PART III.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

CHAP. I.

INTRODUCTION.

Progress of Political Philosophy-General Principles-Rousseau, Godwin, Bentham, Mill, Paley, Burke, and PaineEffects of the French Revolution on the Practice of Governments-Misapplication of Abstract Propositions.

SOCIETY is now about five or six thousand years old. Its institutions, laws, manners, and usages, are the results of that lengthened term of experience. It is in human nature to seek to replace evil by good, to substitute something better in lieu of the worse which preceded it; what, then, we now possess, defective as it may be, is the fruit of all the generations that have gone before us.

I mention the age of society to contrast it with the age of an individual, and to show how mistaken that man must be who thinks that within the short

span of his own existence, within the contracted sphere of his own observance, and by the help of his own single faculties, he can devise any system, or propound any idea, that shall not supersede, but even materially alter the social fabric which is older than the pyramids, and nearly as aged as the hills; and which has descended to us as the product of all the wisdom that has successively appeared at Thebes, Athens, Rome, London, and Paris. Yet individuals have laboured under this delusion, who thought they were wiser than nature and all her works, though themselves but an atom-a short-lived atom-in the universe!

This retrospection is not introduced to imply that establishments of any kind derive authority from age, or to recommend mere antiquity in place of principle, but to suggest two useful considerations—one corrective, the other consolatory. First, it must show the error of those who think immediately, and by their individual efforts, to alter the moral and political institutions of mankind; those institutions that have been the growth of centuries, and the creation of successive races of men as far beyond their contemporaries in benevolence and science as they themselves can assume to be. Secondly, it must be consolatory and encouraging to future perseverance to think that every endeavour at social improvement may not be fruitless; that its apparent insignificance may only result from the greatness of the undertaking; and that the smallest additional amendment to the vast and complicated pile of

human association, may be a service of inestimable price. A philosopher, who, by the labours of a long life, has succeeded in removing a single error in education, morals, or jurisprudence, has done enough to entitle him to be enrolled with honour in the calendar of man's benefactors.

It is, doubtless, experience of the deceitfulness of the more general and dazzling schemes of social improvement that has tended to make new systems of political philosophy as little fashionable as new systems of physical science. They promise much, and perform little. They assume to embrace the present, and lay the foundations of the future; but they are often only the illusions of a mental phantasmagoria, and vanish from the touch when submitted to the test of utility. It is sufficient for each generation to contend with the evils that immediately environ it; leaving posterity to do the same, and to adopt their own remedies. Every project is an experiment, all the effects of which actual trial can only manifest; there is a risk of loss as well as gain; and why should any age run this risk without a present and well-defined necessity for sake of a future that may never come, or come in a shape wholly different from anticipation?

Philosophers are often as extravagant in their way as the empirical teacher, and require to be as narrowly watched. They discover a valuable principle, but bring it into discredit by their eagerness to compass all things within its influence. They are bigoted in their science as enthusiasts are in religion, and

frequently as intolerant in the maintenance of their dogmas. Like the Pope of Rome, nothing less than universal faith will satisfy them within their pale, there is salvation; without it, nought but perdition. They are right, so far as they can see; but the misfortune is, there is something beyond which they cannot see, and which their theory does not embrace.

The abandonment of the school philosophy, which was founded on no induction whatever, but simply on the conceits of the mind, was an important step in the progress of knowledge. Next to that is the practical wisdom which limits the application of principles to their legitimate issues: the error of the schoolmen was to build on no foundation at all; the error next in degree is to build on one too narrow. The practical evil of dogmatism in social philosophy is the ambition to solve all moral phenomena by the application of one exclusive principle, while the complicated interests of life require the co-operative agency of many. It is difficult to say whether the abstract propositions of ROUSSEAU have done more harm or good to European society. His Social Contract contains useful maxims depreciated by tinsel paradoxes. I cite one of the latter for illustration : "Man is born free, yet is every where in fetters" (b. 1, c. 1). Here we see how many truths are sacrificed to a bold assertion. No man was ever

born at all, unless Adam can be considered such, who proceeded in full maturity from the hauds of his Maker. Secondly, how is "man born free ?”— what is the freedom he derives from birth? Born

on the banks of the Neva, his birthright is to be punished with the knout, at the pleasure of the czar; or on the Bosphorus, to be bow-stringed at the command of the sultan? Then where are the "fetters" that bind us? May not a Londoner or Parisian be levant or couchant, just as he pleases? may he not do whatever he lists, provided it does not injure other people?—and would even a savage-the favourite biped of the Genevese philosopher-be able with impunity to do more?

Ah, John James Rousseau, how much better you would have been occupied, if, in place of grinding such startling abstractions, you had aided your contemporaries of the Encyclopædia, in pointing out fiscal, judicial, and ecclesiastic abuses; and in demonstrating the utility of religious toleration, of freedom of inquiry, and popular education; and which, in spite of your eloquence and egotism, they were mainly instrumental in establishing!

The mantle of Rousseau has been taken up by some of our own countrymen, but the spread of popular knowledge abates the power of philosophical enthusiasm as well as religious fanaticism.

Mr. GODWIN poured out in sixteen months (Preface, p. 7, 2d edit. 1796) his Inquiry concerning Political Justice, as he would a novel from the fulness of the heart and imagination, almost without reference to a single fact, authority, or standing principle. What has been the result? A congeries of impassioned notions which portray the author