On this page
-
Text (2)
-
No. 474, April 23, 1859. THE LEADEfi, 55...
-
MILL ON POLITICAL SCIEXCE. ' ^SKCOJTD AR...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Unaccompanied By Any Member Of The Grand...
monstrations made by the Tuscans have not been of a democratic but of a serious and imposing character . Warnings both grave and well-intentioned , have been made to Government by persons actuated alone by love to their country and well known for their liberal line of principles . One of these warnings was given b y letter by the Marchese de Laiaitico , Don Neri Corsini , who must not be confounded with his elder brother , the Prince Corsim . He distinctly proves , in the language and with the armaments of a true Italian , that it is a necessity for the " Tuscan Government to accommodate itself to some extent to the policy of Piedmont , and to the Ideas now so generally prevalent in Europe against Austrian domination in Italy . Another warning was given in a letter written March 18 th , to the President of the Council , by a Professor of Pisa , and an ex-senator . He clearly pointed out the difficulty and danger in which the Government and throne are placed by persisting in a plan of neutrality considered by the public as anti-Italian and Austrian . " To be true to the principle of neutrality and calm public agitation , " says the Pisan Professor , " Government ought , at least for a time , to remove the Austrian general from the command of the army , and announce in the Official Gazette —the sole political joimial in the kingdom—the principles by which it intends to regulate . affairs . The only answer vouchsafed to these letters was , that they gave signs of revolution , and that if this system were persisted in the Prince would quit Tuscany . General report tends to confirm this menace . It seems certain that a body of Austrian troops is on its march to occupy Tuscany and Leghorn .
No. 474, April 23, 1859. The Leadefi, 55...
No . 474 , April 23 , 1859 . THE LEADEfi , 551
Mill On Political Sciexce. ' ^Skcojtd Ar...
MILL ON POLITICAL SCIEXCE . ' ^ SKCOJTD ARTICLE . ]] : We have called the public attention to one or two of the eccentric conclusions to which Mr . Mill has been led by tlic principle of his work , and we shall now refer to the principle . We differ ' from him with diffidence and regret , for he lias deservedly acquired a great name , and his doctrines are much in advance of most other writers . lie alone , as far as we know , has endeavoured to define , with
some show of reason , the power of society over the individual , and wo prai . se him for making the attempt , though we deem it unsuccessful , lie expounds his views with a sustained eloquence Avhieh captivates the mind , and makes the task of exposing any incorrectness arduous for the present writer and ungrateful to the reader already bound in Mr . Mill ' s flexible chains . This , however , only makes the duty we have undertaken the more imperative , and we shall endeavour fearlessly to fulfil it .
" The tyranny of the majority , " " not restricted to the acts * it may do by the hands of its political functionaries , " but " executing its own mandates , " as exemplified by the persecution of individuals in past times and at present , •"« social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression , " is what Mr , Mill chiefly aims to circumscribe and restrain , " This enslaves the soul itself . " " Protection against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough , " lie says ; u there needs protection , also , against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and fooling . " " * iY > iind the limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence ) , and maintain it against encroachments , is as indispensable to a good condition of human ufliiirs as protacthm against political
desevery community to use similar or the same instruments , ' . railroads and steamboatsj wear similar clothing , consume similar food , observe similar festivals and hours , and work in a similar manner . Moreover , uniformity is becoming more feneraL There is now a uniformity common to iurope , as distinguished from a uniformity common to Asia , and as distinguished from its diversity amongst different nations of Europe . The
