CIS LOGIC OF THE MOEAL SCIENCES. 



the people had most at heart, the monarch had at heart too. Had Peter 

 the Great, or the rugged savages whom he began to civilize, the truest 

 inclination toward the things which were for the real interest of those 

 savages ? 



I am not here attempting to establish a theory of government, and am 

 not called upon to determine the proportional weight which ought to be 

 given to the circumstances which this school of geometrical politicians left 

 out of their system, and those which they took into it. I am only con- 

 cerned to show that their method was unscientific; not to measure the 

 amount of error Avhich may have affected their practical conclusions. 



It is but justice to them, however, to remark, that their mistake was not 

 so much one of substance as of form, and consisted in presenting in a 

 systematic shape, and as the scientific treatment of a great philosophical 

 question, what should have passed for that which it really was, the mere 

 polemics of the day. Although the actions of rulers are by no means 

 wholly determined by their selfish interests, it is chiefly as a security 

 against those selfish interests that constitutional checks are required ; and 

 for that purpose such checks, in England, and the other nations of modern 

 Europe, can in no manner be dispensed with. It is likewise true, that in 

 these same nations, and in the present age, responsibiUty to the governed 

 is the only means practically available to create a feeling of identity of 

 interest, in the cases, and on the points, where that feeling does not suffi- 

 ciently exist. To all this, and to the arguments which may be founded on 

 it in favor of measures for the correction of our representative system, I 

 have nothing to object ; but I confess my regret, that the small though 

 highly important portion of the philosophy of government, which was 

 wanted for the immediate purpose of serving the cause of parliamentary 

 reform, should have been held forth by thinkers of such eminence as a 

 complete theory. 



It is not to be imagined possible, nor is it true in point of fact, that 

 these philosophers regarded the few premises of their theory as including 

 all that is required for explaining social phenomena, or for determining 

 the choice of forms of government and measures of legislation and admin- 

 istration. They were too highly instructed, of too comprehensive intellect, 

 and some of them of too sober and practical a character, for such an error. 

 They would have applied, and did apply, their principles with innumerable 

 allovvances. But it is not allowances that are wanted. There is little 

 chance of making due amends in the superstructure of a theory for the 

 want of sufiicient breadth in its foundations. It is unphilosophical to con- 

 struct a science out of a few of the agencies by which the phenomena are 

 determined, and leave the rest to the routine of practice or the sagacity of 

 conjecture. We either ought not to pretend to scientific forms, or we 

 ought to study all the determining agencies equally, and endeavor, so far 

 as it can be done, to include all of them within the pale of the science ; 

 else we shall infallibly bestow a disproportionate attention upon those 

 which our theory takes into account, while we misestimate the rest, and 

 pi'obably underrate their importance. That the deductions should be 

 from the whole and not from a part only of the laws of nature that are 

 concerned, would be desirable even if those omitted were so insignificant 

 in comparison with the others, that they might, for most purposes and on 

 most occasions, be left out of the account. But this is far indeed from be- 

 ing true in the social science. The phenomena of society do not depend, 

 in essentials, on some one agency or law of human nature, with only incon- 



