saulted the Colonial Empire; but each writer prefaces his special argument by asserting, with great emphasis, the revolutionary doctrine of liberty. Government requires to be restrained, whether it seeks to tax the dissenters for ecclesiastical purposes or the colonies for commercial purposes. And in each case the opposition to its claims rests on the single ground that nobody ought to be made to do what he dislikes.

127. Priestley's versatile and receptive, but far from penetrating, intellect enabled him to adopt any popular language without enquiring too closely into its meaning. He avowedly accepts Rousseau's line of argument.' Government, according to him, is founded upon a bargain according to which every man resigns part of his 'civil liberty,' that is, his right to do as he pleases, in consideration of a certain share of 'political liberty,' that is, of influence on the government of the country.2 Hence follow the ordinary conclusions about popular sovereignty and the justification of rebellion when the fundamental contract is broken. His theory is summed up in the maxim, 'than which nothing is more true, that every government in its original principles, and antecedent to its present form, is an equal republic.'3 His belief in the imaginary compact prevents him, even when attacking its most grotesque form in Warburton's 'alliance' theory, from striking at the vital point. Eager as he is to overthrow his enemy, and forcible as are some of his arguments, he never points out, as any modern writer would begin by pointing out, the utterly fictitious nature of the whole hypothetical structure.

128. Bentham would have done better, and yet the whole of Priestley's argument, when stripped of its superficial dress, is so much in the utilitarian spirit as to explain very naturally the impression made upon Bentham's mind. The elastic compact, in fact, is easily twisted into a shape in which it becomes almost indistinguishable from an assertion of the greatest happiness principle. Priestley speaks, for example, of man's 'natural right' as founded on a regard to the general good,' and argues that the 'good and happiness of the members, that is,' he significantly adds, 'the majority of the 2 Ib. p. 10.

1 Treatise on Civil Government,' p. 7.

Priestley, p. 40.

3

members of any state, is the great standard by which everything relating to that state must finally be determined.'1 This one general idea,' he proceeds to declare, 'properly understood, throws the greatest light upon the whole system of policy, morals, and, I may add, theology too.'2 Though he does not grasp this principle as vigorously as Bentham, or apply it so systematically, it supplies his most telling arguments. Arguing the question of the interference of the civil magistrate in religious affairs, he says that no difference is here to be made 'between the right and the wisdom of interference. If the interference be for the good of society, it is wise and right; if it would do more harm than good, it is foolish and wrong.' But the coincidence between Priestley and the later utilitarians appears most clearly in his discussion of the advantages of an 'authoritative code of education.' Brown had added a kind of corollary to the 'Estimate,' showing that the torrent of corruption ought to be checked by the introduction of a national system of education. He held, like Rousseau, that our manners could only be renovated by saving life from pollution at its source. His great precedent was the case of Sparta, as he apparently held that a young man accustomed to a dish of black broth would be superior to the bribes of a Newcastle or a Bute. Priestley's objections are precisely those which have been raised by later utilitarians to ail government interference. For his doctrine of the revolutionary metaphysicians, that government has no right to interfere, is substituted the argument that its interference would be inexpedient. Priestley, like his successors, holds that it would be unadvisable to stereotype any system in our present state of ignorance, and assumes that stagnation would be the necessary effect of interference. The great excellence of human nature,' he says, 'consists in the variety of which it is capable,' and he holds that the various character of the Athenians was certainly preferable to the uniform character of the Spartans, or to any uniform national character whatever.' Interference with family rights will involve the sacrifice of the greatest sum of happiness in the community;'

1 Priestley, p. 13.

2 Ib. p. 14.

3 Ib. p. 120.

Ib. p. 91.

5 Ib. p. 94.

and the evil effects of lodging supreme power in the hands of one set of men may be judged from the reception accorded to Locke's Essay, and to the Newtonian philosophy on its first appearance. A fanciful argument follows as to the incompatibility between a uniform system of education and a mixed form of government; but Priestley is one of the first apostles of that gospel of letting things alone which in a later generation was to be regarded as the cure for all our sins.

1

129. One other doctrine, which makes its appearance in the pages of Priestley, is more strikingly characteristic of the new period. His sanguine temperament and his scientific abilities predisposed him to accept that unqualified belief in progress which was to be the religion of the coming generation. The old superstitions and prejudices were disappearing; vast possibilities of future progress were opening out in every direction. However the world may have begun, he thinks himself entitled to pronounce that the end will be glorious and paradisaical beyond what our imagination can now conceive.' ' With an unconscious inconsistency, he adds that government is 'the great instrument of this progress of the human species towards this glorious state,' and then argues that government is to promote progress by letting things alone. Everywhere, however, the minds of men are opening to large and generous views of things.'2 Political and religious knowledge advances as rapidly as knowledge of other kinds; and if only governments will stand aside and leave free play to individual energies, the millennium is at hand. Reason is shaking off the vast superincumbent mass of antiquated prejudice; the fetters are falling from all human limbs, and a new order must be soon created. When the French Revolution came, Priestley saw the realisation of his dreams; and though facts did not quite correspond to theories, he was able to take refuge in the interpretation of the prophecies.