collective opinion of Europe , imperfectly as it is ascertained , controls the conduct even of the sovereigns of Europe . From its power there is no escape , and when it is clear and decided it is irresistible . It forms the minds of these sovereigns ; it cannot either be bound , or terrified , or massacred : it may be erroneous : it can onl y be tyrannical when it dictates acts of violence or arms political functionaries with physical power to enforce erroneous decrees . Further , Mr . Mill says : — " All that makes existence valuable to any one depends on the enforcement ofrestraints : upon the actions of other people . Some rules of conduct , therefore , must he imposed by law , in the first place , and by opinion on many things which . are not fit subjects for the operation of the law . " Now , the principle by which Mr . Mill would impose restraints , and by which lie defines the " limits to the legitimacy of the interference of collective opinion , is utility in the largest sense , grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive jteing" " Those interests , I contend , " he says . " authorise the subjection of individual
spontaneity to external control only m respect to those actions of each which concern the interest of other people . " But before we can apply this test we require to ascertain and know the "' permanent interests of man as a progressive being . " Can we ascertain and know these . Have they yet been ascertained ? Were they known to any previous generation ? Is it not , oil the contrary , p lain that no previous , generation had any knowledge of what would be the condition of this generation ; and is it not equally plain that this generation knows very little or ¦ -nothing of what will be the condition of future srencrations ? We know , indeed , that man her
is progressive ; that progress , dictated by n hig power tlian man himself } sets at nought all' attempts to hold him back to the past by institutions which ignorance then dictated ; but what his future pror gress will be we are entirely , ignorant . Ignorance may be a good reason with rational reflecting men for not acting at all , but it does not justify the imposition of a restriction which can only operate on , the future , for the present flees into the past while we attempt to bind it . We may admit that the greatest welfare of the greatest number of progressive beings , as the rule for statesmen , is a very taking theory , while we must say , that to ascertain this welfare as a fact , a priori , seems one of
ticaJUy , therefore , his inquiry is insufficient and unsatisfactory . When the subject is carefully examined we find that collective opinion- does not so much enslave as form the soul . Whatever this opinion may be , its influence , unseen and intangible , whether manifested by words or acts , moulds on itself the minds of all the individuals subject to it . Curious undoubtedly it is , but it is as certain as curious that by far the greater part of our feelings and emotions , and even the mind or soul or intellect of eveiy individual is the result of the op inions and actions of those who were born before him and with whom he lives , than of his own individualism . Every generation accordingly
resembles its predecessor mentally , and the members of every community resemble one another , and differ from the members of other communities . Whatever may be his idiosyncracies , Mr . Mill is much more an Englishman than he is either a Frenchman or an Irishman . His mental individualism , and the actions which have their biitfh in Iris mind are an extremely small part of his whole being , though his body and his own perceptions of that , and consequently of his bodily identity , except madness intervene , are perfectly individual .
¦ Abstract from the mind of Mr . Mill what he derived from a careful and austere father—from the mother and brothers and sisters with whom his youth was passed—from the wife whose influence he so heartily acknoAvledgcs—from the books he has read and the company lie Las kept—the information he has derived from his employments , conjoined with the salaries he has honourably earned—abstract from him the knowledge lie has derived from those who lived before lmn , and those who live at the sariie time with himselfl arid what
would he be ? The lowest animal in creation , following its unerring instincts , compared to Mr . Mill , would be an intellectual being . Mr . Mill appears not to have mastered the fact that man is born in society , and that eacb . individual is part of a whole . The connexion of the atoms or individuals is not bodily , but mental . Each body is perfectly distinct—each mind is a small fragment of the general mind ; and collective opinion is the means of funning the minds of individuals . Like the invisible cement , " which unites the atoms of- ' a ¦' granite boulder , it connects one member of society with the -other . . . ¦ .
