representative government-第4章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


ower　in　society？　And　has　not　the　event　proved　that　they　were　so？　Because　theirs　was　the　most　powerful　of　then　existing　beliefs。　The　same　element　made　a　monk　of　Wittenberg；　at　the　meeting　of　the　Diet　of　Worms；　a　more　powerful　social　force　than　the　Emperor　Charles　the　Fifth；　and　all　the　princes　there　assembled。　But　these；　it　may　be　said；　are　cases　in　which　religion　was　concerned；　and　religious　convictions　are　something　peculiar　in　their　strength。　Then　let　us　take　a　case　purely　political；　where　religion；　so　far　as　concerned　at　all；　was　chiefly　on　the　losing　side。　If　any　one　requires　to　be　convinced　that　speculative　thought　is　one　of　the　chief　elements　of　social　power；　let　him　bethink　himself　of　the　age　in　which　there　was　scarcely　a　throne　in　Europe　which　was　not　filled　by　a　liberal　and　reforming　king；　a　liberal　and　reforming　emperor；　or；　strangest　of　all；　a　liberal　and　reforming　pope；　the　age　of　Frederic　the　Great；　of　Catherine　the　Second；　of　Joseph　the　Second；　of　Peter　Leopold；　of　Benedict　XIV。；　of　Ganganelli；　of　Pombal；　of　Aranda；　when　the　very　Bourbons　of　Naples　were　liberals　and　reformers；　and　all　the　active　minds　among　the　noblesse　of　France　were　filled　with　the　ideas　which　were　soon　after　to　cost　them　so　dear。　Surely　a　conclusive　example　how　far　mere　physical　and　economic　power　is　from　being　the　whole　of　social　power。　　　It　was　not　by　any　change　in　the　distribution　of　material　interests；　but　by　the　spread　of　moral　convictions；　that　negro　slavery　has　been　put　an　end　to　in　the　British　Empire　and　elsewhere。　The　serfs　in　Russia　owe　their　emancipation；　if　not　to　a　sentiment　of　duty；　at　least　to　the　growth　of　a　more　enlightened　opinion　respecting　the　true　interest　of　the　State。　It　is　what　men　think　that　determines　how　they　act；　and　though　the　persuasions　and　convictions　of　average　men　are　in　a　much　greater　degree　determined　by　their　personal　position　than　by　reason；　no　little　power　is　exercised　over　them　by　the　persuasions　and　convictions　of　those　whose　personal　position　is　different；　and　by　the　united　authority　of　the　instructed。　When；　therefore；　the　instructed　in　general　can　be　brought　to　recognise　one　social　arrangement；　or　political　or　other　institution；　as　good；　and　another　as　bad；　one　as　desirable；　another　as　condemnable；　very　much　has　been　done　towards　giving　to　the　one；　or　withdrawing　from　the　other；　that　preponderance　of　social　force　which　enables　it　to　subsist。　And　the　maxim；　that　the　government　of　a　country　is　what　the　social　forces　in　existence　compel　it　to　be；　is　true　only　in　the　sense　in　which　it　favours；　instead　of　discouraging；　the　attempt　to　exercise；　among　all　forms　of　government　practicable　in　the　existing　condition　of　society；　a　rational　choice。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Chapter　2　　　　　　　　　　　　　　The　Criterion　of　a　Good　Form　of　Government。

　　THE　FORM　of　government　for　any　given　country　being　（within　certain　definite　conditions）　amenable　to　choice；　it　is　now　to　be　considered　by　what　test　the　choice　should　be　directed；　what　are　the　distinctive　characteristics　of　the　form　of　government　best　fitted　to　promote　the　interests　of　any　given　society。　　　Before　entering　into　this　inquiry；　it　may　seem　necessary　to　decide　what　are　the　proper　functions　of　government；　for；　government　altogether　being　only　a　means；　the　eligibility　of　the　means　must　depend　on　their　adaptation　to　the　end。　But　this　mode　of　stating　the　problem　gives　less　aid　to　its　investigation　than　might　be　supposed；　and　does　not　even　bring　the　whole　of　the　question　into　view。　For；　in　the　first　place；　the　proper　functions　of　a　government　are　not　a　fixed　thing；　but　different　in　different　states　of　society；　much　more　extensive　in　a　backward　than　in　an　advanced　state。　And；　secondly；　the　character　of　a　government　or　set　of　political　institutions　cannot　be　sufficiently　estimated　while　we　confine　our　attention　to　the　legitimate　sphere　of　governmental　functions。　For　though　the　goodness　of　a　government　is　necessarily　circumscribed　within　that　sphere；　its　badness　unhappily　is　not。　