asocialtheoremwastakentobethesamethingastoshowhowdifferencesofcharacterorconductcouldbeexplainedby’circumstance’——meaningby’circumstance’somethingnotgivenintheagenthimself。Wehave，however，nomorerightasgoodempiriciststoassertthantodenythatalldifferencecomesfrom’circumstance。’Ifwetake’man’asaconstantquantityinourspeculations，itrequiresatleastagreatmanyprecautionsbeforewecanassumethatourabstractentitycorrespondstoarealconcreteunit。Otherwisewehaveashortcuttoadoctrineof’equality。’Thetheoryof’therightsofman’laysdowntheformula，andassumesthatthefactswillcorrespond。
　　TheUtilitarianassumestheequalityoffact，andofcoursebringsoutanequallyabsoluteformula。’Equality，’insomesense，isintroducedbyasidewind，thoughnotexplicitlylaiddownasanaxiom。104*Thisunderlyingtendencymaypartlyexplainthecoincidenceofresults——thoughitwouldrequireagoodmanyqualificationsindetail；buthereIneedonlytakeBentham’smoreorlessunconsciousapplication。
　　Bentham’stacitassumption，infact，isthatthereisanaverage’man。’
　　Differentspecimensoftherace，indeed，mayvarywidelyaccordingtoage，sex，andsoforth；but，forpurposesoflegislation，hemayserveasaunit。
　　Wecanassumethathehasontheaveragecertainqualitiesfromwhichhisactionsinthemasscanbedeterminedwithsufficientaccuracy，andwearetemptedtoassumethattheyaremainlythequalitiesobvioustoaninhabitantofQueen’sSquarePlaceabouttheyear1800。MilldefendsBenthamagainstthechargethatheassumedhiscodestobegoodforallmeneverywhere。Tothat，saysMill，105*theessayuponthe’InfluenceofTimeandPlaceinMattersofLegislation’isacompleteanswer。YetMill016*admitsinthesamebreaththatBenthamomittedallreferenceto’nationalcharacter。’Infact，aswehaveseen，BenthamwasreadytolegislateforHindoostanaswellasforhisownparish；andtomakecodesnotonlyforEngland，Spain，andRussia，butforMorocco。TheEssaymentionedreallyexplainsthepoint。Benthamnotonlyadmittedbutassertedasenergeticallyasbecameanempiricist，thatwemustallowfor’circumstances’；andcircumstancesincludenotonlyclimateandsoforth，butthevaryingbeliefsandcustomsofthepeopleunderconsideration。Therealassumptionisthatallsuchcircumstancesaresuperficial，andcanbecontrolledandalteredindefinitelybythe’legislator。’TheMoor，theHindoo，andtheEnglishmanareallradicallyidentical；andthedifferenceswhichmustbetakenintoaccountforthemomentcanberemovedbyjudiciousmeans。WithoutpausingtoillustratethisfromtheEssay，Imayremarkthatformanypurposessuchanassumptionisjustifiableandguidesordinarycommonsense。Ifweaskwhatwouldbethebestconstitutionforacommercialcompany，orthebestplatformforapoliticalparty，wecanformafairguessbyarguingfromtheaverageofBenthamandhiscontemporaries——especiallyifweareshrewdattorneysorpoliticalwirepullers。Onlywearenotthereforeinapositiontotalkaboutthe’scienceofhumannature’ortodealwithproblemsof’sociology。’This，however，givesBentham’s’individualism’inasenseofthephrasealreadyexplained。Hestartsfromthe’ready-mademan，’anddeducesallinstitutionsorlegalarrangementsfromhisproperties。Ihavetriedtoshowhownaturallythisviewfellinwiththeordinarypoliticalconceptionsofthetime。Itshows，again，whyBenthamdisregardshistory。
　　Whenwehavesuchascience，empiricalorapriori，historyisatmostofsecondaryimportance。Wecandeduceallourmaximsofconductfromthemanhimselfasheisbeforeus。Historyonlyshowshowterriblyheblunderedinthepre-scientificperiod。Theblundersmaygiveusahinthereandthere。
　　Manwasessentiallythesameinthefirstandtheeighteenthcentury，andthedifferencesareduetotheclumsydeviceswhichhemadebyruleofthumb。
