Eousseau, notwithstanding his great genius, was full of weakness and pre- judice. His Emile deserves perhaps, upon the whole, to be regarded as one of the principal reservoirs of philosophical truth, as yet existing in the world; though with a perpetual mixture of absurdity and mistake. In his ■writings expressly political, Du Contrat Social and Considerations sur la Pologne, the superiority of his genius seems to desert him. To his merits as an investigator, we should not forget to add, that the term eloquence, is per- haps more precisely descriptive of his mode of composition, than of that of any other writer that ever existed.
OF POLITICAL IMPOSTURE. 63 In reality, no grand political system ever was introduced in the manner Rousseau describes. Lycurgus, as he observes, obtained the sanction of the oracle at Delphi to the constitution he had established. But was it by an appeal to AppoUo, that he per- suaded the Spartans to renoimce the use of money, to consent to an equal division of land, and to adopt various other regulations, the most contrary to their preconceived habits and ideas? No: it was by an appeal to their understandings, in the midst of long debate and perpetual counteraction, and through the inflexibility of his courage and resolution, that he at last attained his purpose. Lycurgus thought proper, after the whole was concluded, to obtain the sanction of the oracle, conceiving that it became him to neglect no method of substantiating the benefit he had con- ferred on his countrymen. It is indeed scarcely possible to per- suade a society of men to adopt any system, without convincing them that it is their wisdom to adopt it. It is difiicult to conceive a company of such miserable dupes, as to receive a code without any imagination that it is salutary, or wise, or just; but upon this single recommendation that it is delivered to them from the gods.
The only reasonable, and infinitely the most efficacious method of changing the established customs of any people, is by creating in them a general opinion of their erroneousness and insufficiency.
But, if it be indeed impracticable to persuade men into the adoption of any system, without employing as our principal argu- ment, the intrinsic rectitude of that system, what is the argument which he would desire to use, who had most at heart the welfare and improvement of the persons concerned? Would he begin by teaching them to reason well, or to reason ill? by imnerving tlieir mind with prejudice, or new stringing it with truth? How many arts, and how noxious to those towards whom we employ them, are necessary, if we would successfully deceive? We must not only leave their reason in indolence at first, but endeavour to supersede its exertion in any futm-e instance. If men be, for the present, kept right by prejudice, what will become of them here- after, if, by any future penetration, or any accidental discovery, this prejudice shall be annihilated? Detection is not always the fruit of systematical improvement, but may be efiected by some solitary exertion of tlie faculty, or some luminous and irresistible argument, wliile everything else remains as it was. If wc would first deceive, and then maintain our deception un- impaired, we shall need penal statutes, and licensers of the press, and hired ministers of falsehood and imposture. Admirable modes these for the propagation of wisdom and \irtue!
There is another case, similar to that stated by Rousseau, upon which much stress has been laid by political writers. ** Obedi- ence." say they, "must either be courted or compelled. We must either make a judicious use of the prejudices and the ignorance of mankind, or be contented to have no hold wpon them but their fears, and to maintain social order entirely by the severity of punishment. To dispense us from this pauiful neces- 564 OF POLITICAL IMPOSTURE.
sity, authority ought carefully to be invested with a sort of magic persuasion. Citizens should serve their country, not with a frigid submission that scrupulously weighs its duties, but with an enthusiasm that places its honour in its loyalty. For this reason, our governors and superiors must not be spoken of Avith levity. They must be considered, independently of their individual character, as deriving a sacredness from their office. They must be accompanied with splendour and veneration. Advantage must be taken of the imperfection of mankind. We ought to gain over their judgments through the medium of their senses, and not , leave the conclusions to be drawn, to the uncertain process of immature reason.* This is still the same argument under another form. It takes for granted, that a true observation of things, is inadequate to teach us our duty; and, of consequence, recommends an equivocal engine, which may, with equal ease, be employed in the service of justice and injustice, but would surely appear somewhat more iu its place in the service of the latter. It is injustice that stands most in need of superstition and mystery, and will most frequently be a gainer by the imposition. This hypothesis proceeds upon an assumption, which young men sometimes impute to their parents and preceptors. It says, " Mankind must be kept in ignorance: if they know vice, they will love it too well; if they perceive the charms of error, they will never return to the simplicity of truth." And, strange as it may appear, this bare-faced and unplausi- ble argument, has been the foundation of a very popular and generally received hypothesis. It has taught politicians to believe, that a people, once sunk into decrepitude, as it has been termed, could never afterwards be endued wdth purity and vigour.f There arc two modes, according to which the minds of human beings may te influenced, by him who is desirous to conduct them. The first of these, is a strong and commanding picture, taking hold of the imagination, and surprising the judgment; the second, a distinct and unanswerable statement of reasons, which, the oftener they are reflected upon, and the more they are sifted, will be found by so much the more cogent.
