Thephenomenaaretoocomplex；governmentsofthemostvaryingkindshaveshownthesamefaults；andgovernmentsofthesamekindhaveshowntheminthemostvariousdegrees。ThereforethemethodwhichMacaulaysuggestsisinapplicable。Weshouldreasonaboutgovernment，saysMacaulay，31asBacontoldustoreasonaboutheat。Findallthecircumstancesinwhichhotbodiesagree，andyouwilldeterminetheprincipleofheat。Findallthecircumstancesinwhichgoodgovernmentsagree，andyouwillfindtheprinciplesofgoodgovernment。Certainly；buttheprocess，asMacaulayadmits，wouldbealongone。Rather，itwouldbeendless。What’circumstances’
　　canbethesameinallgoodgovernmentsinalltimesandplaces?Millheldinsubstance，thatwecouldlaydowncertainbroadprinciplesabouthumannature，theexistenceofwhichisofcourseknownfrom’experience，’andbyshowinghowtheywouldwork，ifrestrainedbynodistinctchecks，obtaincertainusefulconclusions。MillindicatesthislineofreplyinhisownattackuponMackintosh。32ThereheexplainsthatwhathereallymeantwastosetforthaprinciplerecognisedbyBerkeley，Hume，Blackstone，and，especially，inPlato’sRepublic。Plato’streatiseisadevelopmentoftheprinciplethat’identityofinterestsaffordstheonlysecurityforgoodgovernment。’Withoutsuchidentityofinterest，saidPlato，theguardiansoftheflockbecomewolves。Hume33hadgivenapithyexpressionofthesameviewinthemaxim’established，’ashesays，’bypoliticalwriters，’thatinframingthe’checksandcontrolsoftheconstitution，everymanoughttobesupposedaknaveandtohavenootherendinhisactionsthanprivateinterest。’Millpointsthisbyreferringtothe’organsofaristocraticalopinion’forthelastfiftyyears。Theincessantappealhasbeenfor’confidenceinpublicmen，’andconfidenceisanothernameforscopeformisrule。34This，heexplains，waswhathemeantbythestatementwhichMackintoshconsideredtohavebeenexplodedbyMacaulaythateverymanpursuedhisowninterest。35Itreferredtotheclasslegislationofthegreataristocraticring：kings，nobles，church，law，andarmy。Utilitarianism，initspoliticalrelations，wasonecontinuouswarfareagainstthesesinister’interests。’Themaster-evilofthecontemporarypoliticalstateundoubtedlyimpliedawantofresponsibility。
　　Apoliticaltrustwashabituallyconfoundedwithprivateproperty。Moreover，whateverelsemaybeessentialtogoodgovernment，oneessentialisastrongsenseofresponsibilityinthegovernors。Thatisaverysoundprinciple，thoughnotanaxiomfromwhichallpoliticalsciencecanbededuced。Iftheessayon’Government’wasreallymeantasakindofpoliticalEuclid——asadeductionofthebestsystemofgovernmentfromthissingleprincipleofresponsibility——itwasasgrotesqueasMacaulayasserted。Millmightperhapshavemetthecriticismbyloweringhisclaimsashissonsuggests。
　　Hecertainlymanagedtoexpresshisargumentinsuchtermsthatithasanuncomfortableappearanceofbeingintendedforascientificexposition。
　　ThisdeservesnoticebecausethepositionischaracteristicoftheUtilitarians’method。Theirappealstoexperiencealwaysendbyabsoluteassertions，Weshallfindthesamedifficultyintheireconomicinquiries，Whenaccused，forexample，oflayingdownabsoluteprinciplesinsuchcases，theyreplythattheyareonlyspeakingof’tendencies，’andrecognisetheexistenceof’checks，’theytreatofwhatwouldbe，ifcertainforcesactedwithoutlimit，asanecessarysteptowardsdiscoveringwhatiswhenthelimitsexist。Theyappeartotheiropponentstoforgetthelimitsintheirpracticalconclusions。Thispoliticalargumentisaninstanceofthesamemethod。Thegenesisofhistheoryisplain。Mill’s’government，’likeBentham’s，issimplytheconceptionoflegal’sovereignty’transferredtothesphereofpolitics。Mill’sexpositionisonlydistinguishedfromhismaster’sbytheclearnesswithwhichhebringsouttheunderlyingassumptions。Thelegalsovereignisomnipotent，forwhathedeclarestobethelawisthereforethelaw。Thelawishiscommandsenforcedby’sanctions，’andthereforebyorganisedforce，themotivesforobediencearethefearofthegallowsononeside，and，ontheother，thedesireofprotectionforlifeandproperty。Law，again，istheultimatesocialbond，andcanbemadeatwillbythesovereign。
