inflexibly to the sense on which government, if nothing more. Indeed, he fixed. Instead of doing this, he flies Mr. Mill himself owns that there are backwards and forwards from the one appearances which have given colour sense to the other, and brings out con- to the theory of the balance, though he clusions at last which suit neither. maintains that these appearances are delusive. But, if he uses the word power in a deeper and philosophical sense, he is, if possible, still more in the wrong than on the former supposition. For, if he had considered in what the power of one human being over other human beings must ultimately consist, he would have perceived, not only that there are mixed governments in the world, but that all the governments in the world, and all the governments which can even be conceived as existing in the world, are virtually mixed. The state of those two communities to which he has himself referred—the kingdom of Denmark and the empire of Rome-may serve to illustrate our meaning. Looking merely at the surface of things, we should call Denmark a despotic monarchy, and the Roman world, the first century after Christ, an aristocratical republic. Caligula was, in theory, nothing more than a magistrate elected by the senate, and subject to the senate. That irresponsible dignity which, in the most limited monarchies of our time, is ascribed to If a king possessed the lamp of Aladthe person of the sovereign never be- din,-if he governed by the help of a longed to the earlier Cæsars. The sen-genius who carried away the daughters tence of death which the great council and wives of his subjects through the of the commonwealth passed on Nero air to the royal Parc-aux-cerfs, and was strictly according to the theory turned into stone every man who wagged of the constitution. Yet, in fact, the a finger against his majesty's governpower of the Roman emperors ap-ment, there would indeed be an unmixed proached nearer to absolute dominion despotism. But, fortunately, a ruler than that of any prince in modern Europe. On the other hand, the King of Denmark, in theory the most despotic of princes, would in practice find it most perilous to indulge in cruelty and licentiousness. Nor is there, we believe, at the present moment a single sovereign in our part of the world who has so much real power over the lives of his subjects as Robespierre, while he lodged at a chandler's and dined at a restaurateur's, exercised over the lives of those whom he called his fellow-passed? Certainly not without the ascitizens. Mr. Mill and the Westminster Reviewer seem to agree that there cannot long exist in any society a division of power between a monarch, an aristocracy, and the people, or between any two of them. However the power be distributed, one of the three parties will, according to them, inevitably monopolise the whole. Now, what is here meant by power? If Mr. Mill speaks can be gratified only by means of his subjects. His power depends on their obedience; and, as any three or four of them are more than a match for him by himself, he can only enforce the unwilling obedience of some by means of the willing obedience of others. Take any of those who are popularly called absolute princes-Napoleon for example. Could Napoleon have walked through Paris, cutting off the head of one person in every house which he sistance of an army. If not, why not? Because the people had sufficient physical power to resist him, and would have put forth that power in defence of their lives and of the lives of their children. In other words, there was a portion of power in the democracy under Napoleon. Napoleon might probably have indulged himself in such an atrocious freak of power if his army would have seconded him. But, if his army military discipline, exercises a greater influence on the society than any other equal number of persons,-there, whatever the form of government may be called, a mixture of aristocracy does in fact exist. And, wherever a single had taken part with the people, he would have found himself utterly helpless; and, even if they had obeyed his orders against the people, they would not have suffered him to decimate their own body. In other words, there was a portion of power in the hands of a mi-man, from whatever cause, is so necesnority of the people, that is to say, in the hands of an aristocracy, under the reign of Napoleon. sary to the community, or to any portion of it, that he possesses more power than any other man, there is a mixture of monarchy. This is the philosophical classification of governments: and if we use this classification we shall find, not only that there are mixed governments, but that all governments are, and must always be, mixed. But we may safely challenge Mr. Mill to give any definition of power, or to make any classification of governments, which shall bear him out in his assertion that a lasting division of authority is impracticable. To come nearer home, - Mr. Mill tells us that it is a mistake to imagine that the English government is mixed. He holds, we suppose, with all the politicians of the