《我的知识之路》第七章 晚年概略

CHAPTER VII General View Of The Remainder Of My Life

第七章 晚年概略

From this time, what is worth relating of my life will come into a very small compass; for I have no further mental changes to tell of, but only, as I hope, a continued mental progress; which does not admit of a consecutive history, and the results of which, if real, will be best found in my writings. I shall, therefore, greatly abridge the chronicle of my subsequent years.

此后，我一生中值得记述的事情就很少了，因为没有什么更多的思想变化需要说明，只有（正如我所希望的）未曾间断的思想进步。这种思想进步不可能是连续的历史，而且其结果（如果真实的话）最好在我的作品中寻找。所以，随后几年的事情我就不一一展开记述了。

The first use I made of the leisure which I gained by disconnecting myself from the Review, was to finish the Logic. In July and August 1838, I had found an interval in which to execute what was still undone of the original draft of the Third Book. In working out the logical theory of those laws of nature which are not laws of Causation, nor corollaries from such laws, I was led to recognise kinds as realities in nature, and not mere distinctions for convenience; a light which I had not obtained when the First Book was written, and which made it necessary for me to modify and enlarge several chapters of that Book. The Book on "Language and Classification", and the chapter on the "Classification of Fallacies", were drafted in the autumn of the same year; the remainder of the work, in the summer and autumn of 1840. From April following, to the end of 1841, my spare time was devoted to a complete rewriting of the book from its commencement. It is in this way that all my books have been composed. They were always written at least twice over; a first draft of the entire work was completed to the very end of the subject, then the whole begun again de novo; but incorporating, in the second writing, all sentences and parts of sentences of the old draft, which appeared as suitable to my purpose as anything which I could write in lieu of them. I have found great advantages in this system of double redaction. It combines, better than any other mode of composition, the freshness and vigour of the first conception, with the superior precision and completeness resulting from prolonged thought. In my own case, moreover, I have found that the patience necessary for a careful elaboration of the details of composition and expression, costs much less effort after the entire subject has been once gone through, and the substance of all that I find to say has in some manner, however imperfect, been got upon paper. The only thing which I am careful, in the first draft, to make as perfect as I am able, is the arrangement. If that is bad, the whole thread on which the ideas string themselves becomes twisted; thoughts placed in a wrong connexion are not expounded in a manner that suits the right, and a first draft with this original vice is next to useless as a foundation for the final treatment.

离开《威斯敏斯特评论》后，我首先利用因此得来的空闲时间完成《逻辑学体系》的写作。1838年的七、八月份，我抽空写完了第三卷初稿中未完成的部分。在写到既不是因果定律，又不是其推论的自然定律的逻辑理论时，我逐渐意识到种类是自然界的真实存在，而不仅仅是为了方便所作的划分。我在写第一卷的时候尚未意识到这一点，所以必须对该卷中的几个章节进行修改和扩充。《语言与分类》一卷，以及《谬误的分类》一章也在同年秋天完成了初稿。其余部分也于1840年夏秋完成。从1841年4月至年底，我利用所有业余时间对这本书从头到尾进行了彻底的改写。我的全部作品都是按这种方式写成的，每一本至少写作两遍，每部作品从头到尾完成初稿，然后再回过头来重写一遍。但是在重写时，我依旧沿用原稿的所有或部分句子，这些句子很合我意，根本不需要重写。这种双重编纂的方法优点很多，与其他写作模式相比，这种方法更好地把早期思考的新鲜感和活力与长期思考后的高度缜密性和完整性结合起来。另外，就我的情况而言，我发现把所有问题处理过一遍之后，对写作和措词等细节进行仔细的阐述所需投注的努力就大大减少了，我要说的全部内容，不论是否完善，都已经大体写了下来。在初稿中唯一需要细加斟酌，力求使其尽善尽美的，就是书的编排。如果做不好，贯穿思想的整个脉络就会扭曲，被错误地联系到一起的观点就不能得到正确的解释。这种最初的缺陷会令初稿与废纸无异，最终将被弃置不用。

During the rewriting of the Logic, Dr. Whewell's Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences made its appearance; a circumstance fortunate for me, as it gave me what I greatly desired, a full treatment of the subject by an antagonist, and enabled me to present my ideas with greater clearness and emphasis as well as fuller and more varied development, in defending them against definite objections, and confronting them distinctly with an opposite theory. The controversies with Dr. Whewell, as well as much matter derived from Comte, were first introduced into the book in the course of the re-writing.

