andwhichwillgivetohissystemnotsuchunityasarisesfromthedevelopmentofanabstractlogicalprinciple，butsuchasisintroducedintothephysicalscienceswhenweareabletorangealltheindefinitelycomplexphenomenawhichariseundersomesimplelawofforce。IfBentham’saimcouldhavebeenachieved，’utility’wouldhavebeeninlegislativetheorieswhatgravitationisinastronomicaltheories。Allhumanconductbeingruledbypainandpleasure，wecouldcompareallmotivesandactions，andtraceouttheconsequencesofanygivenlaw。Ishallhavehereaftertoconsiderhowthisconceptionworkedindifferentmindsandwasappliedtodifferentproblems：whatwerethetenableresultstowhichitled，andwhatweretheerrorscausedbytheimpliedovernightofsomeessentialconsiderations。
　　Certainweaknessesarealmosttooobvioustobespecified。Heclaimedtobeconstructingascience，comparabletothephysicalsciences。Theattemptwasobviouslychimericalifwearetotakeitseriously。Themakeshiftdoctrinewhichhesubstitutesforpsychologywouldbeasufficientproofoftheincapacityforhistask。HehadprobablynotreadsuchwritersasHartleyorCondillac，whomighthavesuggestedsomeostensiblysystematictheory。Ifhehadlittlepsychologyhehadnotevenaconceptionof’sociology。’The’felicificcalculus’
　　isenoughtoshowtheinadequacyofhismethod。Thepurposeistoenableustocalculatetheeffectsofaproposedlaw。Youproposetosendrobberstothegallowsorthegaol。Youmust，saysBentham，reckonupalltheevilsprevented：thesufferingtotherobbed，andtothosewhoexpecttoberobbed，ontheonehand；and，ontheother，theevilscaused，thesufferingtotherobber，andtothetax-payerwhokeepstheconstable；thenstrikeyourbalanceandmakeyourlawiftheevilspreventedexceedtheevilscaused。Somesuchcalculationisdemandedbyplaincommonsense。Itpointstothelineofinquirydesirable。Butcanitbeadequate?Toestimatetheutilityofalawwemusttakeintoaccountallits’effects。’Whatarethe’effects’ofalawagainstrobbery?Theyareallthatisimpliedinthesecurityofproperty。TheycorrespondtothedifferencebetweenEnglandintheeighteenthcenturyandEnglandinthetimeofHengistandHorsa；betweenacountrywherethesupremacyoflawisestablished，andacountrystillundertheruleofthestronghand。Bentham’smethodmaybeapplicableatagivenmoment，whenthesocialstructureisalreadyconsolidatedanduniform。Itwouldrepresentthepracticalargumentsforestablishingthepolice-forcedemandedbyColquhoun，andshowthedisadvantagesoftheoldconstablesandwatchmen。Bentham，thatis，givesanadmirablemethodforsettlingdetailsofadministrativeandlegislativemachinery，anddealingwithparticularcaseswhenoncethemainprinciplesoflawandorderareestablished。Thoseprinciples，too，maydependupon’utility。’
　　bututilitymustbetakeninawidersensewhenwehavetodealwiththefundamentalquestions。Wemustconsiderthe’utility’ofthewholeorganisation，notthefitnessofseparatedetails。Finally，ifBenthamisweakinpsychologyandinsociology，heisclearlynotsatisfactoryinethics。Moralityis，accordingtohim，onthesameplanewithlaw。Thedifferenceisnotinthespheretowhichtheyapply，orintheendtowhichtheyaredirected；butsolelyinthe’sanction。’Thelegislatorusesthreatsofphysicalsuffering；
　　themoralistthreatsof’popular’disapproval。Either’sanction’maybemostapplicabletoagivencase；butthequestionismerelybetweendifferentmeanstothesameendundervaryingconditions。Thisimpliesthe’external’