　　Hethusbecomessoomnipotentthatitisvirtuallyassumedthathecanevencreatehimself。Notonlycanthesovereign，onceconstituted，givecommandsenforcedbycoercivesanctionsuponanykindofconduct，buthecandeterminehisownconstitution。Hecanatonce，forexample，createarepresentativesysteminpractice，whenithasbeendiscoveredintheory，andcanbyjudiciousregulationssodistribute’self-interest’astoproducephilanthropyandpublicspirit。Macaulay’sanswerreallymakesadifferentassumption。Heacceptsthepurely’empirical’or’ruleofthumb’position，itisidle，hesays，toaskwhatwouldhappeniftherewereno’checks，’
　　itislikeleavingouttheeffectoffrictioninaproblemofmechanics，thelogicmaybecorrect，buttheconclusionsarefalseinpractice。36Nowthis’friction’waspreciselythefavouriteexpedientoftheUtilitariansinpoliticaleconomy。Toreasonaboutfacts，theysay，youmustanalyse，andthereforeprovisionallydisregardthe’checks，’whichmustbeafterwardsintroducedinpracticalapplications。Macaulayisreallybiddingustake’experience’inthelump，andrefrainsfromtheonlytreatmentwhichcanleadtoascientificresult。Hisargument，infact，agreeswiththatofhisfamousessayonBacon，wherewelearnthatphilosophyappliedtomoralquestionsisallnonsense，andthatscienceissimplycrudecommon-sense。
　　Heisreallysayingthatallpoliticalreasoningisimpossible，andthatwemusttrusttounreasonedobservation。Macaulay，indeed，hasgoodgroundsofcriticism。Heshowsveryforciblytheabsurdityoftransferringthelegaltothepoliticalsovereignty。Parliamentmight，ashesays，makealawthateverygentlemanwith£；2000ayearmightflogapauperwithacat-of-nine-tailswheneverhepleased。But，asthefirstexerciseofsuchapowerwouldbethe’lastdayoftheEnglisharistocracy，’theirpowerisstrictlylimitedinfact。37Thatgivesveryclearlythedifferencebetweenlegalandpoliticalsovereignty。Whatparliamentmakeslawislaw，butisnotthereforeenforceable。Wehavetogobehindthecommandsandsanctionsbeforeweunderstandwhatistheactualpowerofgovernment。Itisveryfarfromomnipotent。Macaulay，seeingthis，proceedstothrowasideMill’sargumentagainstthepossibilityofapermanentdivisionofpower。Thedefactolimitationofthesovereign’spowerjustifiestheoldtheoryabout’mixedformsofgovernment。’’Mixedgovernments’arenotimpossible，fortheyarereal。Allgovernmentsare，infact，’mixed。’LouisXIVcouldnotcutofftheheadofanyonewhomhehappenedtodislike。
　　Anorientaldespotisstrictlyboundbythereligiousprejudicesofhissubjects。If’sovereignty’meanssuchpoweritisachimerainpractice，oronlyrealisedapproximatelywhen，asinthecaseofnegroslavery，aclassisactuallyruledbyforceinthehandsofareallyexternalpower。
　　Andyettheattackupon’mixedgovernments，’whichBenthamhadexpoundedintheFragment，hasarealforcewhichMacaulayseemstooverlook。Mill’sargumentagainstapossible’balance’ofpowerwas，asMacaulayasserted，equallyapplicabletothecaseofindependentsovereigns；yetFrancemightbestrongeratCalaisandEnglandatDover。38Millmighthaverepliedthatastateisastatepreciselybecause，andinsofaras，thereisanagreementtorecogniseacommonauthorityorsovereign。Governmentdoesnotimplya’mixture，’butafusionofpower。Thereisaunity，thoughnottheabstractunityoftheUtilitariansovereign。TheweaknessoftheUtilitariansistospeakasthoughthesovereign，beingexternaltoeachindividual，couldthereforeberegardedasexternaltothewholesociety。
　　Herulesasastrongnationmayruleaweakdependency。Whenthesovereignbecomesalsothesociety，thepowerisregardedasequallyabsolute，thoughnowappliedtothedesirableendofmaximisinghappiness。Thewholeargumentignoresthesimpleconsiderationthatthesovereignishimselfinallcasestheproductofthesocietyoverwhichherules，andhiswholeaction，eveninthemostdespoticgovernments，determinedthroughoutbyorganicinstincts，explainingandnotultimatelyexplicablebycoercion。Macaulay’sdoctrinepartiallyrecognisesthisbyfallingbackupontheWhigtheoryofchecksandbalances，andthemixtureofthreemysteriousentities，monarchy，aristocracy，anddemocracy。But，asBenthamhadsufficientlyshownintheFragment，thetheorybecomeshopelesslyunrealwhenwetrytotranslateitintofacts。
