126 THE REV. H. J. CLARKE ON THE 
But urged from the standpoint of expedience, of what avail 
would these considerations be? Iam putting the case of a 
man who will ask, not “ What is expedient for my neigh- 
bour?” but “ What is expedient for myself?” If his friends, 
declining to allow precedence to this question, should insist 
that it is his duty to consider the benefit he may confer upon 
society by an act of self-sacrifice, they would be resorting 
to the application of a species of moral pressure absolutely 
disallowed by the Science of Expedience, in which, as we are 
given to understand, the discharge of duties means nothing 
more than prudential conformity to the laws of the land, 
good or bad, and to such additional rules as social opinion 
may have established. Indeed, unless they can deny the 
legality of the penalty with which he is threatened, they 
must either disavow their science altogether, or admit that 
his duty, strictly speaking, coincides with what he conceives 
to be his interest. If, however, duty is to be kept out of 
sight, and he is, if possible, to be prevailed upon to become a 
martyr, it must needs be made apparent to him that he will 
thereby be a gainer. Howisthisto be done? Their doctrine 
is that “the virtue of self-denial is one that receives the 
commendation of society, and stands high in the morality of 
reward,” that it is nevertheless “a means to an end.”* 
But on the supposition that he is expected to purchase the 
commendation of admiring disciples at the cost of ceasing 
to exist, and that, were he thus to become ever so famous, 
the revolutions of ages must at length efface from creation 
all memory of his name and his deed, his friends would have 
no cause for surprise if they should fail to satisfy him that 
the end was worth the means. They would find no ground 
whatever on which their argument could rest in any attempt 
they might make to convince him that he was mistaken, any 
serious endeavour to meet his objections with such reasoning 
as an intelligent and candid utilitarian must allow to be con- 
clusive. 
Their reasoning hitherto having thus, as we assume, glanced 
aside from his self-love, there is just one more arrow left in 
their quiver, a last inducement with which it is open to them, 
as utilitarians, to experiment upon him, if they should think 
it worth their while. They may suggest that he will 
indemnify himself for the sacrifice of his existence by the 
previous gratification of certain altruistic sentiments, which, 
as being of higher dignity than all merely self-regarding 
* Mental and Moral Science, by A. Bain, “ Filies,” Part 1, ch. i, § 11. 