One of the tritest and most general, as well as most self-evident, maxims in the science of the human mind, is, that the former of these is only adapted to a temporary purpose, while the latter alone is adequate to a purpose that is durable. How comes it then that, in the business of politics and government, the pur- poses of which are evidently not temporary, the liillacious mode of proceeding should have been so gene.vally and so eagerly resorted to?
This may be accoiinted for from two considerations: first the diffidence, and secondly, the vanity and self-applause, of legislators • This argument is the gieat common place of Mr. Burke's Reflections on the Uevolution in France, and of a multitude of other works, ancient and modern, upon the subject of government.
T Book I., Chap. \ II.
OF POLITICAL IMPOSTURE. 65 and statesmen. It is an arduous task, always to assign reasons to those, whose conduct we would direct; it is by no means easy, to answer objections and remove diflSculties. It requires patience; it demands profound science and severe meditation. This is the reason why, in the instance already alluded to, parents and pre- ceptors find a refuge for their indolence, while by false pretences they cheat the young into compliance, in preference to showing them, as far as they may be capable of understanding it, the true face of things. Statesmen secretly distrust their own powers, and therefore substitute quackery in the room of principle.
But, beside the recommendations that quackery derives from indolence and ignorance, it is also calculated to gratify the vanity of him that employs it. He that would reason witli another, and honestly explain to him the motives of the action he recom- mends, descends to a footing of equality. But he who imdertakes to delude us, and fashion us to his purpose by a specious appear- ance, has a feeling that he is our master. Though his task is neither so difficult nor so honourable as that of the ingenuous dealer, he regards it as more flattering. At every turn he admires h^ own dexterity; he triumphs in the success of his artifices, and delights to remark how completely mankind are his dupes.
There are disadvantages of no ordinary magnitude that attend upon the practice of political imposture.
It is utterly incompatible with the wholesome tone of the human understanding. Man, we have seen some reason to be- lieve, is a being of progressive nature, and capable of unlimited improvement. But Ms progress must be upon the plain line of reason and truth. As long as he keeps the open road, his journey is prosperous and promising; but, if he turn aside into by-patlis, he will soon come to a point, where there is no longer either avenue or track. He that is accustomed to a deceitful medium, will be ignorant of tlie true colours of things. He that is often imposed on, will be no judge of the fair and the genuine. Human understanding cannot be tampered with, with impimity; if we admit prejudice, deception and implicit faith in one subject, the inquisitive energies of the mind will be more or less weakened in all. This is a fact so well known, that the persons who recom- mend the governing mankind by deception, are, to a man, advo- cates of the opinion, that the human species is essentially sta- tionary.
A further disadvantage of political imposture, is, that the bubble is hourly in danger of bursting, and the delusion of coming to an end. The playing upon our passions and our imagination, as we have already said, can never fully answer any but a temporary purpose. In delusion there is always inconsistency. It will look plausibly, when placed in a certain light; but it will not bear handling, and examining on all sides. It suits us in a cer- tain animated tone of mind; but in a calm and tranquil season, it is destitute of power. Politics and government are affairs of a 20.— VOL. n. F 66 Of 1»0LITICAL IMPOSTURE.
durable concern; they should therefore rest upon a basis that ■will abide the test.
The system of political imposture divides men into two classes, one of which is to think and reason for the whole, and the other to take the conclusions of their superiors on trust. This distinc- tion is not founded in the nature of things; there is no such in- herent difference between man and man, as it thinks proper to suppose. Nor is it less injurious, than it is unfounded. The two classes which it creates, must be more and less than man. It is too much to expect of the former, while we consign to them an unnatural monopoly, that they should rigidly consult for the good of the whole. It is an iniquitous requisition upon the latter, that they should never employ their understandings, or penetrate into the essences of things, but always rest in a deceitful appear- ance. It is iniquitous, to deprive tliem of that chance for addi- tional wisdom, which would result from a greater number of minds being employed in the enquiry, and from the disinterested and impartial spirit that might be expected to accompany it.