Utilitarian school, that it is purely aristocratical. There certainly is an aristocracy in England; and we are afraid that their power is greater than it ought to be. They have power enough to keep up the game-laws and corn-laws; but they have not power enough to subject the bodies of men of the lowest class to wanton outrage at It is evidently on the real distributheir pleasure. Suppose that they were tion of power, and not on names and to make a law that any gentleman of badges, that the happiness of nations two thousand a-year might have a must depend. The representative sysday-labourer or a pauper flogged with tem, though doubtless a great and prea cat-of-nine-tails whenever the whim cious discovery in politics, is only one might take him. It is quite clear that of the many modes in which the demothe first day on which such flagellation cratic part of the community can effishould be administered would be the ciently check the governing few. That last day of the English aristocracy. certain men have been chosen as depuIn this point, and in many other points ties of the people,-that there is a piece which might be named, the commonalty of paper stating such deputies to posin our island enjoy a security quite as sess certain powers, these circumcomplete as if they exercised the right stances in themselves constitute no of universal suffrage. We say, there- security for good government. Such fore, that the English people have in a constitution nominally existed in their own hands a sufficient guarantee France; while, in fact, an oligarchy of that in some points the aristocracy committees and clubs trampled at once will conform to their wishes;-in other on the electors and the elected. Rewords, they have a certain portion of presentation is a very happy contripower over the aristocracy. Therefore vance for enabling large bodies of men the English government is mixed. to exert their power with less risk of Wherever a king or an oligarchy re-disorder than there would otherwise frains from the last extremity of rapa- be. But, assuredly, it does not of itcity and tyranny through fear of the self give power. Unless a representaresistance of the people, there the con- tive assembly is sure of being supstitution, whatever it may be called, is ported in the last resort by the physiin some measure democratical. The cal strength of large masses who have admixture of democratic power may be spirit to defend the constitution and slight. It may be much slighter than sense to defend it in concert, the mob it ought to be; but some admixture of the town in which it meets may there is. Wherever a numerical mi- overawe it ;-the howls of the listeners nority, by means of superior wealth or in its gallery may silence its delibera intelligence, of political concert, or of tions ;- -an able and daring individual may dissolve it. And, if that sense | see a certain police kept up; the weak and that spirit of which we speak be to a certain degree protected; the strong diffused through a society, then, even to a certain degree restrained. We see without a representative assembly, that the principle of the balance in constant society will enjoy many of the blessings operation. We see the whole system of good government. sometimes undisturbed by any attempt Which is the better able to defend at encroachment for twenty or thirty himself;-a strong man with nothing years at a time; and all this is probut his fists, or a paralytic cripple en-duced without a legislative assembly, cumbered with a sword which he cannot or an executive magistracy-without lift? Such, we believe, is the difference tribunals-without any code which debetween Denmark and some new re- serves the name; solely by the mutual publics in which the constitutional hopes and fears of the various memforms of the United States have been bers of the federation. In the commumost sedulously imitated. nity of nations, the first appeal is to physical force. In communities of men, forms of government serve to put off that appeal, and often render it unnecessary. But it is still open to the oppressed or the ambitious. Look at the Long Parliament on the day on which Charles came to seize the five members and look at it again on the day when Cromwell stamped with his foot on its floor. On which day was its apparent power the greater? On which day was its real power the less? Nominally subject, it was able to defy the sovereign. Nominally sovereign, it was turned out of doors by its servant. Of course, we do not mean to deny that a form of government will, after it has existed for a long time, materially affect the real distribution of power throughout the community. This is because those who administer a governConstitutions are in politics what ment, with their dependants, form a paper money is in commerce. They af- compact and disciplined body, which, ford great facilities and conveniences. acting methodically and in concert, is But we must not attribute to them more powerful than any other equally that value which really belongs to what numerous body which is inferior in they represent. They are