Whatgenerallymakesamanlie，andhowislyingtobemadeunpleasant?Byrigorouslyfixingourmindsateverypointonsuchissues，wefindthatmanyquestionsadmitofveryplainanswers，andaresurprisedtodiscoverwhatamassofobscurityhasbeendispelled。Itis，however，truethatalthoughthevalueofthemethodcanhardlybedeniedunlesswedenythevalueofallexperienceandcommonsense，wemaydisputethedegreeinwhichitconfirmsthegeneralprinciple。EverystepseemstoBenthamtoreflectadditionallightuponhisprimaryaxiom。Yetitispossibletoholdthatwitnessesshouldbeencouragedtospeakthetruth，andthatexperiencemayhelpustodiscoverthebestmeanstothatendwithout，therefore，admittingtheuniquevalidityofthe’greatesthappiness’principle。Thatprinciple，sofarastrue，maybeitselfadeductionfromsomehigherprinciple；andnophilosopherofanyschoolwoulddenythat’utility’shouldbeinsomewayconsultedbythelegislator。
　　ThebookillustratesthenextcriticalpointinBentham’ssystem——thetransitionfromlawtopolitics。HewaswritingthebookattheperiodwhenthefailureofthePanopticonwascallinghisattentiontothewickednessofGeorgeIIIandLordEldon，andwhentheEnglishdemandforparliamentaryreformwasrevivingandsupplyinghimwithasympatheticaudience。Now，inexaminingthetheoryofevidenceupontheplandescribed，Benthamfoundhimselfateverystageinconflictwiththeexistingsystem，orrathertheexistingchaosofunintelligiblerules。Englishlawyers，hediscovered，hadworkedoutasystemofrulesforexcludingevidence。Sometimesthecausewaspureindolence。’Thisman，wereItohearhim，’saystheEnglishjudge，’wouldcomeoutwithaparceloflies。Itwouldbeaplaguetohearhim：Ihaveheardenoughalready；shutthedoorinhisface。’66*But，asBenthamshowswithelaboratedetail，areasonforsuspectingevidenceisnotareasonforexcludingit。Aconvictedperjurergivesevidence，andhasapecuniaryinterestintheresult。Thatisexcellentgroundforcaution；butthefactthatthemanmakesacertainstatementmaystillbeahelptotheascertainmentoftruth。Whyshouldthathelpberejected?Benthamscarcelyadmitsofanyexceptiontothegeneralruleoftakinganyevidenceyoucanget——oneexceptionbeingtherathercuriousoneofconfessiontoaCatholicpriest；secrecyinsuchcasesisonthewhole，hethinks，useful。Heexposestheconfusionimpliedinanexclusionofevidencebecauseitisnotfullytrustworthy，whichisequivalenttoworkinginthedarkbecauseapartiallightmaydeceive。Butthisisonlyapartofawholesystemofarbitrary，inconsistent，andtechnicalrulesworkedoutbytheingenuityoflawyers。Besidesthedirectinjurytheygaveendlessopportunityforskilfulmanoeuvringtoexcludeoradmitevidencebyadoptingdifferentformsofprocedure。Ruleshadbeenmadebyjudgesastheywerewantedandprecedentsestablishedofcontradictorytendencyanduncertainapplication。Benthamcontraststhesimplicityoftherulesdeduciblefrom’utility’withtheamazingcomplexityofthetraditionalcodeoftechnicalrules。Underthe’natural’system，thatofutility，youhavetodealwithaquarrelbetweenyourservantsorchildren。Yousendatonceforthedisputants，confrontthem，takeanyrelevantevidence，andmakeupyourmindastotherightsofthedispute。Incertaincasesthis’natural’procedurehasbeenretained，as，forexample，incourtsmartial，whererapiddecisionwasnecessary。
　　Hadthetechnicalsystemprevailed，thecountrywouldhavebeenruinedinsixweeks。67*Buttheexposureofthetechnicalsystemrequiresanelaboratedisplayofintricatemethodsinvolvingateverystepvexation，delay，andinjustice。Benthamreckonsupnineteenseparatedevicesemployedbythecourts。
　　Hedescribestheelaborateprocesseswhichhadtobegonethroughbeforeahearingcouldbeobtained；thedistanceofcourtsfromthelitigants；thebandyingofcasesfromcourttocourt；thechicaneriesaboutgivingnotice；