How strangely incongruous is that state of mind, which the system we are here examining, is adapted to recommend. Shall those persons who govern the springs, and carry on the deception, be themselves in the secret of the imposition or not? This is a fvmdamental question. It has often been started, in relation to the authors or abettors of a new fabric of superstition. On the one hand, we should be apt to imagine, that, for a machine to be guided well, it is desirable that those who guide it, should be acquainted ■with its principle. "We should suppose that, otherwise the governors "we speak of, would not always know the extent and the particulars as to which the deception was salutary; and that, where " the blind led the blind," the public welfare would not be in a much better condition, that the greatest advocates of imposture could suppose it to be under the auspices of truth. But tlien again, on the other hand, no man can be powerful in persuasion, in a point ■where he has not first persuaded himself. Beside that the secret must, first or last, be confided to so many hands, that it will be continually in danger of being discovered by the public at large. So that for these reasons it would seem best, that he, who first invented the art of leading mankind at pleasure, and set the wheels of political craft in motion, should suffer his secret to die ■with him.
And what sort of character must exist in a state thus modified? Those at the head of affairs, if they be acquainted with the principle of the political machine, must be perpetually anxious, lest mankind should unexpectedly recover the use of their facul- ties. Falsehood must be their discipline and incessant study. We will suppose, that they adopt this system of impost-are, in the first instance, from the most benevolent motives. But will the continual practice of concealment, hypocrisy and artifice, make no breaches in their character? Will they, in despite of habit, OF POLITICAL IMPOSTUBE. 67 retain all that ingenuousness of heart which is the first principle of virtue?
With respect to the multitude, in this system, they are placed in the middle between two fearful calamities, suspicion on one side, and infatuation on the other. Even children, when their parents explain to them, that there is one system of morality for youth, and another for mature age, and endeavour to cheat them into submission, are generally found to suspect the trick. It can- not reasonably be thought, that the mass of the governed in any country, should be less clear-sighted than children. Thus they are kept in perpetual vibration, between rebellious discontent, and infatuated credulity. Sometimes they suppose their governors to be the messengers and favourites of heaven, a supernatural order of beings; and sometimes they suspect them to be a com- bination of usurpers to rob and oppress them. For they dare not indulge themselves in solving the dilemma, because they are held in awe by oppression and the gallows.
Is this the genuine state of man? Is this a condition so desir- able, that we should be anxious to entail it upon posterity for ever? Is it high treason to Lnquire whether it may be melior- ated? Are we sure, that every change from such a situation of things, is severely to be deprecated? Is it not worth while, to suffer that experiment, which shall consist in a gradual, and almost insensible, abolition of such mischievous institutions?
It may not be uninstructive to consider what sort of discourse must be held, or book ^vritten, by him who should make himself the champion of political impostiure. He cannot avoid secretly wishing that the occasion had never existed. What he under- takes is to lengthen the reign of " salutary prejudices." For this end, he must propose to himself the two opposite purposes, of prolonging the deception, and proving that it is necessary to deceive. By whom is it that he intends his book should be read? Chiefly by the governed; the governors need little inducement to continue the system. But, at the same time that he tells us, we should cherish the mistake as mistake, and the prejudice as pre- judice, he is himself lifting the veU, and destroying his own system. While the affair of our superiors and the enlightened, is simply to impose upon us, the task is plain and intelligible. But, the moment they begin to write books, to persuade us that we ought to be willing to be deceived, it may well be suspected that their system is upon the decline. It is not to be wondered at, if the greatest genius, and the sincerest and most benevo- lent champion, should fail in producing a perspicuous or very persuasive treatise, when he undertakes so hopeless a task.
The argument of such a system must, when attentively ex- amined, be the most untenable that can be imagined. It imder- takes to prove that we must not be governed by reason. To prove! How prove? Necessarily, from the resources of reason. What can be more contradictory? If I must not trust the con- cliwioiis of reason relative to the intrinsic value of Uiiugs, why F 2 68 OF THE CAUSES OF WAR.
trust to your reasons in favour of the benefit of being deceived? You cut up your own argument by the roots. If I must re- ject the dictates of reason in one point, there can be no possible cause why I should adopt tliem in another. INIoral reasons and inducements, as we have repeatedly shown, consist singly in this, an estimate of consequences. What can supersede this estimate? Not an opposite estimate; for, by the nature of morality, the pur- pose, in the first instance, is, to take into accoimt all the conse- quences. Not something else, for a consideration of consequences is the only thing, with which morality and practical wisdom aro directly concerned. The moment I dismiss the information of my own eyes and my owii understanding, there is, in all justice, an end to persuasion, expostulation, or conviction. There is no pretence, by which I can disallow the authority of inference and deduction in one instance, that will not justify a similar proceed- ing in every other. He that, in any case, designedly surrenders the use of his own tmderstanding, is condemned to remain for ever at the beck of contingence and caprice, and is even "bound in consistency, no more to frame his course by the results of demonstration, than by the wildest dreams of delirium and insanity.
