I.Mill on Government
I now turn to the general political theory of which Mill was the authoritative exponent,the Encyclopaedia article upon 'Government'(1820)gives the pith of their doctrine,it was,as Professor Bain 1thinks,an 'impelling and a guiding force'in the movement which culminated in the Reform Bill,the younger Utilitarians regarded it,says J.S.Mill,as 'a masterpiece of political wisdom';2while Macaulay 3taunts them for holding it to be 'perfect and unanswerable.'This famous article is a terse and energetic summary of the doctrine implied in Bentham's Works,but there obscured under elaboration of minute details.It is rather singular,indeed,that so vigorous a manifesto of Utilitarian dogma should have been accepted by Macvey Napier --a sound Whig --for a publication which professed scientific impartiality.It has,however,in the highest degree,the merits of clearness and condensation desirable in a popular exposition.The reticence appropriate to the place excuses the omission of certain implicit conclusions.Mill has to give a complete theory of politics in thirty-two 8vo pages.He has scanty room for qualifying statement or historical illustration,He speaks as from the chair of a professor laying down the elementary principles of a demonstrated science.4Mill starts from the sacred principle,the end of government,as the end of all conduct,must be the increase of human happiness,the province of government is limited by another consideration.It has to deal with one class of happiness,that is,with the pains and pleasures 'which men derive from one another,'By a 'law of nature'labour is requisite for procuring the means of happiness,Now,if 'nature'produced all that any man desired,there would be no need of government,for there would be no conflict of interest,But,as the material produced is finite,and can be appropriated by individuals,it becomes necessary to insure to every man his proper share,What,then,is a man's proper share?That which he himself produces;for,if you give to one man more than the produce of his labour,you must take away the produce of another man's labour.The greatest happiness,therefore,is produced by 'assuring to every man the greatest possible quantity of the produce of his own labour.'How can this be done?Will not the strongest take the share of the weakest?He can be prevented in one and apparently only in one way.Men must unite and delegate to a few the power necessary for protecting all.'This is government.'5The problem is now simple.
Government is essentially an association of men for the protection of property.
It is a delegation of the powers necessary for that purpose to the guardians,and 'all the difficult questions of government relate to the means'of preventing the guardians from themselves becoming plunderers.
How is this to be accomplished?
The power of protection,says Mill.following the old theory,may be intrusted to the whole community,to a few,or to one;that is,we may have a democracy,an aristocracy,or a monarchy.A democracy,or direct government of all by all,is for the ordinary reasons pronounced impracticable.But the objections to the other systems are conclusive.The need of government,he has shown,depends upon 'the law of human nature'6that 'a man,if able,will take from others anything which they have and he desires.'The very principle which makes government necessary,therefore,will prompt a government to defeat its own proper end.Mill's doctrine is so far identical with the doctrine of Hobbes;men are naturally in a state of war,and government implies a tacit contract by which men confer upon a sovereign the power necessary for keeping the peace.But here,though admitting the force of Hobbes's argument,he diverges from its conclusion.If a democracy be impossible,and an aristocracy or monarchy necessarily oppressive,it might seem,he admits,as it actually seemed to Hobbes and to the French economists,that the fewer the oppressors the better,and that therefore an absolute monarchy is the best.Experience,he thinks,is 'on the surface'ambiguous.Eastern despots and Roman emperors have been the worst scourges to mankind;yet the Danes preferred a despot to an aristocracy,and are as 'well governed as any people in Europe.'In Greece,democracy,in spite of its defects,produced the most brilliant results.7Hence,he argues,we must go 'beyond the surface,'and 'penetrate to the springs within.'The result of the search is discouraging.The hope of glutting the rulers is illusory.
There is no 'point of saturation'8with the objects of desire,either for king or aristocracy.It is a 'grand governing law of human nature'that we desire such power as will make 'the persons and properties of human beings subservient to our pleasures.'9This desire is indefinitely great.To the number of men whom we would force into subservience,and the degree in which we would make them subservient,we can assign no limits.
