The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Errata—vol. I.
• General Preface.
• Introduction to the Study of the Works of Jeremy Bentham;
• Section I.: Bentham’s Style and Method of Thinking.
• Section II.: The Greatest-happiness Principle and Its Application to Morals and Legislation.
• Section III.: The Pursuit of Truth.—fallacies.—principles of Evidence.
• Section IV.: System of Government.
• Section IV.: Law Reform.
• Section VI.: Principles of Punishment.
• Section VII.: Poor Laws, Education, and Other Institutions For National Amelioration.
• Section VIII.: International Law.
• Section IX.: Political Economy.
• Section X.: Logic and Metaphysics. †
• An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
• Preface.
• Chapter I.: Of the Principle of Utility.
• Chapter II.: Of Principles Adverse to That of Utility.
• Chapter III.: Of the Four * Sanctions Or Sources of Pain and Pleasure.
• Chapter IV.: Value of a Lot of Pleasure Or Pain, How to Be Measured.
• Chapter V.: Pleasures and Pains, Their Kinds.
• Chapter VI.: Of Circumstances Influencing Sensibility.
• Chapter VII.: Of Human Actions In General.
• Chapter VIII.: Of Intentionality.
• Chapter IX.: Of Consciousness.
• Chapter X.: Of Motives.
• Chapter XI.: Of Human Dispositions In General.
• Chapter XII.: Of the Consequences of a Mischievous Act.
• Chapter XIII. *: of Circumstances Influencing the Degree of Alarm.
• Chapter XIV.: Reasons For Considering Certain Actions As Crimes. *
• Chapter XV.: § 1. General View of Cases Unmeet For Punishment.
• Chapter XVI.: Of the Proportion Between Punishments and Offences.
• Chapter XVII.: Of the Properties to Be Given to a Lot of Punishment.
• Chapter XVIII. § 1.: Classes of Offences.
• Chapter XIX.: § 1. Limits Between Private Ethics and the Art of Legislation.
• I. Essay On the Promulgation of Laws
• Essay On the Influence of Time and Place In Matters of Legislation.
• Introduction. *
• Chapter I.: Principles to Be Followed In Trans Planting Laws.
• Chapter II.: Regard to Be Paid to Subsisting Institutions.
• Chapter III.: Rules Respecting the Method of Transplanting Laws.
• Chapter IV.: Laws Appear the Worse For Being Transplanted.
• Chapter V.: Influence of Time.
• A Table of the Springs of Action:
• A Fragment On Government;
• Preface to the First Edition, Published In 1776.
• Historical Preface, Intended For the Second Edition.
• Three Letters On the Fragment On Governmen
• Letter the First. of an Examination Into the Merits of a Critique On Blackstone’s Commentaries, Lately Published Under the Title of a Fragment On Government.
• Letter the Second. of an Examination Into the Merits of a Critique On Blackstone’s Commentaries, Lately Published Under the Title of a Fragment On Government.
• Letter the Third. By John Lind, Esq. Afterwards Barrister At Law, to D., Author of Two Letters * On a Fragment On Government.
• Introduction. *
• Chapter I.: Formation of Government.
• Chapter II.: Forms of Government.
• Chapter III.: The British Constitution.
• Chapter IV.: Right of the Supreme Power to Make Laws.
• Chapter V.: Duty of the Supreme Power to Make Laws.
• Principles of the Civil Code.
• Introduction.
• Part I.—: Objects of the Civil Law. *
• Chapter I.: Of Rights and Obligations.
• Chapter II.: Distinct Objects of the Civil Law.
• Chapter III.: Relation Between These Objects.