CHAP. XVI.
OF THE CAUSES OF WAB.
Offensive war contrary to the nature of democracy. — Defensive u-ar ex- ceedingly rare. — Erroneousness of the ideas usually annexed to the phrase, our country. — Nature of war delineated. — Insufficient causes of war — the acquiring a healthful and vigorous tone to the public mind — the putting a termination upon private insults — the menaces or preparations of' our neighbours — the daiigerous consequences of concession — the vindication of national honour. — Two legitimate causes of war.
Exclusively of those objections which have been urged against the democratical system, as it relates to the internal management of affairs, there are others, upon which considerable stress has been laid, in relation to the transactions of a state with foreign powers, to war and peace, and to treaties of alliance and com- merce.
There is indeed an eminent difference, with respect to these, between the democratical system and all others. It is perhaps impossible to show, that a single war ever did, or could have taken place, in the history of mankind, that did not in some way originate with those two great political monopolies, monarchy and or THE CXtJSES OP WAR. 69 aristocracy. This might have formed an additional article, in the catalogue of the evils to which they have given birth, little inferior to any of tliose we have enumerated. But nothing could be more idle, than to overcharge a subject, the evidence of which is irresistible.
What could be the source of misunderstanding between states, where no man, or body of men, found encouragement to the ac- cumulation of privileges to himself, at the expence of the rest? Why should they pursue additional wealth or territory? These wouild lose their value, the moment they became the property of all. No man can cultivate more than a certain portion of land. Money is representative, and not real wealth. If every man in the society possessed a double portion of money, bread, and every other commodity, would sell at double tlieir present price, and the relative situation of each individual, would be just what it had been before. War and conquest cannot be beneficial to the community. Their tendency is to elevate a few at the ex- pence of the rest; and consequently they will never be under- taken, but where the many are the instruments of the few. But this cannot happen in a democracy, till the democracy, shall become such only in name. If expedients can be devised for maintaining this species of government in its purity, or if there be anything, in the nature of wisdom and intellectual improve- ment, which has a tendency daily to make truth more prevalent over falsehood, the principle of offensive war will be extirpated.
But this principle enters into the very essence of monarchy and aristocracy.
It is not meant here to be insinuated, that democracy has not repeatedly been a source of war. It was eminently so among the ancient Romans; the aristocracy found in it an obvious expedient for diverting the attention and encroachments of the people. It may be expected to be so, wherever the form of government is complicated, and the nation at hrge is enabled to become formid- able to a band of usurpers. But war will be foreign to the cha- racter of any people, in proportion as their democracy becomes simple and unalloyed.
IMean while, though the principle of offensive war be incompati- ble with tlie genius of democracy, a democratical state may be placed in the neighbourhood of states whose government is less equal, and therefore it will be proper to enquire into the supposed disadvantages which the democratical state may sustain in the contest. The only species of war in which it can consistently be engaged, will be that the object of which is to repel wanton invasion. Such invasions will be little likely frequently to occur. For what purpose should a corrupt state attack a coimtry, that has no feature in common with itself upon which to build a mis- imderstanding, and that presents, in the very nature of its govern- ment, a pledge of its inoffensiveness and neutrality? Add to which, it will presently appear, that this state, which yields the fewest incitements to provoke an attack, will prove a very 70 OF THE CAUSES OF WAR.
undesirable adversary to those by whom an attack shall be com- menced.
One of the most essential principles of political justice is diametrically the reverse of that, which impostors, as well as patriots, have too frequently agreed to recommend. Their per- petual exhortation has been, "Love your country. Sink the personal existence of individuals in the existence of the commu- nity. Make little account of the particular men of whom the society consists, but aim at the general wealth, prosperity, and glory. Purify your mind from the gross ideas of sense, and ele- vate it to the single contemplation of that abstract individual, of which particular men are so many detached members, valuable only for the place they fill."* The lessons of reason on this head are different from these. " Society is an ideal existence, and not, on its own account, en- titled to the smallest regard. The wealth, prosperity and glory of the whole are unintelligible chimeras. Set no value on any- thing, but in proportion as you are convinced of its tendency to make individual men happy and virtuous. Benefit, by every practicable mode, man wherever he exists; but be not deceived by the specious idea of aff'ording services to a body of men, for which no individual man is the better. Society was instituted, not for the sake of glory, not to furnish splendid materials for the page of history, but for the benefit of its members. The love of our country, as the term has usually been understood, has too often been found to be one of those specious illusions, which are employed by impostors, for the purpose of rendering the multi- tude the blind instruments of their crooked designs."