the evil which we should suffer, if we were not to defend ourselves. The reason which he gives, why the assailant may lawfully be killed in such attempts as these, is, that one of our principal limbs, or our chastity, is of equal value with our life. As if, upon supposition, that what we are likely to lose is not of equal value with our life, it could not lawfully be defended at the expense of his life, who endeavours to take it from us.

But I have already shown, and Grotius, upon another occasion, acknowledges, that he who attempts to injure me, gives me an indefinite right against him, a right which knows no measure, besides the attainment of the end, for which the law of nature allows it. Since we are not obliged to submit to such injuries as we have just now been speaking of, we are at liberty, that is, we have a right to defend ourselves against them: and the law, which allows this liberty, cannot be supposed to forbid any of those means, without which such liberty would be ineffectual.

But the observation of Grotius concerning the value of what would be lost in an attempt to maim or to ravish, though it is of no weight at all in settling the justice of defending ourselves to the utmost extremity, may be of use to show, that it is not inconsistent with benevolence to repel such an attempt at the expense of the assailant's life: because no rule of benevolence obliges us to love another better than ourselves; which must be the case, if we were ready to spare his life, though, with the loss of what is of as much value to us, as his life is to him.

Defence against VII. Strict justice would allow a man to repel the
slight personal in- slightest injury to his person, such as a blow or a box
juries.
on the ear, by any means which the aggressor makes
necessary. The principle so frequently mentioned already is applica-
ble to this case. As the law of nature does not oblige a man to sub-
mit even to such injuries as these, he is naturally at liberty, or has an
indefinite right to repel them. But where the suffering is so slight to
the person attacked, and the much greater evil of death would be the
consequence to the aggressor, if defence was carried to the utmost ri-
gour of strict justice; natural benevolence would teach a man rather
to bear the injury, than to ward it off at so great an expense to the ag-
gressor, as that of his life.

Honour, what. VIII. We hear it, indeed, frequently maintained,
that a man's honour will require him to kill his adversary if he can;
not only that he may ward off such an affront, but even that he may
revenge it, after it has been received. And it may not be altogether
foreign to our purpose to take this opportunity of inquiring into the
meaning of the word honour, and into the rules of conduct which this
principle is supposed to suggest.

It is no very easy undertaking to explain a word which is used by all men very unsteadily, and by most without any meaning at all. Grotius says, that honour is the opinion of our worth or excellence. He does not tell us whether he means that any man's honour is the opinion which the man himself has, or the opinion which other people have of his worth and excellence. In the former sense, the definition of honour, † Grot. lbid.

Grot. Lib. II. Cap. I. § X.

as it signifies a principle of action, is not true; and in the latter sense it is unintelligible. The true definition of a word may always be substituted instead of the word itself. Try, therefore, to substitute the definition which Grotius gives of the word honour, instead of the word itself; when you affirm that your honour will not suffer you to do such or such an action, or that your honour requires you to do such or such another action. Do you mean that your opinion, or the judgment which you make, concerning your own worth or excellence, is the principle which influences you to do or not to do this or that action? If this be the case, then every thing is consistent with a man's honour, which he can reconcile to his own opinion, whatever the rest of the world may think, or whatever the rules of right reason may determine about it: and a man who had debased his mind and corrupted his judgment, would easily prove to you, that cowardice and treachery are as consistent with a principle of honour, as courage or fidelity. Grotius, however, when he speaks of honour, as consisting in the opinion of our worth and excellence, did not mean a man's own opinion of these qualities in himself, but the general opinion of mankind concerning them. But if honour has such a reference to the opinion of others, as this definition supposes, it will be nonsense for a man to talk of his own honour, unless we add something to the definition, which will give it likewise a reference to himself. If it is considered without any such reference to himself, merely as the opinion of other men, he cannot speak of it as a principle within his own heart. If we call it a sense of the esteem or regard of mankind, a desire of raising and preserving in them an opinion of our worth and excellence; the definition will be intelligible. And I will endeavour to show, that this is the true notion of honour, as far as the word is used with any steady meaning, or with any meaning at all.

