y to its antagonists. To destroy the old faith was still
for him to destroy the great impulse to a noble life. He held in some
shape to the value of his creed, even though he felt logically bound to
introduce a 'perhaps.'

This, however, hardly gives the key to his first difference with the
utilitarians, though it greatly affects his conclusions. He called
himself, as I have said, a Liberal; but there were, according to him,
two classes of Liberals, the intellectual Liberals, whom he identified
with the old utilitarians, and the Liberals who are generally described
as the Manchester school. Which of those was to be the school of the
future, and which represented the true utilitarian tradition? Here I
must just notice a fact which is not always recognised. The utilitarians
are identified by most people with the (so-called) Manchester doctrines.
They are regarded as advocates of individualism and the _laissez-faire_
or, as I should prefer to call it, the let-alone principle. There was no
doubt a close connection, speaking historically; but a qualification
must be made in a logical sense, which is very important for my purpose.
The tendency which Fitzjames attacked as especially identified with
Mill's teaching--the tendency, namely, to restrict the legitimate sphere
of government--is far from being specially utilitarian. It belonged more
properly to the adherents of the 'rights of man,' or the believers in
abstract reason. It is to be found in Price and Paine, and in the French
declaration of the rights of man; and Mr. Herbert Spencer, its chief
advocate (in a new form) at the present day remarks himself that he was
partly anticipated by Kant. Bentham expressly repudiated this view in
his vigorous attack upon the 'anarchical fallacies' embodied in the
French declaration. In certain ways, moreover, Bentham and his disciples
were in favour of a very vigorous Government action. Bentham invented
his Panopticon as a machine for 'grinding rogues honest,' and proposed
to pass paupers in general through the same mill. His constitutional
code supposes a sort of omnipresent system of government, and suggests a
national system of education and even a national church--with a very
diluted creed. As thorough-going empiricists, the utilitarians were
bound to hold, and did, in fact, generally declare themselves to hold,
not that Government interference was wrong in general, but simply that
there was no general principle upon the subject. E