　　Wedonotwanttorefertothemnow，exceptasillustrationsoferrors。Wemayremarkhowdifficultitwastocountbeforethepresentnotationwasinvented；butwhenithasoncebeeninvented，wemaylearntouseitwithouttroublingourheadsaboutourancestors’clumsycontrivancesfordoingwithoutit。Thisleadstotherealshortcoming。Thereisapointatwhichthehistoricalviewbecomesimportant——thepoint，namely，whereitisessentialtorememberthatmanisnotaready-madearticle，buttheproductofalongandstillcontinuing’evolution。’Bentham’sattackintheFragmentuponthe’socialcontract’issignificant。Hewas，nodoubt，perfectlyrightinsayingthatanimaginarycontractcouldaddnoforcetotheultimategroundsforthesocialunion。Nobodywouldnowacceptthefictioninthatstage。Andyetthe’socialcontract’maybetakentorecogniseafact；namely，thattheunderlyinginstinctsuponwhichsocietyalternatelyrestscorrespondtoanorderofreasonsfromthosewhichdeterminemoresuperficialrelations。Societyisundoubtedlyuseful，anditsutilitymayberegardedasitsground。Buttheutilityofsocietymeansmuchmorethantheutilityofarailwaycompanyoraclub，whichpostulatesasexistingawholeseriesofalreadyestablishedinstitutions。ToBenthaman’utility’appearedtobeakindofpermanentandultimateentitywhichisthesameatallperiods——itcorrespondstoapsychologicalcurrencyofconstantvalue。Toshow，therefore，thatthesocialcontractrecognises’utility’istoshowthatthewholeorganismisconstructedjustasanyparticularpartisconstructed。Mancomesfirstand’society’afterwards。Ihavealreadynoticedhowthisappliestohisstatementsabouttheutilityofalaw；howhisargumentassumesanalreadyconstitutedsociety，andseemstooverlookthedifferencebetweentheorganiclawuponwhichallorderessentiallydepends，andsomeparticularmodificationorcorollarywhichmaybesuperinduced。Wenowhavetonoticethepoliticalversionofthesamemethod。The’law，’accordingtoBentham，isaruleenforcedbya’sanction。’TheimposeroftheruleinthephrasewhichHobbeshadmadefamousisthe’sovereign。’Hobbeswasafavouriteauthor，indeed，ofthelaterUtilitarians，thoughBenthamdoesnotappeartohavestudiedhim。Therelationisoneofnaturalaffinity。WhenintheConstitutionalCodeBenthamtransfersthe’sovereignty’fromthekingtothe’people，’107*heshowstheexactdifferencebetweenhisdoctrineandthatoftheLeviathan。Boththinkersareabsolutistsinprinciple，thoughHobbesgivestoamonarchthepowerwhichBenthamgivestoademocracy。Theattributesremainthoughtheirsubjectisaltered。The’sovereign，’infact，isthekeystoneofthewholeUtilitariansystem。Herepresentstheultimatesourceofallauthority，andsuppliesthemotiveforallobedience。AsHobbesputit，heisakindofmortalGod。
　　Mill’scriticismofBenthamsuggeststheconsequences。Thereare，hesays，108*
　　threegreatquestions：Whatgovernmentisforthegoodofthepeople?Howaretheytobeinducedtoobeyit?Howisittobemaderesponsible?Thethirdquestion，hesays，istheonlyoneseriouslyconsidered。byBentham；
　　andBentham’sanswer，wehaveseen，leadstothat’tyrannyofthemajority’
　　whichwasMill’sgreatstumbling-block。Why，then，doesBenthamomittheotherquestions?orrather，howwouldheanswerthem?forhecertainlyassumesananswer。People，inthefirstplace，are’inducedtoobey’bythesanctions。
　　Theydon’trobthattheymaynotgotoprison。Thatisasufficientansweratagivenmoment。Itassumes，indeed，thatthelawwillbeobeyed。Thepoliceman，thegaoler，andthejudgewilldowhatthesovereign——whetherdespotorlegislature——ordersthemtodo。Thejuristmaynaturallytakethisforgranted。Hedoesnotgo’behindthelaw。’Thatisthelawwhichthesovereignhasdeclaredtobethelaw。Inthatsense，thesovereignisomnipotent。Hecan，asafact，threatenevildoerswiththegallows；andthejuristsimplytakesthefactforgranted，andassumesthatthecoercionisanultimatefact。Nodoubtitisultimatefortheindividualsubject。Theimmediaterestraintisthepoliceman，andweneednotaskuponwhatdoesthepolicemandepend。
