Many ways might however be found to make the requisite alteration,without any departure from the spirit of the engagement.Although that body itself which contracted the engagement be no more,a larger body,from whence the first is understood to have derived its title,may still subsist.Let this larger body be consulted.Various are the ways that might be conceived of doing this,and that without any disparagement to the dignity of the subsisting legislature:of doing it,I mean to such effect,as that,should the sense of such larger body be favourable to the alteration,it may be made by a law,which,in this case,neither ought to be,nor probably would be,regarded by the body of the people as a breach of the convention.(94)38.To return for a moment to the language used by those who speak of the supreme power as being limited in its own nature.One thing I would wish to have remembered.What is here said of the impropriety,and evil influence of that kind of discourse,is not intended to convey the smallest censure on those who use it,as if intentionally accessary to the ill effects it has a tendency to produce.It is rather a misfortune in the language,than a fault of any person in particular.The original of it is lost in the darkness of antiquity.We inherited it from our fathers,and,maugre all its inconveniences,1are likely,I doubt,to transmit it to our children.
39.I cannot look upon this as a mere dispute of words.I cannot help persuading myself,that the disputes between contending partiesbetween the defenders of a law and the opposers of it,would stand a much better chance of being adjusted than at present were they but explicitly and constantly referred at once to the principle of UTILITY.The footing on which this principle rests every dispute,is that of matter of fact;that is,future factthe probability of certain future contingencies.Were the debate then conducted under the auspices of this principle,one of two things would happen:either men would come to an agreement concerning that probability,or they would see at length,after due discussion of the real grounds of the dispute,that no agreement was to be hoped for.They would at any rate see clearly and explicitly,the point on which the disagreement turned.
The discontented party would then take their resolution to resist or to submit,upon just grounds,according as it should appear to them worth their whileaccording to what should appear to them,the importance of the matter in disputeaccording to what should appear to them the probability or improbability of successaccording,in short,as the mischiefs of submission should appear to bear a less,or a greater ratio to the mischiefs of resistance.
But the door to reconcilement would be much more open,when they saw that it might be not a mere affair of passion,but a difference of judgment,and that,for any thing they could know to the contrary,a sincere one,that was the ground of quarrel.
40.All else is but womanish scolding and childish altercation,which is sure to irritate,and which never can persuade.'I say,the legislature cannot do thisI say,that it can.I say,that to do this,exceeds the bounds of its authorityI say,it does not.'It is evident,that a pair of disputants setting out in this manner,may go on irritating and perplexing one another for everlasting,without the smallest chance of ever coming to an agreement.
It is no more than announcing,and that in an obscure and at the same time,a peremptory and captious manner,their opposite persuasions,or rather affections,on a question of which neither of them sets himself to discuss the grounds.The question of utility,all this while,most probably,is never so much as at all brought upon the carpet:if it be,the language in which it is discussed is sure lobe warped and clouded to make it match with the obscure and entangled pattern,we have seen.
41.On the other hand,had the debate been originally and avowedly instituted on the footing of utility,the parties might at length have come to an agreement;or at least to a visible and explicit issue.`I say,that the mischiefs of the measure in question are to such an amount.I say,not so,but to a less.I say,the benefits of it are only to such an amount.I say,not so,but to a greater.'This,we see,is a ground of controversy very different from the former.The question is now manifestly a question of conjecture concerning so many future contingent matters of fact:to solve it,both parties then are naturally directed to support their respective persuasions by the only evidence the nature of the case admits of;the evidence of such past matters of fact as appear to be analogous to those contingent future ones.Now these past facts are almost always numerous:so numerous,that till brought into view for the purpose of the debate,a great proportion of them are what may very fairly have escaped the observation of one of the parties:and it is owing,perhaps,to this and nothing else,that that party is of the persuasion which sets it at variance with the other.Here,then,we have a plain and open road,perhaps,to present reconcilement:
at the worst to an intelligible and explicit issue ,that is,to such a ground of difference as may,when thoroughly trodden and explored,be found to lead on to reconcilement at the last.Men,let them but once clearly understand one another,will not be long ere they agree.It is the perplexity of ambiguous and sophistical discourse that,while it distracts and eludes the apprehension,stimulates and inflames the passions.
But it is now high time we should return to our Author,from whose text we have been insensibly led astray,by the nicety and intricacy of the question it seemed to offer to our view.
