VI.RADICALISM

Thus Bentham,as his eyes were opened,became a Radical.The political purpose became dominant,although we always see that the legal abuses are uppermost in his mind;and that what he really seeks is a fulcrum for the machinery which is to overthrow Lord Eldon.Some of the pamphlets deal directly with the special instruments of corruption.The Elements of the Art of Packing shows how the crown managed to have a permanent body of special 'jurors'at its disposal.The 'grand and paramount use'(80)of this system was to crush the liberty of the press.The obscure law of libel,worked by judges in the interest of the government,enabled them to punish any rash Radical for 'hurting the feelings'of the ruling classes,and to evade responsibility by help of a 'covertly pensioned'and servile jury.The pamphlet,though tiresomely minute and long-winded,contained too much pointed truth to be published at the time.The Official Aptitude minimised contains a series of attacks upon the system of patronage and pensions by which the machinery of government was practically worked.In the Catechism of reformers,written in 1809,Bentham began the direct application of his theories to the constitution;and the final and most elaborate exposition of these forms the Constitutional Code,which was the main work of his later years.This book excited the warmest admiration of Bentham's disciples.(81)J.S.Mill speaks of its 'extraordinary power.of at once seizing comprehensive principles and scheming out minute details,'and of its 'surpassing intellectual vigour.'Nor,indeed,will any one be disposed to deny that it is a singular proof of intellectual activity,when we remember that it was begun when the author was over seventy,and that he was still working at eighty-four.(82)In this book Bentham's peculiarities of style reach their highest development,and it cannot be recommended as light reading.Had Bentham been a mystical philosopher,he would,we may conjecture,have achieved a masterpiece of unintelligibility which all his followers would have extolled as containing the very essence of his teaching.

His method condemned him to be always intelligible,however crabbed and elaborate.

Perhaps,however,the point which strikes one most is the amazing simple-mindedness of the whole proceeding.Bentham's light-hearted indifference to the distinction between paper constitutions and operative rules of conduct becomes almost pathetic.

Bentham was clearly the victim of a common delusion.If a system will work,the minutest details can be exhibited.Therefore,it is inferred,an exhibition of minute detail proves that it will work.Unfortunately,the philosophers of Laputa would have had no more difficulty in filling up details than the legislators of England or the United States.When Bentham had settled in his 'Radical Reform Bill'(83)that the 'voting-box'was to be a double cube of cast-iron,with a slit in the lid,into which cards two inches by one,white on one side and black on the other,could be inserted,he must have felt that he had got very near to actual application:he can picture the whole operation and nobody can say that the scheme is impracticable for want of working plans of the machinery.There will,doubtless,be no difficulty in settling the shape of the boxes,when we have once agreed to have the ballot.But a discussion of such remote details of Utopia is of incomparably less real interest than the discussion in the Rationale of Evidence of points,which,however minute,were occurring every day,and which were really in urgent need of the light of common-sense.

Bentham's general principles may be very simply stated.They are,in fact,such as were suggested by his view of legal grievances.Why,when he had demonstrated that certain measures would contribute to the 'greatest happiness of the greatest number,'were they not at once adopted?Because the rulers did not desire the greatest happiness of the greatest number.This,in Bentham's language,is to say that they were governed by a 'sinister interest.'Their interest was that of their class,not that of the nation;they aimed at the greatest happiness of some,not at the greatest happiness of all.A generalisation of this remark gives us the first axioms of all government.There are two primary principles:the 'self-preference'principle,in virtue of which every man always desires his own greatest happiness;and the 'greatest happiness'principle,in virtue of which 'the right and proper end'of government is the 'greatest happiness of the greatest number.'(84)The 'actual end'of every government,again,is the greatest happiness of the governors.Hence the whole problem is to produce a coincidence of the two ends,by securing an identity of interest between governors and governed.To secure that we have only to identify the two classes or to put the government in the hands of all.(85)In a monarchy,the ruler aims at the interest of one himself;in a 'limited monarchy'the aim is at the happiness of the king and the small privileged class;in a democracy,the end is the right one the greatest happiness of the greatest number.This is a short cut to all constitutional questions.

Probably it has occurred in substance to most youthful members of debating societies.Bentham's confidence in his logic lifts him above any appeal to experience;and he occasionally reminds us of the proof given in Martin Chuzzlewit that the queen must live in the Tower of London.The 'monarch,'as he observes,(86)'is naturally the very worst --the most maleficent member of the whole community.'