130. Belief in a coming millennium is natural to a party still in the proselytising stage. A careful study of the past history of the race is necessary to substitute a well-grounded belief in progress for a crude optimism, which is rather the reflection of the hopes of reformers than the expression of a reasoned conviction. To underestimate the obstacles to suc* Ib. p. 296.

1 Priestley, p. 5.

cess, and to overestimate its results, is natural to all youthful parties as to the youthful individual; and the sanguine anticipations of men like Priestley implied but an indistinct apprehension of that belief in progress which corresponds to a scientific theory of evolution. The doctrine was not worked into the substance of his creed, though it was congenial to his habitual mode of thought. Some of his fellow-labourers could dispense with it altogether. Price, in particular, represents the growing discontent, as Priestley represents the growing hopes of the reforming party. The two writers agree in their view of the ideal state; but Priestley thinks that his ideal is about to be realised, whilst Price thinks that we are drifting further away from it. He takes up the tone of lamentation made popular in England by Brown, and thinks that the dreaded evil, luxury, is sapping the national vitality. Indifference is gaining ground; the House of Commons is corrupt, short parliaments are hopeless, standing armies are inevitable, the debt grows, national extravagance increases, the Middlesex election has set a dangerous precedent, and the subjection of the East India Company to the Crown has increased the power of corruption.' Price's reputation for statistical knowledge enabled him to give a colouring of systematic proof to these gloomy forebodings. From some imperfect information as to the number of burials and the product of the house-tax, he tried to show that the population was actually declining in numbers, under the influence of the luxury which was ruining our virtue and weakening our physical constitution.

131. The principles by which we were to be saved, if, indeed, salvation was possible, were the principles of Rousseau. Price, indeed, has some cold approbation for the British Constitution. According to some recent statistics, 5,723 voters elected half the House of Commons, and 364 voters chose a ninth part of it.2 If voters were not corrupt, nor representatives influenced by the Crown, he thinks that even this inadequate representation would afford a sufficient security for our liberties. But his doctrines fit in rather awkwardly with this concession. His theory is briefly expressed by the phrase quoted from Montesquieu,3 that, in a free state Price's Additional Observations,' p. 50. 2 Price's Observations,' p. 10. 'Esprit des Lois,' book xi. ch. vi. S

VOL. II.

36

4

every man is his own legislator. All taxes are free gifts; all laws established by common consent, and all magistrates are deputies for carrying out this voluntary agreement. Of such liberty, he says, it is impossible that there should be an excess. He infers that the people are absolute, that they never divest themselves of their indefeasible rights; and Parliament, their creature, cannot rightfully oppose their will. Such a theory is the only security against oppression, because a people will never oppress itself, and cannot safely trust anybody else. On this theory is founded the only system which can stimulate industry, by giving due security for its fruits, and the only system compatible with the 'natural equality of mankind.' 'Mankind came with this right from the hands of their Maker,'' and civil government is but an institution for maintaining it. Government is thus limited to the narrowest functions. It is a maxim true universally that, as far as anyone does not molest others, others ought not to molest him.' Government, as he elsewhere says, should never trench upon private liberty, 'except so far as the exercise of private liberty entrenches on the liberties of others.'s Government, in short, though he does not explicity state the proposition, is an evil, and the less we have of it the better. The practical application of these theories implies the condemnation of all despotic and corrupt governments, and especially of all 'provincial governments.'' The relation of England to the American colonies was flatly opposed to his theory of liberty, and to that corollary from it embodied in the British Constitution, in which the 'right of a people to give and grant their own money' is a fundamental principle.10 The claim to tax America at our pleasure was, in fact, a claim to despotic power; the more invidious because, whilst we were corrupt, the Americans themselves were 'in the happiest state of society, or in that middle state of civilisation between its first rude and its last refined and corrupted state.'" Americans, in fact, both in their corporate and in their individual capacity,

' Price's 'Observations,' p. 6, 'Add. Ob.' p. 9.

' Ib. p. 12.

8 Ob.' p. 13.

9 Ad. Ob.' p. 37.

10 Ob.' p. 49.

11 Ib. p. 70.