• Chapter IV.: Of Laws Relative to Subsistence.
• Chapter V.: Of Laws Relative to Abundance.
• Chapter VI.: Propositions of Pathology Upon Which the Advantage of Equality Is Founded.
• Chapter VII.: Of Security.
• Chapter VIII.: Of Property.
• Chapter IX.: Answer to an Objection.
• Chapter X.: Analysis of the Evils Resulting From Attacks Upon Property.
• Chapter XI.: Security and Equality—their Opposition.
• Chapter XII.: Security and Equality—means of Reconciliation.
• Chapter XIII.: Sacrifices of Security to Security.
• Chapter XIV.: Cases Subject to Dispute.
• Chapter XV.: Examples of Attacks Upon Security.
• Chapter XVI.: Of Forced Exchanges.
• Chapter XVII.: Power of the Laws Over Expectation.
• Part II.
• Chapter I.: Of Titles Which Confer a Right to Property. *
• Chapter II.: Another Mode of Acquisition—consent.
• Chapter III.: Another Means of Acquisition—succession.
• Chapter V.: Of Wills.
• Chapter V.: Of Rights Respecting Services—means of Acquiring Them.
• Chapter VI.: Community of Goods—its Inconveniences.
• Chapter VII.: Of Distribution of Loss.
• Part III.: Of the Rights and Obligations Attached to Different Private Conditions.
• Introduction.
• Chapter I.: Of Master and Servant.
• Chapter II.: Of Slavery.
• Chapter III.: Of Guardian and Ward.
• Chapter IV.: Of Parent and Child.
• Chapter V.: Of Marriage.
• Appendix.: of the Levelling System. *
• Principles of Penal Law.
• Part I.: Political Remedies For the Evil of Offences.
• Chapter I.: Subject of This Book.
• Chapter II.: Of Direct Methods of Preventing Offences.
• Chapter III.: Of Chronic Offences.
• Chapter IV.: Of Suppressive Remedies For Chronic Offences.
• Chapter V.: Of Martial Law
• Chapter VI.: Of the Nature of Satisfaction.
• Chapter VII.: Reasons Upon Which the Obligation to Make Satisfaction Is Founded.
• Chapter VIII.: Of the Different Kinds of Satisfaction.
• Chapter IX.: Of the Quantity of Satisfaction to Be Granted.
• Chapter X.: Of the Certainty of Satisfaction.
• Chapter XI.: Of Pecuniary Satisfaction.
• Chapter XII.: Of Restitution In Kind.
• Chapter XIII.: Of Attestative Satisfaction.
• Chapter XIV.: Of Honorary Satisfaction.
• Chapter XV.: Remedies For Offences Against Honour.
• Chapter XVI.: Of Vindictive Satisfaction.
• Chapter XVII.: Of Substitutive Satisfaction, Or At the Expense of a Third Party.
• Chapter XVIII.: Of Subsidiary Satisfaction At the Expense of the Public Treasure.
• Part II.—: Rationale of Punishment.
• Advertisement.
• Book I.: General Principles.
• Chapter I.: Definitions and Distinctions.
• Chapter II.: Classification.
• Chapter III.: Of the Ends of Punishment.
• Chapter IV.: Cases Unmeet For Punishment.
• Chapter V.: Expense of Punishment.
• Chapter VI.: Measure of Punishment.
• Chapter VII.: Of the Properties to Be Given to a Lot of Punishment.
• Chapter VIII.: Of Analogy Between Crimes and Punishments.
• Chapter IX.: Of Retaliation.
• Chapter X.: Of Popularity.
• Book II.: Of Corporal Punishments.
• Chapter I.: Simple Afflictive Punishments. *
• Chapter II.: Of Complex Afflictive Punishments.
• Chapter III.: Of Restrictive Punishments—territorial Confinement.
• Chapter IV.: Imprisonment.
• Chapter V.: Imprisonment—fees.
• Chapter VI.: Imprisonment Examined.
• Chapter VII.: General Scheme of Imprisonment.