　　thefrequentnullificationofallthathadbeendoneonaccountofsometechnicalflaw；theunintelligiblejargonofLatinandLaw-Frenchwhichveiledtheproceedingsfromthepublic；theelaboratemysteriesof’specialpleading’；
　　theconflictofjurisdictions，andthemanufactureofnew’pleas’andnewtechnicalrules；the’entanglementofjurisdictions，’andespeciallythedistinctionbetweenlawandequity，whichhadmadeconfusiondoublyconfounded。
　　Englishlawhadbecomeamerejungleofunintelligibledistinctions，contradictions，andcumbrousmethodsthroughwhichnomancouldfindhiswaywithouttheguidanceoftheinitiated，andinwhichalongpurseandunscrupuloustrickerygavetheadvantageoverthepoortotherich，andtotheknaveoverthehonestman。Onefruitfulsourceofalltheseevilswasthe’judge-made’law，whichBenthamhenceforthneverceasedtodenounce。Hisidealwasadistinctcodewhich，whenchangewasrequired，shouldbechangedbyanavowedandintelligibleprocess。Thechaoswhichhadgrownupwasthenaturalresultofthegradualdevelopmentofatraditionalbodyoflaw，inwhichnewcasesweremetundercoverofapplyingprecedentsfrompreviousdecisions，withthehelpofreferencetothevaguebodyofunwrittenor’commonlaw，’andoflegalfictionspermittingsomenon-naturalinterpretationoftheoldformulae。Itisthejudges，hehadalreadysaidin1792，68*’thatmakethecommonlaw。’Doyouknowhowtheymakeit?Justasamanmakeslawsforhisdog。Whenyourdogdoesanythingyouwanttobreakhimof，youwaittillhedoesitandthenbeathim。Thisisthewayyoumakelawsforyourdog，andthisistheWaythejudgesmakelawsforyouandme。’The’tyrannyofjudge-madelaw，is’themostall-comprehensive，mostgrinding，andmostcryingofallgrievances，’69*andisscarcelylessbadthan’priest-madereligion。’70*Legalfictions，accordingtohim，aresimplylies。Thepermissiontousethemisa’mendacitylicence。’In’Rome-bredlaw……fiction’isa’wartwhichhereandtheredisfiguresthefaceofjustice。
　　InEnglishlawfictionisasyphiliswhichrunsintoeveryveinandcarriesintoeverypartofthesystemtheprincipleofrottenness。’71*TheevilsdenouncedbyBenthamweremonstrous。
　　Thecompletenessoftheexposurewashisgreatmerit；andhisreputationhassuffered，aswearetoldoncompetentauthority，bytheveryefficiencyofhisattack。Theworstevilsaresomuchthingsofthepast，thatweforgettheextentoftheevilandthemeritsofitsassailant。Bentham’sdiagnosisoftheevilexplainshislaterattitude。Heattributesalltheabusestoconsciouslycorruptmotivesevenwhereasufficientexplanationcanbefoundinthehumanstupidityandhonestincapacitytolookoutsideoftraditionalwaysofthought。Headmits，indeed，thepersonalpurityofEnglishjudges。
　　NoEnglishjudgehadeverreceivedabribewithinlivingmemory。72*Butthis，heurges，isonlybecausethejudgesfinditmoreprofitableaswellassafertocarryoutaradicallycorruptsystem。Asynonymfor’technical’
　　is’fee-gathering。’Lawyersofallclasseshadacommoninterestinmultiplyingsuitsandcomplicatingprocedure：andthusatacitpartnershiphadgrownupwhichhedescribesas’judgeandCo。’Hegivesstatisticsshowingthatintheyear1797fivehundredandforty-threeoutoffivehundredandfifty’writsoferror’were’shams，’orsimplyvexatiouscontrivancesfordelay，andbroughtaprofittotheChiefjusticeofover£；1400。73*LordEldonwasalwaysbeforehimasthetypicalrepresentativeofobstructionandobscurantism。
　　InhisIndicationsrespectingLordEldon1825hegoesintodetailswhichitmusthaverequiredsomecouragetopublish。UnderEldon，hesays，’equityhasbecomeaninstrumentoffraudandextortion。’74*HedetailstheproceedingsbywhichEldonobtainedthesanctionofparliamentforasystemoffee-taking，whichhehadadmittedtobeillegal，andwhichhadbeendenouncedbyaneminentsolicitorasleadingtogrosscorruption。BenthamintimatesthattheMastersinChancerywere’swindlers，’75*andthatEldonwasknowinglytheprotectorandshareroftheirprofits。Romilly，whohadcalledtheCourtofChancery’adisgracetoacivilisednation，’hadsaidthatEldonwasthecauseofmanyoftheabuses，andcouldhavereformedmostoftheothers。Erskinehaddeclaredthatiftherewasahell，theCourtofChancerywashell。76*Eldon，asBenthamhimselfthought，wasworsethanJeffreys。Eldon’svictimshaddiedalingeringdeath，andthepersecutorhadmademoneyoutoftheirsufferings。