在我重写《逻辑学体系》的那段时间，休厄尔博士的著作《归纳科学的哲学》问世了。这一形势对我很有利，因为对手会全面论述这一问题，这是我满心期待的机会，使我在与明确的反对者争辩，以及清楚地面对相反的理论时，能更明确地提出我的观点，同时更全面地阐述这些观点。在重写时我第一次把与休厄尔博士的这番争论，以及从孔德那里得到的很多材料写进书里。

At the end of 1841, the book being ready for press, I offered it to Murray, who kept it until too late for publication that season, and then refused it, for reasons which could just as well have been given at first. But I have had no cause to regret a rejection which led to my offering it to Mr. Parker, by whom it was published in the spring of 1843. My original expectations of success were extremely limited. Archbishop Whately had, indeed, rehabilitated the name of Logic, and the study of the forms, rules, and fallacies of Ratiocination; and Dr. Whewell's writings had begun to excite an interest in the other part of my subject, the theory of Induction. A treatise, however, on a matter so abstract, could not be expected to be popular; it could only be a book for students, and students on such subjects were not only (at least in England) few, but addicted chiefly to the opposite school of metaphysics, the ontological and "innate principles" school. I therefore did not expect that the book would have many readers, or approvers; and looked for little practical effect from it, save that of keeping the tradition unbroken of what I thought a better philosophy. What hopes I had of exciting any immediate attention, were mainly grounded on the polemical propensities of Dr. Whewell; who, I thought, from observation of his conduct in other cases, would probably do something to bring the book into notice, by replying, and that promptly, to the attack on his opinions. He did reply, but not till 1850, just in time for me to answer him in the third edition. How the book came to have, for a work of the kind, so much success, and what sort of persons compose the bulk of those who have bought, I will not venture to say read, it, I have never thoroughly understood. But taken in conjunction with the many proofs which have since been given of a revival of speculation, speculation too of a free kind, in many quarters, and above all (where at one time I should have least expected it) in the Universities, the fact becomes partially intelligible. I have never indulged the illusion that the book had made any considerable impression on philosophical opinion. The German, or à priori view of human knowledge, and of the knowing faculties, is likely for some time longer (though it may be hoped in a diminishing degree) to predominate among those who occupy themselves with such inquiries, both here and on the Continent. But the "System of Logic" supplies what was much wanted, a text-book of the opposite doctrine—that which derives all knowledge from experience, and all moral and intellectual qualities principally from the direction given to the associations. I make as humble an estimate as anybody of what either an analysis of logical processes, or any possible canons of evidence, can do by themselves, towards guiding or rectifying the operations of the understanding. Combined with other requisites, I certainly do think them of great use; but whatever may be the practical value of a true philosophy of these matters, it is hardly possible to exaggerate the mischiefs of a false one. The notion that truths external to the mind may be known by intuition or consciousness, independently of observation and experience, is, I am persuaded, in these times, the great intellectual support of false doctrines and bad institutions. By the aid of this theory, every inveterate belief and every intense feeling, of which the origin is not remembered, is enabled to dispense with the obligation of justifying itself by reason, and is erected into its own all-sufficient voucher and justification. There never was such an instrument devised for consecrating all deep-seated prejudices. And the chief strength of this false philosophy in morals, politics, and religion, lies in the appeal which it is accustomed to make to the evidence of mathematics and of the cognate branches of physical science. To expel it from these, is to drive it from its stronghold: and because this had never been effectually done, the intuitive school, even after what my father had written in his Analysis of the Mind, had in appearance, and as far as published writings were concerned, on the whole the best of the argument. In attempting to clear up the real nature of the evidence of mathematical and physical truths, the "System of Logic" met the intuitive philosophers on ground on which they had previously been deemed unassailable; and gave its own explanation, from experience and association, of that peculiar character of what are called necessary truths, which is adduced as proof that their evidence must come from a deeper source than experience. Whether this has been done effectually, is still sub judice; and even then, to deprive a mode of thought so strongly rooted in human prejudices and partialities, of its mere speculative support, goes but a very little way towards overcoming it; but though only a step, it is a quite indispensable one; for since, after all, prejudice can only be successfully combated by philosophy, no way can really be made against it permanently until it has been shown not to have philosophy on its side.