　　characterofBentham’smorality，andexplainshisinsistenceupontheneutralityofmotives。Hetakestheaveragemantobeacompoundofcertaininstincts，andmerelyseekstoregulatetheiractionbysupplying’artificialtutelarymotives。’The’man’isgiven；theplayofhisinstincts，separatelyneutral，makeshisconductmoreorlessfavourabletogeneralhappiness；andthemoralistandthelegislatorhavebothtocorrecthisdeviationsbysupplyingappropriate’sanctions。’Bentham，therefore，isinclinedtoignoretheintrinsiccharacterofmorality，orthedependenceofaman’smoralityupontheessentialstructureofhisnature。Hethinksofthesuperficialplayofforces，notoftheirintimateconstitution。Themanisnottobechangedineithercase；onlyhiscircumstances。SuchdefectsnodoubtdiminishthevalueofBentham’swork。Yet，afterall，inhisownspheretheyaretrifles。Hedidverywellwithoutphilosophy。Howeverimperfecthissystemmightbeconsideredasascienceoranultimateexplanationofsocietyandhumannature，itwasverymuchtothepointasanexpressionofdownrightcommon-sense。Dumont’seulogyseemstobefullydeserved，whenwecontrastBentham’stheoryofpunishmentwiththetheoriesiftheydeservethenameofcontemporarylegislators。
　　Hismethodinvolvedathoroughgoingexaminationofthewholebodyoflaws，andaresolutiontoapplyasearchingtesttoeverylaw。Ifthattestwasnotsounequivocalorultimateashefancied，ityetimpliedtheconstantapplicationofsuchconsiderationsasmustalwayscarryweight，and，perhaps，bealwaysthedominantconsiderations，withtheactuallegislatororjurist。
　　Whatistheuseofyou?isaquestionwhichmayfairlybeputtoeveryinstitutionandtoeverylaw；anditconcernslegislatorstofindsomeanswer，eventhoughthemeaningoftheword’use’isnotsoclearaswecouldwish。
　　V。ENGLISHLAW
　　ThepracticalvalueofBentham’smethodisperhapsbestillustratedbyhisRationaleofEvidence。ThecompositionofthepapersultimatelyputtogetherbyJ。S。MillhadoccupiedBenthamfrom1802to1812。Thechangedstyleissignificant。Nobodycouldwritemorepointedly，orwithhappierillustrations，thanBenthaminhisearlieryears。Heafterwardscametothinkthatadidactictreatiseshouldsacrificeeveryothervirtuetofulnessandprecision。Tomakeasentenceprecise，everyqualifyingclausemustbesomehowforcedintotheoriginalformula。Stillmorecharacteristicishisapplicationofwhathecallsthe’substantive-preferringprinciple。’61*Hewouldrathersay，’Igiveextensiontoanobject，’than’Iextendanobject。’Whereasubstantiveisemployed，theideais’stationeduponarock’；ifonlyaverb，theideais’likealeaffloatingonastream。’Averb，hesaid，62*’slipsthroughyourfingerslikeaneel。’Theprinciplecorrespondstohis’metaphysics。’
　　Theuniverseofthoughtismadeupofanumberofseparate’entities’correspondingtonouns-substantive，andwhenthesebundlesaredistinctlyisolatedbyappropriatenouns，theprocessofarrangingandcodifyingaccordingtothesimplerelationsindicatedbythecopulaisgreatlyfacilitated。Theideallanguagewouldresemblealgebra，inwhichsymbols，eachrepresentingagivennumericalvalue，areconnectedbythesmallestpossiblenumberofsymbolsofoperation，，-，=，andsoforth。Tosettwosuchstatementssidebyside，ortomodifythembyinsertingdifferentconstants，isthenacomparativelyeasyprocess，capableofbeingregulatedbysimplegeneralrules。Bentham’sstylebecomestiresome，andwasoftenimproperlycalledobscure。Itrequiresattention，butthemeaningisneverdoubtful——andtotheendwehavefrequentflashesoftheoldvivacity。
　　TheRationaleofEvidence，asMillremarks，63*is’oneoftherichestinmatterofallBentham’sproductions。’Itcontains，too，manypassagesinBentham’searlierstyle，judiciouslypreservedbyhisyoungeditor；indeed，somanythatIamtemptedeventocallthebookamusing。Inspiteofthewearisomeefforttosayeverything，andtoforcelanguageintothemouldpresentedbyhistheory，Benthamattractsusbyhisobvioussincerity。Theargumentsmaybeunsatisfactory，buttheyaregenuinearguments。TheyrepresentcOnviction；theyaregivenbecausetheyhaveconvinced；andnoreadercandenythattheyreallytendtoconvince。Wemaycomplainthattherearetoomanywords，andthatthesentencesarecumbrous；butthesubstanceisalwaystothepoint。Themainpurposemaybeverybrieflyindicated。Benthambeginsbygeneralconsiderationsuponevidence，inwhichheandhisyouthfuleditorindicatetheirgeneraladherencetothedoctrinesofHume。64*Thisleadstoanapplicationofthemethodsexpoundedinthe’Introduction，’inordertoshowhowthevariousmotivesor’springsofaction’andthe’sanctions’
