Page images
PDF
EPUB

old aristocracy looked askance upon that new plutocracy which was gradually coming into being. The consequences of that change were not then-perhaps they are not even now-fully appreciated.

54. Meanwhile, Bolingbroke's showy philosophy passed muster for a time. Great changes were slowly operating in that political interregnum. Society was slowly heaving and changing. Politicians looked on idly, and squabbled for places; facile theorists neatly vamped up old formulæ left as a legacy from more stirring times; and, on the whole, decided that there was no particular principle in politics beyond preserving a tolerably stable equilibrium, and maintaining (for it would be unjust to overlook the favourable side) a wide toleration, verging only too closely on indifference. Bolingbroke's writings, valuable for little else, contributed in some degree, under the good natured king of Cockaigne rule of Walpole, to make the power of the press more distinctly felt, and so aided the development of a new force side by side with the growing power of the purse. Yet, of Bolingbroke one can say little, but that he adds one more instance of wasted talents and unaccepted tasks.

55. A far keener intellect than that of Bolingbroke was pondering the same questions. The problem which lay before Hume, as well as Bolingbroke, was how to make a rope of sand, and to frame a political theory out of theoretical and practical scepticism. Hume's power as a destroyer is contrasted with his weakness as a creator, even more conspicuously in his political than in his other writings. The old theories are slain at a blow. The divine right of kings is a futile doctrine, for whatever actually happens is comprehended under the general plan or intention of Providence;' and thus, the greatest and most lawful prince has no more peculiar sacredness than a usurper or a pirate;' whilst 'a constable, no less than a king, acts by a divine commission, and possesses an indefeasible right.' The more popular social contract theory vanishes as soon as it is challenged. The imaginary contract has confessedly no place in history, and it is easy to show that it can have as little in philosophy. The

Hume's Works, iii. p. 444.

duties of allegiance and of fidelity to promises rest on the same foundation of utility, and to deduce one from the other is mere logical legerdemain. As soon as the question is asked, Why should I keep my word? the only possible answer is, Because society could not otherwise subsist; and the same answer serves for the question, Why should I obey the sovereign? Wollaston's attempt to convert all sin into lying was liable, it may be remarked in passing, to the same attack; for it was substantially an attempt to import into the still less propitious sphere of ethics that doctrine of the social compact which had a certain convenience in the more obviously empirical science of politics. Hume's reasoning is irrefragable, admirably put, and too trite for repetition. And yet the social compact theory lived long after the brains were out; nay, it flourished and became identified with theories which exercised, and still exercise, a vast influence upon political thought. If we ask why so clear a refutation produced so small an effect, the answer may be suggested by the impotence of the rival doctrine.

56. Divine right and the social compact being exploded, and utility recognised as the sole and sufficient criterion of all political order, how are we to construct a definite political theory? What forms of government are useful, and why? Hume's conceptions of the origin and nature of government are perfectly clear and coherent. All government ultimately rests on opinion; the physical force is always on the side of the governed; the various instincts which bind men together in society enable the few to impose their will on the many; and the opinions which determine the nature of government are those which men form as to the public interest, as to the right to power, and the right to property.' What then, we might ask, is the genesis of the various opinions which have prevailed in the world, and how have they developed themselves, and given birth to different forms of government? But here we begin to feel that Hume is, at most, feeling after a method. He does not know clearly what he would seek, or how he is to seek for it. He writes an essay to prove 'that politics may be reduced to a science.' 2 In spite of the disturbing influence of individuals, he holds that laws 2 Ib. iii. p. 98, &c.

1 Hume's Works, iii. p. 109, &c.

may be discovered as general and certain as any which the mathematical sciences afford us.' He claims that character for a few conclusions; such, for example, are the doctrines that 'a hereditary prince, a nobility without vassals, and a people voting by their representatives, form the best monarchy, aristocracy and democracy;' that 'death is unavoidable to the political as to the animal body; '3 or that arts and sciences can only take their first rise under a free government. Hume was, of course, fully sensible of the crudity and uncertainty of such maxims. The world, he thinks, is still too young for the discovery of many general and permanent political truths.5 But Hume does not perceive the fundamental error which vitiates all such reasoning. His inductions are necessarily futile, because they presuppose a merely superficial classification. He is arguing like a botanist who should divide the vegetable kingdom into trees, shrubs, and creeping plants, and search for the properties common to all the members of each class. As the classification would turn upon points of external form, observations founded upon it would only bring to light external resemblances, instead of revealing vital principles of growth. He is dealing in morphology instead of physiology. He throws into one class Switzerland, Holland, Venice, and the ancient republics as popular governments, and into another France, China, the Roman Empire, and ancient Persia as monarchical governments. The phenomena which are to be found in every member of one class, and absent from every member of the other, must obviously be of a superficial kind; and so crude an analysis cannot lay bare the real principles of national life. Like other writers who adopt the same method, Hume endeavours to construct the idea of a perfect Commonwealth' without reference, tacit or avowed, to the conditions of time, place, or development. He justifies his attempt by the precedent of Huyghen's investigation of the best form of ship for sailing, and argues that his ideal constitution is practicable because it resem

