t upon
actual experience of life, such doctrines appear to be not only
erroneous, but indicative of a hopeless thinness of character. And so,
again, Fitzjames absolutely refused to test the value of the great
patriotic passions which are the mainsprings of history by the mere
calculus of abstract concepts which satisfied Mill. Fitzjames, like
Henry VIII., 'loved a man,' and the man of Mill's speculations seemed to
be a colourless, flaccid creature, who required, before all things, to
have some red blood infused into his veins.

Utilitarianism of the pedantic kind--the utilitarianism which
substitutes mere lay figures for men and women--or the utilitarianism
which refuses to estimate anything that cannot be entered in a ledger,
was thus altogether abhorrent to Fitzjames. And yet he was, in his way,
a utilitarian in principle; and his reply to Mill must be given in terms
of utilitarianism. To do that, it was only necessary to revert to the
original principles of the sect, and to study Austin and Bentham with a
proper infusion of Hobbes. Then it would be possible to construct a
creed which, whatever else might be said of it, was not wanting in
vigour or in danger of substituting abstractions for concrete realities.
I shall try to indicate the leading points of this doctrine without
following the order partly imposed upon Fitzjames by his controversial
requirements. Nor shall I inquire into a question not always quite
clear, namely, whether his interpretation of Mill's principles was
altogether correct.

One fundamental ground is common to Fitzjames and his antagonist. It is
assumed in Austin's analysis of 'law,' which is accepted by both.[121]
Law properly means a command enforced by a 'sanction.' The command is
given by a 'sovereign,' who has power to reward or punish, and is made
effectual by annexing consequences, painful or pleasurable, to given
lines of conduct. The law says, 'Thou shalt not commit murder'; and
'shalt not' means 'if you commit murder you shall be hanged.' Nothing
can be simpler or more obviously in accordance with common sense.
Abolish the gaoler and the hangman and your criminal law becomes empty
words. Moreover, the congeniality of this statement to the individualist
point of view is obvious. Consider men as a multitude of independent
units, and the problem occurs, How can they be bound into wholes? What
must be the principle of cohesion? Obviously some motive must be
supplied which will operate u