　　If，however，wepersistinasking，wecometothehistoricalproblemswhichBenthamsimplyomits。Thelawitself，infact，ultimatelyrestsupon’custom，’——
　　uponthewholesystemofinstincts，beliefs，andpassionswhichinducepeopletoobeygovernment，andare，sotospeak，thesubstanceoutofwhichloyaltyandrespectforthelawisframed。These，again，aretheproductofanindefinitelylongelaboration，whichBenthamtakesforgranted。Heassumesasperfectlynaturalandobviousthatanumberofmenshouldmeet，astheAmericansorfrenchmenmet，andcreateaconstitution。Thatthepossibilityofsuchaproceedinginvolvescenturiesofprevioustrainingdoesnotoccurtohim。Itisassumedthattheconstitutioncanbemadeoutofhand，andthisassumptionisofthehighestimportance，notonlyhistoricallybutforimmediatepractice。MillassumestooeasilythatBenthamhassecuredresponsibility。
　　Benthamassumesthataninstitutionwillworkasitisintendedtowork——
　　perhapsthecommonesterrorofconstitution-mongers。Ifthepeopleusetheinstrumentswhichheprovides，theyhavealegalmethodforenforcingobedience。
　　Toinferthattheywilldosoistoinferthatalltheorganicinstinctswilloperatepreciselyasheintends；thateachindividual，forexample，willformanindependentopinionuponlegislativequestions，voteformenwhowillapplyhisopinions，andseethathisrepresentativesperformhisbiddinghonestly。Thattheyshoulddosoisessentialtohisscheme；butthattheywilldosoiswhathetakesforgranted。Heassumes，thatis，thatthereisnoneedforinquiringintothesocialinstinctswhichliebeneathallpoliticalaction。Youcanmakeyourmachineandassumethemovingforce。
　　Thatisthenaturalresultofconsideringpoliticalandlegislativeproblemswithouttakingintoaccountthewholecharacterofthehumanmaterialsemployedintheconstruction。Bentham’ssovereignisthusabsolute。Herulesbycoercion，asaforeignpowermayrulebytheswordinaconqueredprovince。Thus，forceistheessenceofgovernment，anditisneedlesstogofurther。Tosecuretherightapplicationoftheforce，wehavesimplytodistributeitamongthesubjects。Governmentstillmeanscoercion，andultimatelynothingelse；
　　butthen，asthesubjectsaresimplymovedbytheirowninterests，thatis，byutility，theywillapplythepowertosecurethoseinterests。Therefore，allthatiswantedisthisdistribution，andMill’sfirstproblem，Whatgovernmentisforthegoodofthepeople?issummarilyanswered。Thequestion，howobedienceistobesecured，isevadedbyconfiningtheanswertothe’sanctions，’andtakingforgrantedthattheprocessofdistributingpowerisperfectlysimple，orthatanewordercanbeintroducedaseasilyasparliamentcanpassanactforestablishinganewpoliceinLondon。The’socialcontract’isabolished；
　　butitistakenforgrantedthatthewholepowerofthesovereigncanbedistributed，andrulesmadeforitsapplicationbythecommonsenseofthevariouspersonsinterested。Finally，theonebondoutsideoftheindividualisthesovereign。Herepresentsallthatholdssocietytogether；his’sanctions，’
　　asIhavesaid，aretakentobeonthesameplanewiththe’moralsanctions’——
　　notdependentuponthem，butothermodesofapplyingsimilarmotives。
　　Asthesovereign，again，isinasenseomnipotent，andyetcanbemanufactured，sotospeak，byvoluntaryarrangementsamongtheindividualmembersofsociety，thereisnolimittotheinfluencewhichhemayexercise。Inote，indeed，thatIamspeakingratherofthetendenciesofthetheorythanofdefinitelyformulatedconclusions。MostoftheUtilitarianswereexceedinglyshrewd，practicalpeople，whoseregardforhardfactsimposedlimitsupontheirspeculations。