[blocks in formation]

bles that of Holland.' He does not remark that even the form of a ship must depend upon the material, and that the material with which he has to deal is living and changing; nor that the constitution of Holland was developed under a special set of historical, geographical, and physiological conditions. With the help of such aphorisms as these, that the lower sort of people are good judges of their own neighbours, but incapable of electing the highest officials; and that all free governments must consist of a senate and a people to supply respectively honesty and wisdom; he puts together a constitution as absolutely as Harrington, his favourite authority, or as his successor Sieyès; and though appealing to experience, really contemplates that metaphysical man who exists under no conditions of space or time.

57. Hume is indeed full of acute remarks, or he would not be Hume. The weakness of his Essays is characteristic of his time; and it would be well if popular writers of the present. day had emancipated themselves from the delusions which perplexed his unsurpassed keenness of vision. Perhaps the most instructive example of his method is the interesting Essay on National Characters.' The tacit assumptions which

pervade his method are there most distinctly exhibited. Character, he says, may be determined either by 'moral causes,' such as the form of government, the wealth and poverty of a nation, and its position towards its neighbours; or by 'physical causes,' by which he understands the insensible influence of the climate. This classification tacitly omits the stage of development of a race; and, in spite of acute incidental remarks upon the difference between ancient and modern, or savage and civilised modes of thought, it is plain that he takes the statical view of history, and thus unconsciously ignores. all theories of evolution. Another point is more remarkable. Hume was by twenty-two years the junior of Montesquieu. The younger man sought the acquaintance of the old philosopher, and procured a publication at Edinburgh of an English edition of the 'Esprit des Lois' in 1750.5 Montesquieu's speculations upon the influence of climate, though not

Ib. p. 244, &c. ♦ Ib. p. 244.

1 Hume's Works, iii. p. 490.
2 Ib. p. 487.
Burton's 'Life of Hume,' i. 304.

entirely novel, produced a great impression, and clearly aimed at the discovery of a scientific basis for political enquiry. It is curious to find that Hume's essay (published in 1742, or six years before the 'Esprit des Lois') is specially directed against the theory of climatic influence. His reasons are significant. A single government, he says, has spread a single national character over the vast territories of China, whilst separate governments produced the greatest variety of character within the narrow limits of Greece. In a preceding essay he has noticed the obvious connection between the physical geography of Greece and its division into small governments as favourable to the rise of arts and sciences. He considers it, again, to be an argument against the influence of climate, that similarity of manners may be produced by a simple contiguity. It appears, therefore, that his argument against 'physical causes' implies a very limited view of their mode of action. He contemplates only such direct and tangible influences as the supposed influence of damp weather in promoting drink, or of hot weather in exciting the amatory passions. The more remote physiological effects of climate, soil, and physical conditions generally are beyond his contemplation. But the omission of another element of the question is more significant. National character cannot, he says, be a product of physical causes, because it is often limited by an invisible political frontier; because a particular set of men, like the Jews, maintain their character by association; because 'accidents,' such as differences in language and religion, keep two races apart, like the Greeks and Turks; or because the same national character follows the colonies of a people round the globe. These phenomena would all be now accepted as striking proofs of the influence of race. Nothing is more characteristic than the complete failure to recognise this as a factor in the problem, even when his logic seems to cast it in his face. Hume observes, in a note, that even the merits of horses seem to depend less on the climate than on the 'different breeds and the skill and manner of rearing them.' Here is the very force required to explain his observations, and he is unable to notice it. Indeed, he explicitly asserts that whilst horses transmit their qualities, a

Hume's Works, iii. p. 247, note.

« PreviousContinue »