• Chapter VIII.: Of Other Species of Territorial Confinement—quasi Imprisonment—relegation—banishment.
• Chapter IX.: Of Simply Restrictive Punishments.
• Chapter X.: Of Active Or Laborious Punishment.
• Chapter XI.: Capital Punishment.
• Chapter XII.: Capital Punishment Examined. *
• Book III.: Of Privative Punishments, Or Forfeitures.
• Chapter I.: Punishment Analyzed.
• Chapter II.: Of the Punishments Belonging to the Moral Sanction.
• Chapter III.: Forfeiture of Reputation.
• Chapter IV.: Of Pecuniary Forfeitures.
• Chapter V.: Forfeiture of Condition.
• Chapter VI.: Forfeiture of the Protection of the Law.
• Book IV.: Of the Proper Seat of Punishment: Or Say, of Mis-seated Punishment.
• Book V.: Of Complex Punishments.
• Chapter I.: Inconveniences of Complex Punishments.
• Chapter II.: Of Transportation.
• Chapter III.: Panopticon Penitentiary.
• Chapter IV.: Felony.
• Chapter V.: Of PrÆmunire.
• Chapter VI.: Outlawry.
• Chapter VII.: Excommunication.
• Book VI.: Miscellaneous Topics.
• Chapter I.: Choice of Punishments—latitude to Be Allowed to the Judges.
• Chapter II.: Of Subsidiary Punishments.
• Chapter III.: Of Surety For Good Conduct.
• Chapter IV.: Defeazance of Punishment.
• Appendix—: On Death-punishment. ∥ Jeremy Bentham to His Fellow-citizens of France.
• Part III.: Of Indirect Means of Preventing Crimes.
• Introduction.
• Chapter I.: Methods of Taking Away the Physical Power of Injuring.
• Chapter II.: Another Indirect Method—hinder the Acquisition of Knowledge Which May Be Rendered Injurious. †
• Chapter III.: Of Indirect Means of Preventing the Will to Commit Offences.
• Chapter IV.: Problem I. to Divert the Course of Dangerous Desires, and Direct the Inclination Towards Those Amusements Which Are Most Conformed to the Public Interest.
• Chapter V.: Problem II. to Make Such Arrangements, That a Given Desire May Be Satisfied Without Prejudice, Or With the Least Possible Prejudice.
• Chapter VI.: Problem III. to Avoid Furnishing Encouragement to Crimes.
• Chapter VII.: Problem IV. to Augment the Responsibility of Individuals, In Proportion As They Are More Exposed to Temptation to Do Wrong.
• Chapter VIII.: Problem V. to Diminish Sensibility With Regard to Temptation.
• Chapter IX.: Problem VI. to Strengthen the Impression of Punishments Upon the Imagination.
• Chapter X.: Problem VII. to Facilitate the Discovery of Offences Committed.
• Chapter XI.: Problem VIII. to Prevent Offences, By Giving to Many Persons an Interest In Preventing Them.
• Chapter XII.: Problem IX. to Facilitate the Recognition and the Finding of Individuals.
• Chapter XIII.: Problem X. to Increase the Difficulty of Escape For Delinquents.
• Chapter XIV.: Problem XI. to Diminish Uncertainty With Regard to Procedure and Punishment.
• Chapter XV.: Problem XII. to Prohibit Accessory Offences, In Order to Prevent Their Principals.
• Chapter XVI.: Of the Cultivation of Benevolence.
• Chapter XVII.: Employment of the Motive of Honour, Or of the Popular Sanction.
• Chapter XVIII.: Of the Employment of the Religious Sanction.
• Chapter XIX.: Uses to Be Drawn From the Power of Instruction.
• Chapter XX.: Use to Be Made of the Power of Education.
• Chapter XXI.: General Precautions Against the Abuse of Authority.
• Chapter XXII.: Measures to Be Taken Against the Ill Effects of an Offence Already Committed—conclusion of the Subject.