not power, organisation. The power of rulers is but symbols of power, and will, in an not, as superficial observers sometimes emergency, prove altogether useless seem to think, a thing sui generis. It unless the power for which they stand is exactly similar in kind, though be forthcoming. The real power by generally superior in amount, to that which the community is governed is of any set of conspirators who plot to made up of all the means which all overthrow it. We have seen in our its members possess of giving pleasure time the most extensive and the best or pain to each other. organised conspiracy that ever existed Great light may be thrown on the-a conspiracy which possessed all the nature of a circulating medium by the phenomena of a state of barter. And in the same manner it may be useful to those who wish to comprehend the nature and operation of the outward signs of power to look at communities in which no such signs exist; for example, at the great community of nations. There we find nothing analogous to a constitution: but do we not Let us really go beyond the surface find a government? We do in fact of facts: let us, in the sound sense of find government in its purest, and the words, penetrate to the springs simplest, and most intelligible form. within; and the deeper we go the We see one portion of power acting di-more reason shall we find to smile at rectly on another portion of power. We those theorists who hold that the sole elements of real power in so great a degree that it was able to cope with a strong government, and to triumph over it-the Catholic Association. An Utilitarian would tell us, we suppose, that the Irish Catholics had no portion of political power whatever on the first day of the late Session of Parliament. hope of the human race is in a rule-of- | With the pleasures which belong to us three sum and a ballot-box. as reasoning and imaginative beings We must now return to the West- we are never satiated, it is true: but minster Reviewer. The following pa- then, on the other hand, many of those ragraph is an excellent specimen of his pleasures can be obtained without inpeculiar mode of understanding and jury to any person, and some of them answering arguments. can be obtained only by doing good to others. "The reply to the argument against' saturation,' supplies its own answer. The reason why it is of no use to try to saturate' is precisely what the Edinburgh Reviewers have suggested, that there is no limit to the number of thieves.' There are the thieves, and the thieves' cousins, with their men-servants, their maid-servants, and their little ones, to the fortieth generation. It is true, that a man cannot become a king or a member of the aristocracy whenever he chooses;' but if there is to be no limit to the depredators except their own inclination to increase and multiply, the situation of those who are to suffer is as wretched as it needs be. It is impossible to define what are corporal pleasures.' A Duchess of Cleveland was a corporal pleasure.' The most disgraceful period in the history of any nation that of the Restoration-presents an instance of the length to which it is possible to go in an attempt to 'saturate' with pleasures of this kind." The Westminster Reviewer, in his former attack on us, laughed at us for saying that a king or an aristocracy could not be easily satiated with the pleasures of sense, and asked why the We were not a little surprised at so same course was not tried with thieves. silly an objection from the pen, as we imagined, of Mr. Bentham. We returned, however, a very simple answer. There is no limit to the number of thieves. Any man who chooses can steal: but a man cannot become a member of the aristocracy or a king whenever he chooses. To satiate one thief, is to tempt twenty other people to steal. But by satiating one king To reason with such a writer is like or five hundred nobles with bodily talking to a deaf man who catches at a pleasures we do not produce more stray word, makes answer beside the kings or more nobles. The answer of mark, and is led further and further the Westminster Reviewer we have into error by every attempt to explain. quoted above; and it will amply repay Yet, that our readers may fully appre- our readers for the trouble of examinciate the abilities of the new philoso-ing it. We never read any passage phers, we shall take the trouble to go over some of our ground again. Mr. Mill attempts to prove that there is no point of saturation with the objects of human desire. He then takes it for granted that men have no objects of desire but those which can be obtained only at the expense of the happiness of others. Hence he infers that absolute monarchs and aristocracies will necessarily oppress and pillage the people to a frightful extent. We answered in substance thus. There are two kinds of objects of desire; those which give mere bodily pleasure, and those which please through the medium of associations. Objects of the former class, it is true, a man cannot obtain without depriving somebody else of a share. But then with these every