When the word honour is made use of by those who call themselves men of honour, to denote a principle of action which influences their conduct; if any analogy of language is observed, or if it signifies any thing like what the same word is used to signify upon other occasions, we may judge what this principle is by attending to the import of some very common expressions. What do we mean, when we say, that we honour a man? The plain sense of such an expression is, that we think highly of him, or that we regard and esteem him. What is it then to behave honourably, but to behave in such a manner as to deserve to be honoured; that is, in such a manner as to deserve the regard and esteem of mankind? Now there seems to be no difference between behaving honourably, and behaving with honour: so that to behave with honour, and to behave in such a manner as to deserve the regard and esteem of mankind, are the same thing.

If this is the fundamental rule of honour, it will be easy to see what principle it is, which puts a man upon observing such a rule. Nothing but a desire that mankind should think well of us, or a sense of reputation, can lead a man to behave in this or that manner, merely because mankind will esteem and regard him for such behaviour. One would think that such a principle of action as this could seldom mislead us: because the general opinion of mankind, though it is not a demonstrative standard, must be allowed to be at least a probable standard of what is right and virtuous. General opinion is nothing else but the

common sense of mankind, or the common judgment of reason: and it is not likely that mankind should universally approve any thing which is generally hurtful, or any thing, indeed, which is not generally beneficial.

Mistakes in mat- IX. The mistakes in this matter arise either from ters of honour, our making use of a wrong standard in judging what whence they arise. is honourable, or else from our applying the true standard in a wrong manner.

We make use of a wrong standard, whenever our sense of reputation is confined to a few, and does not extend itself to all; whenever we desire to be thought well of by a small party of men, instead of desiring to be thought well of by mankind in general. A few men may easily be mistaken in their judgment, a small party may be determined, by caprice or private interest, to regard and esteem us for such qualities or such conduct, as would make the rest of mankind think meanly of us. And, in fact, there is scarce any conduct so scandalous, but some will be found to countenance and encourage it. If then we mean by our honour, only a sense of reputation amongst the few, that we converse with amongst people, whose humour or interest is the same with our own; it is no wonder, if honour and virtue should sometimes be found to differ from one another. But this notion of honour is plainly a partial one, and may, for that reason, be justly called a false one. He cannot be said to act upon a true principle of honour, who is esteemed or thought well of by only an inconsiderable number of men; whilst he appears to the rest of the world to act meanly or basely.

Suppose, however, that we make use of a true standard of honour, and look upon no actions to be consistent with our honour, but such as are in general esteem; we may possibly be misled in our judgment by a partial application even of this standard. If an action consists of several different parts, or may be considered in several different views; some one part of it, taken separately from the rest, may deservedly be had in general esteem; the action, when we view it only on one side, may be such as mankind would approve, that is, it may be such as a true principle of honour would suggest. And whilst we attend to this part of the action, or whilst we consider it in this single view, we may look upon it to be consistent with our standard of honour: whereas, if we had attended to all the parts of the action, or had viewed it on all sides; we should have seen such a mixture of meanness or baseness in it, as would have convinced us that it could never either obtain or de-. serve a general esteem, and that no sense or desire of approving ourselves to the common judgment of mankind could ever lead to it. The same partial application of the standard of honour, which misleads us in judging of actions, misleads us likewise in judging of the characters of men. We attend so much to some striking part of their conduct, as not to observe the rest of it.-And it is only by this means, that many have had the credit of being men of honour, who, if their whole conduct had been as much attended to, would have been found to deserve contempt, and would justly be ranked amongst the meanest and basest of the species.

There is one very common mistake about the notion of honour, which may perhaps not be thought to arise either from the use of a partial standard of honour, or from a partial application of the true