Every　kind　and　degree　of　evil　of　which　mankind　are　susceptible　may　be　inflicted　on　them　by　their　government；　and　none　of　the　good　which　social　existence　is　capable　of　can　be　any　further　realised　than　as　the　constitution　of　the　government　is　compatible　with；　and　allows　scope　for；　its　attainment。　Not　to　speak　of　indirect　effects；　the　direct　meddling　of　the　public　authorities　has　no　necessary　limits　but　those　of　human　existence；　and　the　influence　of　government　on　the　well…being　of　society　can　be　considered　or　estimated　in　reference　to　nothing　less　than　the　whole　of　the　interests　of　humanity。　　　Being　thus　obliged　to　place　before　ourselves；　as　the　test　of　good　and　bad　government；　so　complex　an　object　as　the　aggregate　interests　of　society；　we　would　willingly　attempt　some　kind　of　classification　of　those　interests；　which；　bringing　them　before　the　mind　in　definite　groups；　might　give　indication　of　the　qualities　by　which　a　form　of　government　is　fitted　to　promote　those　various　interests　respectively。　It　would　be　a　great　facility　if　we　could　say　the　good　of　society　consists　of　such　and　such　elements；　one　of　these　elements　requires　such　conditions；　another　such　others；　the　government；　then；　which　unites　in　the　greatest　degree　all　these　conditions；　must　be　the　best。　The　theory　of　government　would　thus　be　built　up　from　the　separate　theorems　of　the　elements　which　compose　a　good　state　of　society。　　　Unfortunately；　to　enumerate　and　classify　the　constituents　of　social　well…being；　so　as　to　admit　of　the　formation　of　such　theorems；　is　no　easy　task。　Most　of　those　who；　in　the　last　or　present　generation；　have　applied　themselves　to　the　philosophy　of　politics　in　any　comprehensive　spirit；　have　felt　the　importance　of　such　a　classification；　but　the　attempts　which　have　been　made　towards　it　are　as　yet　limited；　so　far　as　I　am　aware；　to　a　single　step。　The　classification　begins　and　ends　with　a　partition　of　the　exigencies　of　society　between　the　two　heads　of　Order　and　Progress　（in　the　phraseology　of　French　thinkers）；　Permanence　and　Progression　in　the　words　of　Coleridge。　This　division　is　plausible　and　seductive；　from　the　apparently　clean…cut　opposition　between　its　two　members；　and　the　remarkable　difference　between　the　sentiments　to　which　they　appeal。　But　I　apprehend　that　（however　admissible　for　purposes　of　popular　discourse）　the　distinction　between　Order；　or　Permanence；　and　Progress；　employed　to　define　the　qualities　necessary　in　a　government；　is　unscientific　and　incorrect。　　　For；　first；　what　are　Order　and　Progress？　Concerning　Progress　there　is　no　difficulty；　or　none　which　is　apparent　at　first　sight。　When　Progress　is　spoken　of　as　one　of　the　wants　of　human　society；　it　may　be　supposed　to　mean　Improvement。　That　is　a　tolerably　distinct　idea。　But　what　is　Order？　Sometimes　it　means　more；　sometimes　less；　but　hardly　ever　the　whole　of　what　human　society　needs　except　improvement。　　　In　its　narrowest　acceptation　Order　means　Obedience。　A　government　is　said　to　preserve　order　if　it　succeeds　in　getting　itself　obeyed。　But　there　are　different　degrees　of　obedience；　and　it　is　not　every　degree　that　is　commendable。　Only　an　unmitigated　despotism　demands　that　the　individual　citizen　shall　obey　unconditionally　every　mandate　of　persons　in　authority。　We　must　at　least　limit　the　definition　to　such　mandates　as　are　general　and　issued　in　the　deliberate　form　of　laws。　Order；　thus　understood；　expresses；　doubtless；　an　indispensable　attribute　of　government。　Those　who　are　unable　to　make　their　ordinances　obeyed；　cannot　be　said　to　govern。　But　though　a　necessary　condition；　this　is　not　the　object　of　government。　That　it　should　make　itself　obeyed　is　requisite；　in　order　that　it　may　accomplish　some　other　purpose。　We　are　still　to　seek　what　is　this　other　purpose；　which　government　ought　to　fulfil；　abstractedly　from　the　idea　of　improvement；　and　which　has　to　be　fulfilled　in　every　society；　whether　stationary　or　progressive。　　　In　a　sense　somewhat　more　enlarged；　Order　means　the　preservation　of　peace　by　the　cessation　of　private　violence。　Order　is　said　to　exist　where　the　people　of　the　country　have；　as　a　general　rule；　ceased　to　prosecute　their　quarrels　by　private　force；　and　acquired　the　habit　of　referring　the　decision　of　their　disputes　and　the　redress　of　their　injuries　to　the　public　authorities。　Bu