　　Therearenotthreeseparateforces，conflictinglikethreeindependentforces，butacomplexsetofsocialinstitutionsboundtogetherintoawhole。Itisimpossiblereallytoregardgovernmentasapermanentbalanceofantagonisticforces，confrontingeachotherlikethethreeduellistsinSheridan’sCritic。Thepracticalresultofthattheoryistosubstituteforthe’greatesthappiness’principlethevaguecriterionofthepreservationofanequilibriumbetweenindefinableforces；andtomaketheultimateendofgovernmentthemaintenanceaslongaspossibleofabalancerestingonnoulteriorprinciple，butundoubtedlypleasantforthecomfortableclasses。Nothingisleftbuttheroughguesswork，which，ifafinenamebewanted，maybecalledBaconianinduction。The’matchlessconstitution，’asBenthamcallsit，representsaconvenientcompromise，andthetendencyistoattachexaggeratedimportancetoitsostensibleterms。WhenMacaulayassertedagainstMill39thatitwasimpossibletosaywhichelement——monarchy，aristocracy，ordemocracy——hadgainedstrengthinEnglandinthelastcentury，heisobviouslylookingattheformulaandnotatthesocialbodybehind。
　　Thisleadstoconsiderationsreallymoreimportantthantheargumentationaboutaprioriandinductivemethods。Millinpracticeknewverywellthequalificationsnecessarybeforehisprinciplesapplied。HeshoweditinhisIndianevidence；andPlacecouldhavetoldhim，haditrequiredtelling，thattheactualpoliticalmachineryworkedbyverystrangeandtortuousmethods。Yethewascontenttooverridesuchconsiderationswhenheisexpoundinghistheory，andlaidhimselfopentoMacaulay’sbroadcommon-senseretort。Thenationatlargecannot，hesays，havea’sinisterinterest。’Itmustdesirelegislationwhichisbeneficialtothewhole。Thisistomakethevastassumptionthateveryindividualwilldesirewhatisgoodforall，andwillbeasufficientjudgeofwhatisgood。Butisitclearthatamajoritywillevendesirewhatisgoodforthewhole?Maytheynotwishtosacrificebothotherclassesandcominggenerationstotheirowninstantaneousadvantages?Isitplainthatevenenlightenmentofmindwouldinduceapoormantoseehisownadvantageinthepolicywhichwouldinthelongrunbebestforthewholesociety?Youarebound，saidMacaulay，toshowthatthepoormanwillnotbelievethathepersonallywouldbenefitbydirectplunderoftherich；
　　andindeedthathewouldnotberightinsobelieving。Thenation，nodoubt，wouldsuffer，butintheimmediateperiodwhichaloneiscontemplatedbyaselfishpauper，themassofthepoormightgetmorepleasureoutofconfiscation。
　　Willtheynot，onyourownprinciples，proceedtoconfiscation?Shallwenothavesuchacatastropheasthereignofterror?TheWestminsterReviewerretortedbysayingthatMacaulayprophesiedareignofterrorasanecessaryconsequenceofanextendedfranchise。Macaulay，skilfullyenough，protestedagainstthisinterpretation。’Wesayagainandagain，’
　　hedeclares，’thatweareonthedefensive。Wedonotthinkitnecessarytoprovethataquackmedicineispoison。Letthevendorproveittobesanative。Wedonotpretendtoshowthatuniversalsuffrageisanevil。
　　Letitsadvocatesshowittobeagood。’40Millrestshiswholecaseupontheselfishnessofmankind。Willnottheselfishnessleadtheactualmajorityatagivenmomenttoplundertherichandtodisregardtheinterestsoftheirownsuccessors?
　　Macaulay’sdeclarationthathewasonly’uponthedefensive’mightbejustifiableinanadvocate。Hisrealthoughtmaybeinferredfromaspeechonthechartermadein1842。
　　Thechartists’petitionofthatyearhadaskedforuniversalsuffrage。
　　Universalsuffrage，hereplies，wouldbeincompatiblewiththe’institutionofproperty。’41Ifthechartistsactedupontheiravowedprinciples，theywouldenforce’onevastspoliation。’Macaulaycouldnotsay，ofcourse，whatwouldactuallyresult，buthis’guess’wasthatweshouldsee’somethingmorehorriblethancanbeimaginedsomethinglikethesiegeofJerusalemonafarlargerscale。’Theverybesteventhecouldanticipate——’andwhatmustthestateofthingsbe，ifanEnglishmanandaWhigcallssuchaneventtheverybest?’——wouldbeamilitarydespotism，givinga’sortofprotectiontoamiserablewreckofallthatimmensegloryandprosperity。’42SointhecriticismofMillhehadsuggestedthatifhisopponent’sprincipleswerecorrect，andhisschemeadopted，’literature，science，commerce，manufactures’
　　wouldbesweptaway，andthata’fewhalf-nakedfishermenwoulddividewiththeowlsandfoxestheruinsofthegreatestofEuropeancities。’43
　　CarefullyasMacaulayGuardshimselfinhisarticlesuponMill，thespeechshowssufficientlywhatwashis’guess’；thatis，hisrealexpectation。Thisgivesthevitaldifference。
　　WhatMacaulayprofessestodeducefromMill’sprincipleshereallyholdshimself，andheholdsitbecauseheargues，asindeedeverybodyhastoargue，prettymuchonMill’smethod。Hedoesnotreallyremaininthepurelyscepticalpositionwhichwouldcorrespondtohisversionof’Baconianinduction。’