man is soon satisfied. A king or an aristocracy cannot spend any very large portion of the national wealth on the mere pleasures of sense. which indicated notions so vague and confused. The number of the thieves, says our Utilitarian, is not limited. For there are the dependents and friends of the king and of the nobles. Is it possible that he should not perceive that this comes under a different head? The bodily pleasures which a man in power dispenses among his creatures are bodily pleasures as respects his creatures, no doubt. But the pleasure which he derives from bestowing them is not a bodily pleasure. It is one of those pleasures which belong to him as a reasoning and imaginative being. No man of common understanding can have failed to perceive that, when we said that a king or an aristocracy might easily be supplied to satiety with sensual pleasures, we were speaking of sensual pleasures directly enjoyed by themselves. But "it is impossible," says the Reviewer, "to define what are corporal pleasures." We hasten on to the most curious part of the article under our consideration-the defence of the "greatest happiness principle." The Reviewer charges us with having quite mistaken its nature. Our brother would indeed, we suspect, | any opinion of our own. And, after find it a difficult task; nor, if we are this, the Westminster Reviewer thinks to judge of his genius for classification proper to repeat his former misreprefrom the specimen which immediately sentation, without taking the least nofollows, would we advise him to make tice of that qualification to which we, the attempt. "A Duchess of Cleve-in the most marked manner, called his land was a corporal pleasure." And attention. to this wise remark is appended a note, setting forth that Charles the Second gave to the Duchess of Cleveland the money which he ought to have spent on the war with Holland. We scarcely know how to answer a man who unites so much pretension to so much ignorance. There are, among the many Utilitarians who talk about Hume, Condillac, and Hartley, a few who have read those writers. Let the Reviewer ask one of these what he thinks on the subject. We shall not undertake to whip a pupil of so little promise through his first course of metaphysics. We shall, therefore, only say leaving him to guess and wonder what we can mean that, in our opinion, the Duchess of Cleveland was not a merely corporal pleasure, that the feeling which leads a prince to prefer one woman to all others, and to lavish the wealth of kingdoms on her, is a feeling which can only be explained by the law of association. But we are tired, and even more ashamed than tired, of exposing these blunders. The whole article is of a piece. One passage, however, we must select, because it contains a very gross misrepresentation. "They never alluded to the French Revolution for the purpose of proving that the poor were inclined to rob the rich.' They only said, as soon as the poor again began to compare their cottages and salads with the hotels and banquets of the rich, there would have been another scramble for property, another general confiscation,' &c." "All that they have established is, that they do not understand it. Instead of the truism of the Whigs, that the greatest happiness is the greatest happiness,' what Mr. Bentham had demonstrated, or at all events had laid such foundations that there was no trouble in demonstrating, was, that the greatest happiness of the individual was in the long run to be obtained by pursuing the greatest happiness of the aggregate." Westminster Reviewer, as we remarked "Nothing of the kind will be admitted at all. In the passage thus selected to be tacked to the other, the question started was, concerning the object of government; in which government was spoken of as an operation, not as anything that is capable of feeling pleasure or pain. In this sense it is true enough, that ought is not predicable of governments." We will quote, once again, the passage which we quoted in our last Number; and we really hope that our brother critic will feel something like shame while he peruses it. "The real answer 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 which those may answer who know what it do is a mysterious and searching question means; but what other men ought to do is a question of no mystery at all. The word ought, if it means any thing, must have We said that, if Mr. Mill's principles of human nature were correct, there would have been another scramble for property, and another confiscation. reference to some kind of interest or motives; We particularly pointed this out in our and what interest a government has in doing last article. We showed the Westmin-right, when it happens to be interested in ster Reviewer that he had misunderstood us. We dwelt particularly on the condition which was introduced into our statement. We said that we had not given, and did not mean to give, The fact appears to be that ought is not predoing wrong, is a question for the schoolmen. dicable 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 cat sheep, |