standard. The mistake, which I mean is, that courage and honour are by many people looked upon as one and the same thing. Men who are soon provoked, who carry their resentment, upon the slightest occasions, to the utmost extremity, and are prodigal of their lives to gratify their revenge, have assumed, and would appropriate to themselves, the title of men of honour; though they have scarce any one good quality that can give them any pretensions to it. The case seems to be this: men of true honour, that is, men who have a sense of esteem, and a desire to obtain the general good opinion of mankind, are tender of their reputation, and make it a principal part of their happiness to behave in such a manner, as to deserve to be well thought and well spoken of. Upon this account they cannot bear to have their character lessened, and would rather hazard their life, than submit to any causeless aspersion. Thus, as a true principle of honour naturally produces courage, or as men of true honour are commonly men of courage, the quarrelsome and the revengeful have mistaken the matter, and have imagined that the converse must be true too, that men of courage must be men of honour. They have this advantage on their side, that no prudent man chooses to call their title to this character into question: and they are, therefore, weak enough to please themselves with fancying that their title is a good one. Courage, indeed, is, in some stations of life, an useful part of a man's character. A soldier could not discharge the duties of his station, if he did not maintain a general opinion of his being possessed of it. The rule of benevolence would scarce dissuade a man, who is placed in such circumstances as make courage a necessary or valuable part of his character, from doing what justice allows of, if he could not avoid doing it without a general imputation of cowardice: not because the law of benevolence does not bind him, or does not command him, as well as other men, to sacrifice his own lesser happiness to the greater happiness of another; but because the good which he is enabled to do in his station, by preserving the reputation of courage, is greater than the good which he would do by submitting to injuries, where he cannot submit to them without forfeiting that reputation. But if they, whose station and circumstances have not made courage a necessary or useful part of their character, will resent or guard against slight affronts with the utmost rigour, that strict justice will allow of; it is their business to consider how well they comply with the natural dictates of benevolence; it is much too difficult a task for me to undertake.

X. As the law of nature does not oblige us in strict Defence of our justice to part with our lives, or our limbs, or our chas- goods. tity, and does, by not obliging us to part with them, allow us to defend our persons; so neither does it oblige us to give up our goods to those, who would unjustly rob us of them. And from this natural liberty of keeping our goods, in opposition to those who would unjustly take them from us, our right of defence arises, that is, our right over their person, as far as such a right is necessary for preventing their attempt.

It is plain from the foundation of this right, that it must be an indefinite one, or that we are not naturally debarred from proceeding to extremities in the defence of our goods; where the obstinate injustice of

Grot. Lib. II. Cap. I. § XI.

such as would take them from us, makes this behaviour necessary. For as the law of nature does not oblige us to part with our goods, it cannot be supposed to prescribe any particular means of defending them: since to prescribe such means, as the only lawful means, would in effect be obliging us to part with our goods when those means fail. And such injunctions as these, would plainly make property nothing, or would give all persons who had a mind to deprive us of our goods, a power of doing so; provided they only took care to render the prescribed means ineffectual for the security and preservation of them.

Grotius, indeed, in order to justify killing a man in defence of our goods, observes, that the inequality of value between his life and our goods is made up by the favour of the law towards our innocence, and its aversion towards his injustice. But he was led to think this observation necessary by a principle, from which he reasons elsewhere upon a like question: it seems to have been his opinion, that the evil which the law of nature allows us to do in our own defence, ought not to exceed the evil, which we should suffer, if we were not to defend ourselves. This principle has already been shown not to be true: and it is the more to be wondered at, that Grotius should proceed upon it, since in speaking of what may be lawfully done in defence of our persons, he maintains, that they who attempt to injure us, give us, by such an attempt, an unlimited right against them; as far as such a right is necessary for preserving ourselves from the harm, which they design to do us. And it is plain from hence, that he was aware both of the true foundation of our right of defence, and of the true extent likewise of this right.

*But he had a favourite principle in his mind, that we ought not to take away any one's life immediately or directly for the sake of preserving our goods. He allows, however, that we may defend them, till our own life is in danger, and then we may justly kill the robber: because in these circumstances, the robber loses his life, immediately or di rectly, for the sake of preserving our own life, but remotely only, or indirectly, for the sake of preserving our goods.

Upon this principle, as he imagines, we are to account for the distinction which the laws of Moses, of Solon, of Plato, and of the twelve tables, have made between a thief who robs in the day, and a thief who robs in the night; when they allow the latter to be killed, but forbid killing the former. Witnesses, he says, can scarce be supposed present in the night, to explain how the death of the thief happened: and for that reason the law supposes favourably, that the person who killed the thief, did not do it merely for the sake of preventing the loss of his goods, but that, whilst he was defending his goods, his life was brought into danger, and that he was forced to take this method of preventing himself from being killed. Whereas in the day time there can be no room for such favourable presumption: when others are present or could readily come in, if they were called for; it would easily appear, whether the person who kills the thief, was in danger of his life or not: and since the law, when witnesses are to be had, presumes no more in his favour than he can make out, it forbids the killing a thief so robbing in the day time, because it intends that no man should lose his life directly for the sake of preserving another's goods.

Grot. Lib. II. Cap. I. § XIII.