　　baseduponthemmayaffectthetrustworthinessofevidence。Anymotivewhatevermayincidentallycause’mendacity。’Thesecondbook，therefore，considerswhatsecuritiesmaybetakenfor’securingtrustworthiness。’Wehave，forexample，adiscussionofthevalueofoathshethinksthemvalueless，oftheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofreducingevidencetowriting，ofinterrogatingwitnesses，andofthepublicityorprivacyofevidence。BookIIIdealswiththe’extractionofevidence。’Wehavetocomparetherelativeadvantagesoforalandwrittenevidence，therulesforcross-examiningwitnessesandfortakingevidenceastotheircharacter。BookIVdealswith’pre-appointedevidence，’thecases，thatis，inwhicheventsarerecordedatthetimeofoccurrenCewithaviewtotheirsubsequentuseasevidence。Wehaveunderthisheadtoconsidertheformalitieswhichshouldberequiredinregardtocontractsandwills；andthemodeofrecordingjudicialandotherofficialdecisionsandregisteringbirths，deaths，andmarriages。InBooksVandVI
　　weconsidertwokindsofevidencewhichisinonewayorotherofinferiorcogency，namely，’circumstantialevidence，’inwhichtheevidenceifacceptedstillleavesroomforaprocessofmoreorlessdoubtfulinference；and’makeshiftevidence，’suchevidenceasmustsometimesbeacceptedforwantofthebest，ofwhichthemostconspicuousinstanceis’hearsayevidence。’BookVIIdealswiththe’authentication’ofevidence。Bookviiiisaconsiderationofthe’technical’system，thatnamelywhichwasacceptedbyEnglishlawyers；andfinallyBookIXdealswithaspecialpoint，namely，theexclusionofevidence。
　　Benthamannouncesatstarting65*thatheshallestablish’onetheorem’
　　andconsidertwoproblems。Theproblemsare：’whatsecuritiescanbetakenforthetruthofevidence?’and’whatrulescanbegivenforestimatingthevalueofevidence?’The’theorem’isthatnoevidenceshouldbeexcludedwiththeprofessedintentionofobtainingarightdecision；thoughsomemustbeexcludedtoavoidexpense，vexation，anddelay。This，therefore，ashismostdistinctmoral，isfullytreatedinthelastbook。
　　HadBenthamconfinedhimselftoapithystatementofhisleadingdoctrines，andconfirmedthembyafewtypicalcases，hewouldhavebeenmoreeffectiveinaliterarysense。Hispassionfor’codification，’fortabulatingandarrangingfactsinalltheircomplexity，andforapplyinghisdoctrineatfulllengthtoeverycasethathecanimagine，makeshimterriblyprolix。Ontheotherhand，thisprocessnodoubtstrengthenedhisownconvictionandtheconvictionofhisdisciplesastothevalueofhisprocess。Followthisclueofutilitythroughoutthewholelabyrinth，seewhataclearansweritoffersateverypoint，andyoucannotdoubtthatyouareinpossessionofthetruecompassforsuchanavigation。Indeed，itseemstobeindisputablethatBentham’sargumentsarethereallyrelevantandimportantarguments。Howcanwedecideanyofthepointswhichcomeupfordiscussion?Shouldawitnessbecrossexamined?Shouldhisevidenceberecorded?Shouldawifebeallowedtogiveevidenceagainstherhusband?orthedefendanttogiveevidenceabouthisowncase?TheseandinnumerableotherpointscanonlybedecidedbyreferencetowhatBenthamunderstoodby’utility。’Thisorthatarrangementis’useful’
　　becauseitenablesustogetquicklyandeasilyattheevidence，totakeeffectivesecuritiesforitstruthfulness，toestimateitsrelevanceandimportance，toleavethedecisiontothemostqualifiedpersons，andsoforth。
　　Thesepoints，again，canonlybedecidedbyacarefulappealtoexperience，andbyendeavouringtounderstandtheordinaryplayof’motives’and’sanctions。’