CHAPTER V.

DUTY OF THE SUPREME POWER TO MAKE LAWS.

I. We now come to the last topic touched upon in this digression: a certain “duty,” which, according to our Author’s account, the supreme power lies under:—the duty of making laws.

II. “Thus far,” says he, “as to the right of the supreme power to make laws; but farther, it is its duty likewise. For since the respective members are bound to conform themselves to the will of the state, it is expedient that they receive directions from the state declaratory of that its will. But since it is impossible, in so great a multitude, to give injunctions to every particular man, relative to each particular action, therefore the state establishes general rules for the perpetual information and direction of all persons, in all points, whether of positive or negative duty. And this, in order that every man may know what to look upon as his own, what as another’s; what absolute and what relative duties are required at his hands; what is to be esteemed honest, dishonest, or indifferent; what degree every man retains of his natural liberty; what he has given up as the price of the benefits of society; and after what manner each person is to moderate the use and exercise of those rights which the state assigns him, in order to promote and secure the public tranquillity.”

III. Still as obscure, still as ambiguous as ever. The “supreme power,” we may remember, according to the definition so lately given of it by our Author, and so often spoken of, is neither more nor less than the power to make laws. Of this power we are now told that it is its “duty” to make laws. Hence we learn—what?—that it is its “duty” to do what it does; to be, in short, what it is. This, then, is what the paragraph now before us, with its apparatus of “fors” and “buts,” and “sinces,” is designed to prove to us. Of this stamp is that meaning, at least, of the initial sentence, which is apparent upon the face of it.

IV. Complete the sense of the phrase, “to make laws;” add to it, in this place, what it wants in order to be an adequate expression of the import which the preceding paragraph seemed to annex to it; you have now, for what is mentioned as the object of the “duty,” another sense indeed, but a sense still more untenable than the foregoing. “Thus far,” says our Author (recapitulating what he had been saying before) “as to the right of the supreme power to make laws.”—By this “right,” we saw, in the preceding chapter, was meant, a right to make laws in all cases whatsoever. “But further,” he now adds, “it is its duty likewise.” Its duty, then, to do—what? to do the same thing that it was before asserted to be its right to do—to make laws in all cases whatsoever: or (to use another word, and that our Author’s own, and that applied to the same purpose) that it is its duty to be “absolute.”* A sort of duty this, which will probably be thought rather a singular one.

V. Meantime the observation which, if I conjecture right, he really had in view to make, is one which seems very just indeed, and of no mean importance, but which is very obscurely expressed, and not very obviously connected with the purport of what goes before. The duty he here means is a duty which respects, I take it, not so much the actual making of laws, as the taking of proper measures to spread abroad the knowledge of whatever laws happen to have been made: a duty which (to adopt some of our Author’s own words) is conversant, not so much about issuing “directions,” as about providing that such as are issued shall be “received.”

VI. Meantime, to speak of the duties of a supreme power;—of a legislature, meaning a supreme legislature;—of a set of men acknowledged to be absolute;—is what, I must own, I am not very fond of. Not that I would wish the subordinate part of the community to be a whit less watchful over their governors, or more disposed to unlimited submission in point of conduct, than if I were to talk with ever so much peremptoriness of the “duties” of these latter, and of the rights which the former have against them:[a] what I am afraid of is, running into solecism and confusion in discourse.

VII. I understand, I think, pretty well, what is meant by the word duty (political duty) when applied to myself; and I could not persuade myself, I think, to apply it in the same sense in a regular didactic discourse to those whom I am speaking of as my supreme governors. That it is my duty to do, which I am liable to be punished, according to law, if I do not do: this is the original, ordinary, and proper sense of the word duty.[b] Have these supreme governors any such duty? No: for if they are at all liable to punishment according to law, whether it be for not doing any thing, or for doing, then are they not, what they are supposed to be, supreme governors:[c] those are the supreme governors, by whose appointment the former are liable to be punished.

VIII. The word duty, then, if applied to persons spoken of as supreme governors, is evidently applied to them in a sense which is figurative and improper: nor, therefore, are the same conclusions to be drawn from any propositions in which it is used in this sense, as might be drawn from them if it were used in the other sense, which is its proper one.

IX. This explanation, then, being premised;—understanding myself to be using the word duty in its improper sense, the proposition that it is the duty of the legislature to spread abroad, as much as possible, the knowledge of their will among the people, is a proposition I am disposed most unreservedly to accede to. If this be our Author’s meaning, I join myself to him heart and voice.

