just or unjust, I am afraid and do tremble att the boundlesse and endlesse consequences of itt" (p. 264).2 Cromwell told the soldiers that he himself was an opportunist with no general theory as to the relation of government to Natural Right. He was not "wedded and glued to formes of government . (p. 277). "It is the generall good of them and all the people in the kingdome [we ought to consult]. That's the question, what's for their good, nott what pleases them" (p. 209).

After the Restoration of 1661 the whole progress of English political thought was checked, because there was no chance of an understanding between the followers of Hobbes, who insisted on a psychological basis for political theory but could give no psychological explanation of the passion for Natural Rights, and the followers of Locke, who insisted on the reality of Natural Rights but gave a metaphysical explanation of them. Throughout the years of the French Revolution Jeremy Bentham, the humanitarian and reformer, remained a Tory because of his contempt for the "nonsense upon stilts" of "natural and imprescriptible rights"; and Francis Place, when he set himself after Waterloo to find a rational basis for Radicalism, created a wall of suspicion between himself and the working class leaders of his time (who thought as their successors still often think in terms of Natural Right) by his contempt for "what are called inherent indefeasible rights, which are made to include whatever particular object may be aimed at." In the American Civil War, both North and South passionately desired those "unalienable Natural Rights" which were asserted

3

2 Camden Society, The Clarke Papers, ed. C. H. Firth (1891), Vol. I. 3 Works, Vol. II, p. 501.

in the Declaration of Independence. But the South interpreted those Rights with reference to their strong instincts of property, racial superiority, and corporate freedom; while the North interpreted them with reference to their metaphysical and religious conception of right and wrong. Both the psychological and the metaphysical argument suffered from the fact that men have continually ignored the difference between that which it is natural to us to claim, and that which it is, in view of the whole circumstances, good for us to receive; if a claim is natural, men have assumed that its satisfaction is good for us, and if its satisfaction is good for us, they have assumed that the claim is natural. One would say that they have played with two different meanings of the word "right," if it were not that they have never recognized that the two meanings are different.

The long and blood-stained history of the principle of Honor is another instance of the bad results which may follow from the existence of a strong political passion which men name and recognize, but of which they can give no psychological explanation and delimitation. The psychological facts behind the principle of Honor are closely akin to those behind the principles of Liberty and Natural Right. The three feelings of unfreedom, wrong, and dishonor, are all caused by the fact that the normal function of some important instinct has been obstructed by human action; but while the emotions of unfreedom and wrong are stimulated by our recognition of our helplessness or its social cause, the emotion of dishonor is stimulated by our recognition of the fact that our fellows no longer respect us, and that we can no longer play our part as equal comrades or potential leaders in the coöpera

tive action of our society. A man may feel oppressed or wronged when no one except himself and his oppressor knows what has happened; he only feels dishonored when he believes or imagines that others know of it. And, further, he does not feel dishonored, unless he or others believe that there has been some defect from the normal in his own reaction to the wrong done to him. If he has succeeded in resisting the wrong, or in exacting vengeance on the wrongdoer, or even has fought to the uttermost though unsuccessfully, his neighbors still respect him; he and they feel that "his honor has been satisfied." A corresponding feeling of corporate dishonor may affect all the members of a society, if the society as a whole has shown a want of courage in resisting wrong, or has otherwise lost the respect of the members of other societies.* The principle of Honor, like those of Liberty and Right, can, in a modern society, be both very useful and very dangerous. If we desire to make it more useful and less dangerous we must consciously learn so to stimulate, satisfy, sublimate, or inhibit the relevant instinct as to lead, here and now, to a good life. We can, for instance, to some extent choose what type of conduct in a man or a society shall be held by outsiders to constitute dishonor or to satisfy honor. Honor may, fortunately for us, be felt to be satisfied by acts very different from those suggested by our instincts in their primitive environment. In a society where respect for law is inculcated on all, a man who is struck may satisfy honor by prosecuting his op

* The feeling of dishonor is closely akin, not only to the feeling of wrong, but also to the more general and very primitive feeling of shame. A man (and, perhaps a gregarious bird like a rook, or a gregarious mammal like a wolf or a dog) who is a discovered thief, feels a shame that is very like the dishonor felt by a discovered coward.

ponent without returning his blow; and we can train ourselves to feel that the "neighbors" to whose contempt or respect we are sensitive, shall be either our own family, or our tribe, or our nation, or even those in all nations who share our outlook on life.

A fourth principle which can be made enormously more useful by the same kind of psychological analysis is Independence, as the term is used in the phrase, "The Independence of the Judicature." Here the psychological fact behind the principle is not the immediate reaction of feeling in a man whose impulses are obstructed, but the permanent result on his conduct of the obstruction of some impulses and the encouragement of others. We make a judge "independent," not in order to spare him personal humiliation, but in order that certain motives shall not, and certain other motives shall, permanently direct his official conduct. The government or constituent assembly which adopts the principle of Judicial Independence is in the same position as the inexpert members of a firm which has acquired a wall-paper factory, and has to engage a designer. They have themselves neither the knowledge nor the taste nor the time which would enable them to make their own designs, or to decide which designs will sell or even which designs they themselves after a year or two's experience will like. They therefore choose a man with certain special powers and training, and give him independent responsibility for the firm's patterns. But they desire that he shall not only be capable of making good designs and free from any obstruction in the process, but also that he shall be impelled to do his work by certain positive impulses, conscious or half-conscious, which are much more subtle than the habit of shop

discipline or the fear of dismissal. Therefore, without being themselves quite conscious of what they are doing, they add to the negative fact of independence certain encouragements of these positive impulses. They not only pay him a good salary, but also treat him with personal respect; they call his working-room "Mr. Jones's studio"; they ask him and his wife to dinner; and try to create an atmosphere in which Mr. Jones is encouraged both to give play to his artistic impulses, and half-consciously to coördinate those impulses with the general purposes of his friends the masters of the firm. So a president or prime minister knows that if he forces judges to carry out his own decisions he will often prove to be wrong. He therefore chooses judges carefully, and gives them a status negatively free from parliamentary and executive pressure, and positively encouraging to "judicial" impulses.

All this means that the Independence of the Judicature is capable of being made not merely an isolated and simple formula, too sacred to be criticized or modified, but a principle founded on known psychological facts, and capable of development in accordance with new needs. As soon as this is realized, we can freely ask ourselves what are the motives which we desire to encourage in judges, and whether we are taking the right means to encourage them. The administrative methods, for instance, of the United States as to the appointment and position of the federal judicature are based on Alexander Hamilton's eloquent plea in The Federalist for the "firmness," "integrity," and "moderation," of the judges. Successive presidents carry out that tradition by appointing practising lawyers who have earned the respect of their professional colleagues. But there is in America a grow