depend upon principles as pure from external regards as the difference between straight and crooked, the doctrine of morality separate from the pursuit of pleasure will be as clearly established as the doctrine of geometry separate from the measurements of material objects. Again: "Everybody," he says, "knows a right line is the shortest distance between two points, so as to touch them both, and the nearest approach from any one to any other given point is along such right line. From hence," he adds, "it has been applied by way of metaphor, to rules and actions." according to his own showing, and that of all the assertors of dependent morality, the analogy here fails altogether; for justice and virtuous self-denial, which are the right roads to enjoyment, according to their doctrine, are certainly not the shortest on the contrary, they are therefore right, because they reach the end better, by a very circuitous process; and the short cut to pleasure, which appetite and passion offer, is without hesitation pronounced wrong.

But

The same embarrassment in the management of his principle of mere satisfaction, or utility, occurs to him, as it must occur to all virtuous moralists, when he comes to the best defined cases of moral duties. Thus he says in pursuance of his general principle, that justice is to be measured by utility, and that an extreme case of inconvenience arising from a common precept of justice, nullifies the rule for that

case.

But yet he adds (p. 305), that "if a righteous man be asked why he fulfils his engagements though to his own manifest detriment, he will answer, Because it would have been unjust to have failed in them; for he wants no other motive to induce him and if the querist be righteous too, he will want no other reason to satisfy him.” And after supposing the inquiry to be still prosecuted, he adds, "But could it be made appear that injustice in some single instance was to the general" [observe the general]" advantage,

he would not think himself warranted to practise it, because the mischief of setting a bad example and weakening the authority of a beneficial rule would be greater than any present advantage which might accrue from the breach of it." Here the example is taken into the account; and it is supposed that the evil which it occasions cannot be remedied, by the fact that those who see the rule violated, may see also the reasons of its violation. But he goes further. "Even supposing his injustice could be concealed from all the world, so that it could do no hurt by example, still he would not believe it allowable, for fear it should have a bad influence upon his own mind.” Thus we come to this result: that the way to understand the true nature and demands of justice, and the conditions under which her rules admit of resemblance, is to look at the consequences; but again, the way to avoid being misled is not to look at the consequences, but to follow the rules as rising above the region of exceptions. This is the kind of dilemma which shows how insufficient the contemplation of the consequences of actions alone is, to lead to a system of morality which will satisfy the common judgments which practical life generates in the breasts of virtuous men.

It is not my purpose to give a general analysis of Tucker's work, which, indeed, from its prolix, devious, and unsystematic character, would be no easy task; and which its place in the history of philosophy does not render necessary. But I may remark, that the author extends his speculations to the philosophy of religion as well as of morality, treats of the connexion of the two subjects, and supplies the deficiencies of the one by the other. Thus in the former part of his work, on Morality, he refers to the case of Regulus, the ancient stock example of the schools for the statement of the question between virtue and pleaHe decides that upon his principles, so far as he has

sure.

then pursued them, Regulus "acted imprudently*." This in a chapter entitled Limitation of Virtue: but further on in the work+ there appears a chapter written with express reference to this preceding one, and entitled Re-enlargement of Virtue. And here taking into account, though but vaguely and dimly, the prospect of a future retribution, he reverses this decision. I will give the whole passage.

"Therefore now we may do ample justice to Regulus, whom we left under a sentence of folly for throwing away life with all its enjoyments for a phantom of honour. For he may allege that he had not a fair trial before, his principal evidence being out of the way, which having since collected in the course of this second Book, he moves for a rehearing. For he will now plead that it was not a fantastic joy in the transports of rectitude, nor the Stoical rhodomontade of a day spent in virtue containing more enjoyment than an age of bodily delights, nor his inability to bear a life of general odium and contempt, had his duty so required, which fixed him in his resolution: but the prudence of the thing upon a full and calm deliberation. Because he considered himself as a citizen of the universe, whose interests are promoted and maintained by the particular members contributing their endeavours towards increasing the quantity of happiness, wherever possible, among others with whom they have connexion and intercourse.

"He saw that his business lay with his fellow-creatures of the same species, among whom a strict attachment to faith and honour was the principal bulwark of order and happiness, that a shameful conduct in his present conflict would tend to make a general weakening of this attachment, which might introduce disorders, rapines, violences and injuries among multitudes, to far greater amount than his temporary

*Vol. I. p. 375 sq.

† Vol. ш. p. 502. § 5.

tortures; that if he behaved manfully, he should set a glorious example, which might occasion prosperities to be gained to his country and all belonging to her, overbalancing the weight of his sufferings, especially when alleviated by the balmy consciousness of acting right. He was persuaded likewise that all the good a man does, stands placed to his account, to be repaid him in full value when it will be most useful to him: so that whoever works for another, works for himself; and by working for numbers, earns more than he could possibly do by working for himself alone. Therefore he acted like a thrifty merchant, who scruples not to advance considerable sums, and even to exhaust his coffers, for gaining a large profit to the common stock in partnership. Upon these allegations, supported by the testimony of far-sighted philosophy, and confirmed in the material parts by heavenborn religion, I doubt not the jury will acquit him with flying colours, and the judge grant him a copy of the record, to make his proper use of, whenever he might be impeached or slandered hereafter."

I have with the less unwillingness given these long extracts from Tucker, since we have few English writers of any merit to occupy this interval, and the vivacity of his style makes it an ungrateful task to reduce him to mere abstract assertions. Moreover, his influence upon the subsequent progress of the subject was far from trifling; for as I have said, he was the favourite author of Paley. This latter moralist, so important from the place he has long held among us, I have already begun to speak of, and I now proceed with the further notice of the reception and effect of his system.

Paley's ethical work is mainly employed in deducing arguments for our duties, and rules for deciding critical cases, from the principle of general utility. If this undertaking had been kept in its due place, moralists of all shades

of opinion might have received such a work with pleasure; for all agree that sound morality is invariably the road to the greatest general good; and to trace the mode in which the principles produce the result, is satisfactory and instructive, even to those who do not think that such a deduction discloses the full force and significance of our duties. Moreover, in Paley's mode of executing this task, he displayed a moderation, a shrewdness, and a poignant felicity of idiomatic expression, which it was impossible not to admire. If the work had been entitled Morality as derived from the Principle of General Utility, and if the Principle had been assumed as evident or undisputed (instead of being rested on the proofs which Paley gives), the work might have been received by the world with unmingled gratitude; and the excellent sense and temper, which, for the most part, it shows in the application of rules, might have produced their beneficial effect without any drawback.

But Paley chose to give proofs of his principles; and in doing this, he both fell into false philosophy, and assumed a tone and temper unsuited to the occasion. The doctrine of ultimate utility as the measure and ground of moral rules had been so long current, almost uncontradicted, among English writers, that those who were formed in this school could not conceive the possibility of its being rationally opposed, and could not avoid treating with contempt and ridicule those who rested on any other principle. Hence we find that Paley cannot speak of the opinion which represents the soul to be superior to the body, the rational to the animal part of our constitution, without calling such views "much usual declamation." In like manner, his account of the Law of Honour is rather like the language of a poignant satirist, than a moralist gravely and calmly stating an extensive principle of human action. "The Law of Honour is a system of rules constructed by people of fashion, and calcu