X. What particular institutions our Author wished to see established in this view—what particular duties he would have found for the legislature under this general head of duty, is not very apparent: though it is what should have appeared more precisely than it does, ere his meaning could be apprehended to any purpose. What increases still the difficulty of apprehending it, is a practice which we have already had more than once occasion to detect him in,* —a kind of versatility, than which nothing can be more vexatious to a reader who makes a point of entering into the sentiments of his Author. He sets out with the word “duty” in his mouth; and, in the character of a Censor, with all due gravity begins talking to us of what ought to be. ’Tis in the midst of this lecture that our Proteus slips aside; puts on the historian; gives an insensible turn to the discourse; and without any warning of the change, finishes with telling us what is. Between these two points, indeed, the is, and the ought to be, so opposite as they frequently are in the eyes of other men, that spirit of obsequious quietism that seems constitutional in our Author, will scarce ever let him recognise a difference. ’Tis in the second sentence of the paragraph that he observes that “it is expedient that they” (the people) “receive directions from the state” (meaning the governing body) “declaratory of that its will.” ’Tis in the very next sentence that we learn from him, that what it is thus “expedient” that the state should do, it does do. “But since it is impossible in so great a multitude, to give particular injunctions to every particular man relative to each particular action, therefore,” says he, “the state establishes” (does actually establish) “general rules” (the state generally, any state, that is to say, that one can mention, all states in short whatever, do establish) “general rules for the perpetual information and direction of all persons in all points, whether of positive or of negative duty.” Thus far our Author; so that, for aught appears, whatever he could wish to see done in this view, is done. Neither this state of our own, nor any other, does he wish to see do any thing more in the matter than he sees done already; nay, nor than what is sure to be done at all events: so that happily the duty he is here so forward to lay on his superiors will not sit on them very heavy. Thus far is he from having any determinate instructive meaning in that part of the paragraph in which, to appearance, and by accident, he comes nearest to it.

XI. Not that the passage, however, is absolutely so remote from meaning, but that the inventive complaisance of a commentator of the admiring breed might find it pregnant with a good deal of useful matter. The design of disseminating the knowledge of the laws is glanced at by it, at least with a show of approbation. Were our Author’s writings, then, as sacred as they are mysterious; and were they in the number of those which stamp the seal of authority on whatever doctrines can be fastened on them; what we have read might serve as a text, from which the obligation of adopting as many measures as a man should deem subservient to that design, might, without any unexampled violence, be deduced. In this oracular passage I might find inculcated, if not totidem syllabis, at least totidem literis, as many points of legislative duty as should seem subservient to the purposes of digestion and promulgation. Thus fortified, I might press upon the legislature, and that on the score of “duty,” to carry into execution, and that without delay, many a busy project, as yet either unthought of or unheeded. I might call them with a tone of authority to their work: I bid them go make provision forthwith for the bringing to light such scattered materials as can be found of the judicial decisions of time past,—sole and neglected materials of common law;—for the registering and publishing of all future ones as they arise;—for transforming, by a digest, the body of the common law thus completed, into statute-law;—for breaking down the whole together into codes or parcels, as many as there are classes of persons distinguishably concerned in it;—for introducing to the notice and possession of every person his respective code:—works which public necessity cries aloud for, at which professional interest shudders, and at which legislative indolence* stands aghast.

XII. All these leading points, I say, of legislative economy, with as many points of detail subservient to each as a meditation not unassiduous has suggested, I might enforce, were it necessary, by our Author’s oracular authority. For nothing less than what has been mentioned, I trust, is necessary, in order that every man may be made to know, in the degree in which he might and ought to be made to know, what (in our Author’s words) “to look upon as his own, what as another’s; what absolute and what relative duties are required at his hands; what is to be esteemed honest, dishonest, or indifferent; what degree every man retains of his natural liberty; what he has given up as the price of the benefits of society; and after what manner each person is to moderate the use and exercise of those rights which the state assigns him, in order to promote and secure the public tranquillity.” In taking my leave of our Author, I finish gladly with this pleasing peroration: a scrutinizing judgment, perhaps, would not be altogether satisfied with it; but the ear is soothed by it, and the heart is warmed.