To suppose that restraints can be put on this collective opinion is to suppose a restraining power on the whole mind and moving power of society greater than society itself . No such power exists , except that of the Creator of society , whose own work makes the influence of collective opinion over individuals all powerful . This is nothing artificial , which can be altered—it is natural , like the influence of tho sun over vegetation . We direct oxu- actions by this influence when we know it , and so make it subserve our purposes ; but more we cannot do . Mr . Mill starts , then , from an error in assuming that the opinuni of collective society over individuals , as opinion , cither is or can be a tyranny comparable in any miumcr or lbrm to political despotism , a small part of society and . \ ke it can be controlled or resisted by some other
the hardest and most unsuccessful tasks that men over engaged in . That the welfare of the whole is the end of society , as individual welfare is the end of life , is a consolatory theory , but there is in individuals no faculty or means of attaining a knowledge of this general welfare , and we therefore deny the practicability of employing the end , which wo presume to bo the aim of tho Creator , an 11 rule for the " enforcement of-restraints on the actions of other people . " On this assumption , however , Mr . Mill suggests that restraints -on tlio collective opinion of society over individual spontaneity are desirable . it is at the same time true thnCkflML opposed to many existing rent rain Is , I . H + fTno restraints ho would eulbree by tlio piim-iple of utility rest on the assumption—very si range in this age— -that " all that makes oNislenoo valuable to any one depends on the c-nlbreenn'Ut of restraints upon the actions of other people . " Where hus Mr . Mill lived ? Wlml joui-nul . " , wlml books has he rout I , what public ju'ori'edin . lws he taken part in , Unit be has now to . hnrn that only tho abolition of restraints linn inlnller tunes , made existence for large masses of men I'vcii ]> ossiblo . To abolition wo are nil nt Una tU"O indebted for the abundance of lood we regularly enjoy , and for all the convenience * luxunos nnd cleWndes of modem lilc . Only by suueeasively "oftiug rid . of the rest mints winch terrified , iunonince , imagined in barbarous tinii ' s to l > 0 leoessary d > protect inun against iniui , or interest no'iiYust ml crest , bus- modern life boo v omc > more " valuable" than ancient lite . Now , to nHse . rt . U 8 a ire-noral principle , that , tho uxislonao of tlio individual id only mudu valuable by tlio onliirooinont
power . . . The collective opinion of society ,, it nmst bo stated , may be erroneous , like that of individuals , if this be all that Mr . Mijl means , it mi g ht have been stated in n few words . All history ih full of proofs that society , collectively , as well as individually , had continually erred . What wo moan by progress is tho discovery of such errors ; and ihut society , like individuals , should en-is the necessary consequence of man being progressive . All knowledge c'on . es first to individuals . Society lias no corporate faculties—eyes , ears , nnd undoratiuiding —to gather knowledge ,, distinct from the individuals which constitute It ; and consequently all
improvements , all discoveries , originate in some one mind . Hence individuals continually arise who diflbr from some part or phanis of the collective opinion . Society always contains ninny such indir vuluals , eaeh of whom , in bis sphere , influences nnd modifies collective opinion ^ Uul bo it what ' it may , over those who are most sensible of its crroneoiisnciis as over others , it has an almost omnipotent power ; it compels them in Jhclr modes of living and of thinking to conform to Its dictates , nnd producos a common uniformity in tlio members of every society . For wueh a uuilarmity there are ulso pfainly niatenal causes , besides Iho one material world common to all us a source of knowledge—sue U tu tlio uuuuwity i ' ur the members of
potisiit . Hostility to the inllueneo of society , by virtue of its mass , over thy individual , as contradistinguished from the power of society us cxiuvisud by virtue of its political organisation , is ( lie distinguishing peculiarity of Mr . Mill ' ti book . lie thinks there is a limit to be ascertained , which lie eidls legitimate , to the interference of collective opinion , which " enslaves the soul , " with individual independence , liow tho limit is ascertained to be legitimate wo shall afterwards see . Now wo wish the reader , only to observe that Mr . Mill starts from tho sapposition that it is us indispensable to plnco restraints on tlio collective opinion of society , merely as opinion , whon it controls the individual , as on political despotism . This we regard as a ftmdumuntnl error . By what : means rostruints enn bo placed on the collective opinion of society other than Ihoco suggested by tho opinion itself , or how its inllueneo ovor the individual oan bo limited , or eurbuil , or even modiiled , Mr . Hill tloes wot inform us . 1 'ruo-
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), April 23, 1859, page 19, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_23041859/page/19/
-