not be often perplexed to find what is equitable. "If it be sometimes difficult to weigh human interests accurately, that is no reason for using false weights on purpose. On On many occasions, it may be a valid reason for not disturbing the course of society to which men's minds have conformed, that we do not know well how to compare the interests at stake. But it happens much oftener, that the rule of justice is difficult to find, only because of the strength of our own prejudices.

The good of society, the good of the whole, has really no meaning but the good of the greater number; and it is implied, that the sacrifices required from the few to the many should be reduced to the least, and compensated if possible. They who receive no compensation for the loss of their rights are mere victims. This is a misfortune which cannot always be avoided. But it should be a sacred rule to reduce the number of such sufferers to the least.

The discussions on the right of impressing seamen, which have taken place at various times, showed how clearly these principles are received by the common sense of mankind. Those who at tacked, and those who defended that practice both agreed, that if our navy in time of war, could not be manned otherwise for the defence of the country, the right of the seaman to offer his labour when, and where, and on what terms he pleased, must be violated; that he must be forced to serve his country, and take in payment whatever it thought fit to offer. They who opposed the practice, denied not the right of coercion, in the case assumed; but they

denied that the necessity existed, which alone would give birth to the right. They contended, that by high pay and other measures, it might be made the interest of men to offer their services, and therefore, that the injustice of the practice was established. The defenders of the system did not pretend that the right could be justified, on any grounds but necessity. But they made out the necessity, by denying that such high pay as the seaman would demand, could be given, without imposing burdens oppressive to the whole community. Thus was it admitted on all sides, that the rights of the few, however strong, must yield to the interests of the many; but that nothing could defeat the claim of the injured to compensation, except the impossibility of granting it, without greater injury to others, either in extent or degree.

It is certain that in the long run, there is no real advantage in injustice, even to the aggressors.

Indeed, while we confine the ideas of advantage and happiness to the mere acquisition of money or power, we may admit of an individual or a gang, that they have gained a great deal by spoliation. But what thinking person would apply such an argument to the real interests of all mankind, and hold out, that it was always an advantage to one part of the community to rob the other?

If single acts of injustice, such for instance as conquests, have been occasionally deemed beneficial to the conqueror, it has been only when he made atonement for his violence, by giving to the conquered more social justice, than they possessed before. A

system of government by injustice has always reacted injuriously on the prosperity of the oppressors. We need not look far for examples..

In the whole theory of morals, no maxim is better proved than that justice, upon the whole, is the virtue that pays best. Generosity and charity excite, as they ought, great admiration, great emotion. But we cannot live in a state of high excitement; strong emotions in their nature are transient.

Though justice has been called a "hobbling old dame, who cannot keep pace with generosity," yet it is the hobbling old dame who creates confidence, and confidence is the firmest root of love, respect, and gratitude. Generosity may come with holiday gifts, but justice fills our cup with every day comfort. We cannot live upon gifts; if we do, we are degraded. Justice offers nothing but what may be accepted with honour; and lays claim to nothing in return, but what we ought not even to wish to withhold. There is, indeed, no generosity so real as that of conceding rights.

If there be such a thing as right or property · acknowledged at all, there can be none so indisputable as what is made our own by the laws of nature; the right to use our own senses and faculties, our judgment, conscience, and industry, for our own happiness and moral improvement. The restraints of law and subordination are not intended to abridge, but to give greater scope to the natural freedom of all. Mutual violences would impede many more free actions than the restraints of just government. Removing those restraints, would not leave the total of

any man's actions more free; except the encroachments of every one else upon him, at the same time could be represssd. It may sound paradoxical, but it is nevertheless true, that the liberty of the very aggressor who is punished, has been greater for the existence of law, though it imprisons him at last. It' preserved his life and his property safe, and enabled him to live, and to do and speak as he pleased, up to the moment when he invaded the rights of his neighbours. He could not have had equal enjoyment of his own, had they all been as licentious as he. Too much legal liberty impairs practical liberty*.

Such are the principles that sanctify authority, and justify any privation they really require. But just in as much as they are disregarded, power approaches to the nature of tyranny. The laws, customs, and prejudices, which aim only at securing to the superior a more easy and indolent enjoyment of his rights, without due regard to the interests of others, are really adverse to the well-being of all. People are not better served, but much worse, by having slaves instead of paid servants. One nation does not prosper more, but a great deal less, by injustice to its dependencies. None but children imagine a despot is greater or happier then a constitutional monarch. And the male part of societies in which women are absolute property, is degraded and stationary, compared with that in countries where female rights are partly restored. If to those rights, the principles of justice were still more impartially applied, society would be still better and happier.

* See Note E. at the end of the volume.

In order, however, to obviate the displeasure the present purpose may excite in some minds, the male reader may be assured, the inquiry will not lead to placing the two sexes on a perfect equality.

Equality of rights between all parts of society, is very far from being a dictate of justice. Society, without any system of subordination, would pass into anarchy; and command is given to some for the real benefit of all. Diversity of ability, of function, of wants and desires, is fixed in human society by its nature; and justice is most perfect, when it distributes the rights of parties most in accordance with those natural circumstances. Though one party be made the superior, therefore, it would be a mistake to suppose the others have gained nothing. Their condition is essentially bettered by the sacrifice of that share of authority, which is taken from them to be lodged in better hands. Who can doubt that the power and privileges bestowed on the general, or on public authorities, are for the interest of the soldier and citizen, quite as much as for that of the more elevated commander? Mankind are sometimes so little civilized, that even the rule of a despot is better than none. Gradations of rank are defended on no other grounds, than that the whole community, the inferior and unprivileged as well as the others, are supposed to benefit more by the order those distinctions maintain, than injured by the sacrifices they entail.

On this mutual advantage rests the whole duty of submission to authority. Except they are blinded by the selfishness of power, few people will be found See Note F. at the end of the volume.