XIII. I now put an end to the tedious and intricate war of words that has subsisted, in a more particular manner during the course of these two last chapters: a logomachy, wearisome enough, perhaps, and insipid to the reader, but beyond description laborious and irksome to the writer. What remedy? Had there been sense, I should have attached myself to the sense: finding nothing but words, to the words I was to attach myself, or to nothing. Had the doctrine been but false, the task of exposing it would have been comparatively an easy one: but it was what is worse, unmeaning; and thence it came to require all these pains which I have been here bestowing on it: to what profit, let the reader judge.

“Well then,” cries an objector, “the task you have set yourself is at an end; and the subject of it, after all, according to your own representation, teaches nothing;—according to your own showing, it is not worth attending to. Why then bestow on it so much attention?”

In this view: To do something to instruct, but more to undeceive, the timid and admiring student:—to excite him to place more confidence in his own strength, and less in the infallibility of great names:—to help him to emancipate his judgment from the shackles of authority:—to let him see that the not understanding a discourse may as well be the writer’s fault as the reader’s:—to teach him to distinguish between shewy language and sound sense:—to warn him not to pay himself with words:—to show him that what may tickle the ear, or dazzle the imagination, will not always inform the judgment:—to show him what it is our Author can do, and has done; and what it is he has not done, and cannot do:—to dispose him rather to fast on ignorance than feed himself with error:—to let him see, that with regard to an expositor of the law, our Author is not he that should come, but that we may be still looking for another.—“Who then,” says my objector, “shall be that other? Yourself?”—No, verily. My mission is at end, when I have prepared the way before him.

FINIS.

PRINCIPLES OF THE CIVIL CODE.

[* ]Comm. p. 49.

[[a] ]With this note let no man trouble himself, who is not used, or does not intend to use himself, to what are called metaphysical speculations; in whose estimation the benefit of understanding clearly what he is speaking of, is not worth the labour.

1. That may be said to be my duty to do (understand political duty) which you (or some other person or persons) have a right to have me made to do. I have, then, a dutytowards you: you have a right as against me.

2. What you have a right to have me made to do (understand a political right) is that which I am liable, according to law, upon a requisition made on your behalf, to be punished for not doing.

3. I say punished: for without the notion of punishment (that is, of pain annexed to an act, and accruing on a certain account, and from a certain source) no notion can we have of either right or duty.

4. Now the idea belonging to the word pain is a simple one. To define, or rather (to speak more generally) to expound a word, is to resolve, or to make a progress towards resolving, the idea belonging to it into simple ones.

5. For expounding the words duty, right, power, title, and those other terms of the same stamp that abound so much in ethics and jurisprudence, either I am much deceived, or the only method by which any instruction can be conveyed, is that which is here exemplified. An exposition framed after this method I would term paraphrasis.

6. A word may be said to be expounded by paraphrasis, when not that word alone is translated into other words, but some whole sentence, of which it forms a part, is translated into another sentence; the words of which latter are expressive of such ideas as are simple, or are more immediately resolvable into simple ones than those of the former. Such are those expressive of substances and simple modes, in respect of such abstract terms as are expressive of what Locke has called mixed modes. This, in short, is the only method in which any abstract terms can, at the long run, be expounded to any instructive purpose; that is, in terms calculated to raise images either of substances perceived, or of emotions;—sources, one or other of which every idea must be drawn from, to be a clear one.

7. The common method of defining—the method per genus et differentiam, as logicians call it, will, in many cases, not at all answer the purpose. Among abstract terms we soon come to such as have no superior genus. A definition, per genus et differentiam, when applied to these, it is manifest, can make no advance: it must either stop short, or turn back, as it were, upon itself, in a circulate or a repetend.

8. “Fortitude is a virtue:”—Very well:—but what is a virtue? “A virtue is a disposition:”—Good again:—but what is a disposition? “A disposition is a - - -;” and there we stop. The fact is, a disposition has no superior genus: a disposition is not a - - -, anything:—this is not the way to give us any notion of what is meant by it. “A power,” again, “is a right:” and what is a right? It is a power. An estate is an interest, says our Author somewhere, where he begins defining an estate:—as well might he have said an interest was an estate. As well, in short, were it to define in this manner, a conjunction or a preposition. As well were it to say of the preposition through, or of the conjunction because; a through is a - - -, or a because is a - - -, and so go on defining them.

