your letter, but their natural jetty lustre is now pretty well returned." It would seem that some of his friends having their attention fixed on Bentham alone, and not attending to the course of thought in the rest of the world, could not get rid of the absurd notion of Paley having had some intimation of Bentham's doctrines. Wilson again returns to it two years later: "I have often been tempted to think that Paley had either seen your Introduction or had conversed with some one who was intimate with you." And the biographer who publishes these letters gravely refers from the one passage to the other, as if they confirmed each other. But when driven, as any sober thought must drive them, from this empty conjecture, they have recourse to the most extravagant assertions of the differerence between Paley's and Bentham's doctrines. Thus in Bentham's Deontology we are told by the same biographer (Dr Bowring), that Paley "mentions the principle of utility, but seems to have no notion of its bearing on happiness." The person who writes thus can hardly, it would seem, have seen Paley's book. But he appears, like Bentham himself, to have thought that he had means of knowing what Paley's doctrines must be, which made it superfluous to examine what they were. "And if," adds this disciple of Bentham, "Paley had any such idea" as that of the bearing of utility on happiness, "he was the last man to give expression to it." Observe the reason why. "The work was for the youth of Cambridge," of one of the Colleges of which he was tutor. Now Paley had left the University ten years before, and his book was not adopted by the University till some time afterwards. But let us hear the writer's

account of Cambridge. "In that meridian eyes were not strong enough, nor did he desire they should be strong enough, to endure the light from the orb of utilitarian felicity." But how does the writer know what Paley desired? By deducing from a rumoured pleasantry of Paley,

an account of his character and habits utterly at variance with known truth. "Insincere himself, and the bold, often declared, advocate of insincerity, over his bottle those who knew him, knew that he was the self-avowed lover and champion of corruption, rich enough to keep an equipage, but not (as he himself declared) rich enough to keep a conscience." In general "conscience" is not spoken of by the Benthamites with much reverence; but let us not quarrel with their inconsistency in this respect. Let us, however, look once more at the state of their knowledge respecting the English Universities. "For the remaining twenty years of his (Paley's) life, his book was the text-book of the Universities." For the ten preceding years and all the remaining years of his life, Paley had no share in the conduct of his University: the book was gradually introduced into use by the taste of individual examiners, but for a very long time not recognized formally by the University of Cambridge; and at Oxford it has never, I think, been at all countenanced. So far, however, as at any place it has been received, it has been received as the exposition of a system which founds morality upon the promotion of human happiness; and it is a curious example of jealousy for the master's honour overcoming regard for the doctrine, when this admiring Benthamite goes on to say that Paley "left the utilitarian controversy as he found it, not even honouring the all-beneficent principle with one additional passing notice."

It may seem superfluous to notice misstatements so gross and partiality so blind: but without at all wishing to deny great merit to some of Bentham's labours, (as I shall soon have to show), I am obliged to say that such misrepresentations and such unfairness are the usual style of controversy of him and his disciples; and it is fit that we, in entering upon the consideration of their writings, should be aware of this. I conceive it was more to Paley's credit to "leave the utili

tarian controversy where he found it," than to carry it forwards by such ways of managing it as these:-although, in truth, it is difficult to see how a writer could do more for the doctrine of utility than Paley did, by deducing from it a system which, as George Wilson, Bentham's great admirer, said, was sound, practical, and free from commonplace. But we shall now return to Bentham; and this I shall do in the next Lecture.

LECTURE XIV.

BENTHAM-HIS PRINCIPLES OF MORALS AND

LEGISLATION.

EFORE I notice any of Bentham's more peculiar merits, I must again illustrate the extravagant unfairness to adversaries which was habitual in him.

The Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation appeared before the public in 1789. The first chapter of this work is "On the Principle of Utility;" the second, "On Principles adverse to that of Utility." These adverse principles are stated to be two: The Principle of Asceticism, and the Principle of Sympathy. The Principle of Asceticism is that principle which approves of actions in proportion as they tend to diminish human happiness, and conversely, disapproves of them as they tend to augment it. (ch. 1. § I.) The Principle of Sympathy (§ XII.) is that which approves or disapproves of certain actions, "merely because a man finds himself disposed to approve or disapprove of them, holding up that approbation or disapprobation as a sufficient reason for itself, and disclaiming the necessity of looking out for any extrinsic ground." And these two Principles are, it seems, according to Bentham's view, the only Principles which are, or which can be, opposed to the Principle of Utility!

Now it is plain that these are not only not fair representations of any principles ever held by moralists, or by any persons speaking gravely and deliberately, but that they are too extravagant and fantastical to be accepted even as caricatures of any such principles. For who ever approved of actions because they tend to make mankind miserable? or

who ever said anything which could, even in an intelligible way of exaggeration, be so represented? Is it possible to guess at whom a writer is pointing who allows himself such license as this? To me, I confess, it appears quite impossible. From these phrases, I should have had no conception what class of moralists were thus held up to ridicule. For of course every one feels that this description of them is given in order to make them ridiculous, even while the expression is grave and tranquil; and Bentham's humour runs into extremes which remove even the assumption of gravity.

But who then are the ascetic school who are thus ridiculed? We could not, I think, guess from the general description thus given; but from a note, it appears, that he had the Stoical Philosophers and the Religious Ascetics in his mind. With regard to the Stoics, it would of course be waste of time and thought to defend them from such coarse buffoonery as this, which does not touch their defects, whatever those may be. With regard to the Religious Ascetics, I may notice a further trait in Bentham's account of them, in order to show how strongly the spirit of satire grew upon him. He says that the principle of following certain courses of action, because they make men miserable, has been extensively pursued by men in their treatment of themselves, but only rarely in their treatment of others, and particularly in matters of government ;-that saints have often "voluntarily yielded themselves a prey to vermin; but though many persons of this class have wielded the reins of empire, we read of none who have set themselves to work and made laws on purpose with a view of stocking the body politic with the breed of highwaymen, housebreakers, and incendiaries. If at any time they have suffered the nation to be preyed upon by swarms of idle pensioners, or useless placemen, it has rather been from negligence and imbecility than from any settled plan of oppressing and plundering of the people." This might appear,