　　Jeffreyswasopenlybrutal；whileEldoncoveredhistyrannyunderthe’mostaccomplishedindifference。’77*
　　YetEldonwasbuttheheadofaband。judges，barristers，andsolicitorswerealike。Themosthopelessofreformswouldbetoraisea’thorough-pacedEnglishlawyer’tothemorallevelofanaverageman。78*Toattacklegalabuseswastoattackaclasscombinedunderitschiefs，capableofhoodwinkingparliamentandsuppressingopencriticism。Theslave-traderswhomWilberforceattackedwerecomparativelyapowerlessexcrescence。Thelegalprofessionwasintheclosestrelationstothemonarchy，thearistocracy，andthewholeprivilegedandwealthyclass。Theywereweldedintoasolid’ring。’Theking，andhisministerswhodistributedplacesandpensions；theborough-mongerswhosoldvotesforpower；theclergywholookedforbishoprics；themoniedmenwhoaspiredtorankandpower，wereallpartsofaleague。Itwaseasyenoughtotalkoflawreform。Romillyhadproposedandevencarrieda’reformatiuncle’
　　ortwo；79*buttoachieveaserioussuccessrequirednotvictoryinaskirmishortwo，nottheexposureofsomeabusetoopalpabletobeopenlydefendedevenbyanEldon，butaprolongedwaragainstanorganisedarmyfortifiedandentrenchedintheveryheartofthecountry。
　　VI。RADICALISM
　　ThusBentham，ashiseyeswereopened，becameaRadical。Thepoliticalpurposebecamedominant，althoughwealwaysseethatthelegalabusesareuppermostinhismind；andthatwhathereallyseeksisafulcrumforthemachinerywhichistooverthrowLordEldon。Someofthepamphletsdealdirectlywiththespecialinstrumentsofcorruption。TheElementsoftheArtofPackingshowshowthecrownmanagedtohaveapermanentbodyofspecial’jurors’
　　atitsdisposal。The’grandandparamountuse’80*ofthissystemwastocrushthelibertyofthepress。Theobscurelawoflibel，workedbyjudgesintheinterestofthegovernment，enabledthemtopunishanyrashRadicalfor’hurtingthefeelings’oftherulingclasses，andtoevaderesponsibilitybyhelpofa’covertlypensioned’andservilejury。Thepamphlet，thoughtiresomelyminuteandlong-winded，containedtoomuchpointedtruthtobepublishedatthetime。TheOfficialAptitudeminimisedcontainsaseriesofattacksuponthesystemofpatronageandpensionsbywhichthemachineryofgovernmentwaspracticallyworked。IntheCatechismofreformers，writtenin1809，Benthambeganthedirectapplicationofhistheoriestotheconstitution；
　　andthefinalandmostelaborateexpositionoftheseformstheConstitutionalCode，whichwasthemainworkofhislateryears。ThisbookexcitedthewarmestadmirationofBentham’sdisciples。81*J。S。Millspeaksofits’extraordinarypower……ofatonceseizingcomprehensiveprinciplesandschemingoutminutedetails，’andofits’surpassingintellectualvigour。’Nor，indeed，willanyonebedisposedtodenythatitisasingularproofofintellectualactivity，whenwerememberthatitwasbegunwhentheauthorwasoverseventy，andthathewasstillworkingateighty-four。82*InthisbookBentham’speculiaritiesofstylereachtheirhighestdevelopment，anditcannotberecommendedaslightreading。HadBenthambeenamysticalphilosopher，hewould，wemayconjecture，haveachievedamasterpieceofunintelligibilitywhichallhisfollowerswouldhaveextolledascontainingtheveryessenceofhisteaching。
　　Hismethodcondemnedhimtobealwaysintelligible，howevercrabbedandelaborate。
　　Perhaps，however，thepointwhichstrikesonemostistheamazingsimple-mindednessofthewholeproceeding。Bentham’slight-heartedindifferencetothedistinctionbetweenpaperconstitutionsandoperativerulesofconductbecomesalmostpathetic。