9. Of this stamp, by the bye, are some of his most fundamental definitions; of consequence they must leave the reader where they found him. But of this, perhaps, more fully and methodically on some future occasion. In the mean time, I have thrown out these loose hints for the consideration of the curious.

[[b] ]1. One may conceive three sorts of duties; political, moral, and religious; correspondent to the three sorts of sanctions by which they are enforced; or the same point of conduct may be a man’s duty on these three several accounts. After speaking of the one of these to put the change upon the reader, and without warning begin speaking of another, or not to let it be seen from the first which of them one is speaking of, cannot but be productive of confusion.

2. Political duty is created by punishment; or at least by the will of persons who have punishment in their hands; persons stated and certain,—political superiors.

3. Religious duty is also created by punishment: by punishment expected at the hands of a person certain,—the Supreme Being.

4. Moral duty is created by a kind of motive, which, from the uncertainty of the persons to apply it, and of the species and degree in which it will be applied, has hardly yet got the name of punishment: by various mortifications resulting from the ill-will of persons uncertain and variable,—the community in general; that is, such individuals of that community as he, whose duty is in question, shall happen to be connected with.

5. When in any of these three senses a man asserts a point of conduct to be a duty, what he asserts is the existence, actual or probable, of an external event; viz. of a punishment issuing from one or other of these sources in consequence of a contravention of the duty: an event extrinsic to, and distinct from, as well the conduct of the party spoken of, as the sentiment of him who speaks:—if he persists in asserting it to be a duty, but without meaning it should be understood that it is on any one of these three accounts that he looks upon it as such; all he then asserts is his own internal sentiment: all he means then is, that he feels himself pleased or displeased at the thoughts of the point of conduct in question, but without being able to tell why. In this case, he should e’en say so: and not seek to give an undue influence to his own single suffrage, by delivering it in terms that purport to declare the voice either of God, or of the law, or of the people.

6. Now which of all these senses of the word our Author had in mind; in which of them all he meant to assert that it was the duty of supreme governors to make laws, I know not. Political duty is what they cannot be subject to:* and to say that a duty even of the moral or religous kind to this effect is incumbent on them, seems rather a precipitate assertion.

In truth, what he meant was neither more nor less, I suppose, than that he should be glad to see them do what he is speaking of; to wit, “make laws;” that is, as he explains himself, spread abroad the knowledge of them.—Would he so? So indeed should I; and if asked why, what answer our Author would give I know not; but I, for my part, have no difficulty. I answer,—because I am persuaded that it is for the benefit of the community that they (its governors) should do so. This would be enough to warrant me in my own opinion for saying that they ought to do it. For all this, I should not, at any rate, say that is was their duty in a political sense. No more should I venture to say it was in a moral or religious sense, till I were satisfied whether they themselves thought the measures useful and feasible, and whether they were generally supposed to think so.

Were I satisfied that they themselves thought so, God then, I might say, knows they do. God, we are to suppose, will punish them if they neglect pursuing it. It is then their religious duty. Were I satisfied that the people supposed they thought so: the people, I might say, in case of such neglect,—the people, by various manifestations of its ill-will, will also punish them. It is then their moral duty.

In any of these senses, it must be observed, there can be no more propriety in averring it to be the duty of the supreme power to pursue the measure in question, than in averring it to be their duty to pursue any other supposable measure equally beneficial to the community. To usher in the proposal of a measure in this peremptory and assuming guise, may be pardonable in a loose rhetorical harangue, but can never be justifiable in an exact didactic composition. Modes of private moral conduct there are indeed many, the tendency whereof is so well known and so generally acknowledged, that the observance of them may be well styled a duty. But to apply the same term to the particular details of legislative conduct, especially newly proposed ones, is going, I think, too far, and tends only to confusion.

