310 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



defense of each citizen against internal invaders, from murderers down 

 to those who inflict nuisances on their neighbors, has obviously the 

 like end — an end desired by every one save the criminal and disor- 

 derly. Hence it follows that for maintenance of this vital principle, 

 alike of individual life and social life, subordination of minority by 

 majority is legitimate ; as implying only such a trenching on the free- 

 dom and property of each, as is requisite for the better protecting of 

 his freedom and property. At the same time it follows that such 

 subordination is not legitimate beyond this ; since, implying as it does 

 a greater aggression upon the individual than is requisite for pro- 

 tecting him, it involves a breach of the vital principle which is to be 

 maintained. 



Thus we come round again to the proposition that the assumed 

 divine right of parliaments, and the implied divine right of majorities, 

 are superstitions. While men have abandoned the old theory respect- 

 ing the source of State-authority, they have retained a belief in that 

 unlimited extent of State-authority which rightly accompanied the old 

 theory, but does not rightly accompany the new one. Unrestricted 

 power over subjects, rationally ascribed to the ruling man when he was 

 held to be a deputy-god, is now ascribed to the ruling body^ the dep- 

 uty-godhood of which nobody asserts. 



Opponents will, possibly, contend that discussions about the origin 

 and limits of governmental authority are mere pedantries. " Govern- 

 ment," they may perhaps say, " is bound to use all the means it has, or 

 can get, for furthering the general happiness. Its aim must be utility ; 

 and it is warranted in employing whatever measures are needful for 

 achieving useful ends. The welfare of the people is the supreme law ; 

 and legislators are not to be deterred from obeying that law by ques- 

 tions concerning the source and range of their power." Is there really 

 an escape here ? or may the opening be effectually closed ? 



The essential question raised is the truth of the utilitarian theory 

 as commonly held ; and the answer here to be given is that, as com- 

 monly held, it is not true. Alike by the statements of utilitarian mor- 

 alists, and by the acts of politicians knowingly or unknowingly follow- 

 ing their lead, it is implied that utility is to be directly determined by 

 simple inspection of the immediate facts and estimation of probable 

 results. Whereas, utilitarianism as rightly understood, implies guid- 

 ance by the general conclusions which analysis of experience yields. 

 " Good and bad results can not be accidental, but must be necessary 

 consequences of the constitution of things " ; and it is " the business of 

 Moral Science to deduce, from the laws of life and the conditions of 

 existence, what kinds of action necessarily tend to produce happiness, 

 and what kinds to produce unhappiness."* Current utilitarian specu- 

 lation, like current practical politics, shows inadequate consciousness 

 of natural causation. The habitual thought is that, in the absence of 



* " Data of Ethics," § 21, and §§ 56-62. 