[[c] ]I mean for what they do, or omit to do, when acting in a body: in that body in which, when acting, they are supreme. Because for any thing any of them do separately, or acting in bodies that are subordinate, they may any of them be punished without any disparagement to their supremacy. Not only any may be, but many are: it is what we see examples of every day.

[* ]Vide supra, ch. ii. par. 11, ch. iii. par. 7, ch. iv. par. 10.

[* ]Had I seen in those days what every body has seen since, instead of indolence I should have put corruption.—Note of the Author, 1822.

[[b] ]1. One may conceive three sorts of duties; political, moral, and religious; correspondent to the three sorts of sanctions by which they are enforced; or the same point of conduct may be a man’s duty on these three several accounts. After speaking of the one of these to put the change upon the reader, and without warning begin speaking of another, or not to let it be seen from the first which of them one is speaking of, cannot but be productive of confusion.

2. Political duty is created by punishment; or at least by the will of persons who have punishment in their hands; persons stated and certain,—political superiors.

3. Religious duty is also created by punishment: by punishment expected at the hands of a person certain,—the Supreme Being.

4. Moral duty is created by a kind of motive, which, from the uncertainty of the persons to apply it, and of the species and degree in which it will be applied, has hardly yet got the name of punishment: by various mortifications resulting from the ill-will of persons uncertain and variable,—the community in general; that is, such individuals of that community as he, whose duty is in question, shall happen to be connected with.

5. When in any of these three senses a man asserts a point of conduct to be a duty, what he asserts is the existence, actual or probable, of an external event; viz. of a punishment issuing from one or other of these sources in consequence of a contravention of the duty: an event extrinsic to, and distinct from, as well the conduct of the party spoken of, as the sentiment of him who speaks:—if he persists in asserting it to be a duty, but without meaning it should be understood that it is on any one of these three accounts that he looks upon it as such; all he then asserts is his own internal sentiment: all he means then is, that he feels himself pleased or displeased at the thoughts of the point of conduct in question, but without being able to tell why. In this case, he should e’en say so: and not seek to give an undue influence to his own single suffrage, by delivering it in terms that purport to declare the voice either of God, or of the law, or of the people.

6. Now which of all these senses of the word our Author had in mind; in which of them all he meant to assert that it was the duty of supreme governors to make laws, I know not. Political duty is what they cannot be subject to:* and to say that a duty even of the moral or religous kind to this effect is incumbent on them, seems rather a precipitate assertion.

In truth, what he meant was neither more nor less, I suppose, than that he should be glad to see them do what he is speaking of; to wit, “make laws;” that is, as he explains himself, spread abroad the knowledge of them.—Would he so? So indeed should I; and if asked why, what answer our Author would give I know not; but I, for my part, have no difficulty. I answer,—because I am persuaded that it is for the benefit of the community that they (its governors) should do so. This would be enough to warrant me in my own opinion for saying that they ought to do it. For all this, I should not, at any rate, say that is was their duty in a political sense. No more should I venture to say it was in a moral or religious sense, till I were satisfied whether they themselves thought the measures useful and feasible, and whether they were generally supposed to think so.

Were I satisfied that they themselves thought so, God then, I might say, knows they do. God, we are to suppose, will punish them if they neglect pursuing it. It is then their religious duty. Were I satisfied that the people supposed they thought so: the people, I might say, in case of such neglect,—the people, by various manifestations of its ill-will, will also punish them. It is then their moral duty.

In any of these senses, it must be observed, there can be no more propriety in averring it to be the duty of the supreme power to pursue the measure in question, than in averring it to be their duty to pursue any other supposable measure equally beneficial to the community. To usher in the proposal of a measure in this peremptory and assuming guise, may be pardonable in a loose rhetorical harangue, but can never be justifiable in an exact didactic composition. Modes of private moral conduct there are indeed many, the tendency whereof is so well known and so generally acknowledged, that the observance of them may be well styled a duty. But to apply the same term to the particular details of legislative conduct, especially newly proposed ones, is going, I think, too far, and tends only to confusion.

[* ]See the note following.