1841年底，书稿已经就绪，我把它交给了默里，但书稿在他那里放了太久，结果错过了那个出版季，因此他拒绝出版，他给出的理由本来可以一开始就告诉我。但我没有理由为这次拒绝感到惋惜，之后我把书交给了帕克先生。在他的帮助下，书终于在1843年春天出版了。我最初并没有对成功抱很大期望。事实上，大主教惠特利已恢复使用了逻辑44这一名称，重新开始研究推理的方式、原则和谬误。休厄尔博士的作品也开始引起人们对我另一部分研究课题的兴趣，即归纳理论。但一本谈论如此抽象主题的专著是不可能畅销的，它只适合研究者，但研究逻辑学的人不仅少（至少在英国如此），而且他们大都沉迷于与我相反的形而上学学派、本体论学派和先天原则学派。所以我不期待这本书有很多读者或支持者，也不期望它能产生什么实际效果，只希望我认为更好的哲学传统能保持完整。我对这本书能立刻引起关注的希望，主要寄托在休厄尔博士惯于争论的习性上。通过观察他在其他事情上的做法，我想他应该会做些什么对抨击他的观点进行回应，从而让人们注意到这本书。他的确回应了，但是直到1850年才作出回应，刚好让我能在第三版中及时回答他的问题。这样的一本书是如何大获成功的？哪些人组成了购买大军（我不敢说他们都读过了）？这两个问题我从未彻底弄明白。但联系很多思考复兴的证据，也就是在很多地区，尤其是在大学（我一度最不抱希望的地方）的自由思考，事情就容易理解一些了。我从未幻想这本书会对很多哲学观点产生深刻影响。有关人类认识和认识能力的德国学派或先验观点，有可能在更长的时间里对英国乃至整个欧洲大陆上那些从事这类探索的人起主导作用（虽然人们希望这种主导越来越少）。但《逻辑学体系》却提供了当时人们迫切需要的相反学说的教科书——这个学说认为所有知识都是通过经验获得的，所有道德和智力品质主要源于热衷联想的倾向。我像其他人一样，对逻辑过程的分析或者可能的证据规则自我运作以支配和调整认知活动的评价不高。如果与其他必要条件结合起来，我当然认为它们很有用处。但无论这些问题的正确哲学观点的实用价值是什么，其错误哲学观点的危害绝非危言耸听。我相信，那种存在于思想外部的真理可以不通过观察和经验，而是由直觉或意识获取的观念，是当下错误学说和不良制度的巨大智力支持。在这种理论的帮助下，所有不知来源的根深蒂固的信仰和强烈的感情，就省却了用理性进行自证，且自身就上升成为充分的证据和正当理由。之前从没有人设计过这样一个工具将所有根深蒂固的偏见奉为神圣。这种伪哲学在道德、政治和宗教上的主要力量就在于它惯于向数学证据和自然科学同源学科的证据求助。把它从这些学科中驱逐出去，就是把它从堡垒中赶走。但因为从未有效地实现这点，所以甚至在我父亲写的《人类心灵现象的分析》问世后，就已出版的作品来说，直觉学派的论述总体上还是最好的。为了澄清数学和自然科学真理证据的真正本质，《逻辑学体系》在直觉派哲学家从前认为无懈可击的问题上和他们会合，从经验和联想的角度，对我们所说的必然真理的特点给出自己的解释，从而证明他们的证据必须出自比经验更深层的来源。这种做法是否有效还是未知数，甚至即使这种深深根植于人类偏见和偏好中的思维模式失去了其纯粹的理论支持，也只是在战胜它的道路上迈出了一小步。尽管如此，这一步却十分必要。因为毕竟只有哲学能够成功地打败偏见，在证明偏见没有哲学支持之前，没有什么其他方法能真正永久地战胜它。

Being now released from any active concern in temporary politics, and from any literary occupation involving personal communication with contributors and others, I was enabled to indulge the inclination, natural to thinking persons when the age of boyish vanity is once past, for limiting my own society to a very few persons. General society, as now carried on in England, is so insipid an affair, even to the persons who make it what it is, that it is kept up for any reason rather than the pleasure it affords. All serious discussion on matters on which opinions differ, being considered ill-bred, and the national deficiency in liveliness and sociability having prevented the cultivation of the art of talking agreeably on trifles, in which the French of the last century so much excelled, the sole attraction of what is called society to those who are not at the top of the tree, is the hope of being aided to climb a little higher in it; while to those who are already at the top, it is chiefly a compliance with custom, and with the supposed requirements of their station. To a person of any but a very common order in thought or feeling, such society, unless he has personal objects to serve by it, must be supremely unattractive: and most people, in the present day, of any really high class of intellect, make their contact with it so slight, and at such long intervals, as to be almost considered as retiring from it altogether. Those persons of any mental superiority who do otherwise, are, almost without exception, greatly deteriorated by it. Not to mention loss of time, the tone of their feelings is lowered: they become less in earnest about those of their opinions respecting which they must remain silent in the society they frequent: they come to look upon their most elevated objects as unpractical, or, at least, too remote from realization to be more than a vision, or a theory; and if, more fortunate than most, they retain their higher principles unimpaired, yet with respect to the persons and affairs of their own day they insensibly adopt the modes of feeling and judgment in which they can hope for sympathy from the company they keep. A person of high intellect should never go into unintellectual society unless he can enter it as an apostle; yet he is the only person with high objects who can safely enter it at all. Persons even of intellectual aspirations had much better, if they can, make their habitual associates of at least their equals, and, as far as possible, their superiors, in knowledge, intellect, and elevation of sentiment. Moreover, if the character is formed, and the mind made up, on the few cardinal points of human opinion, agreement of conviction and feeling on these, has been felt in all times to be an essential requisite of anything worthy the name of friendship, in a really earnest mind. All these circumstances united, made the number very small of those whose society, and still more whose intimacy, I now voluntarily sought.

那时我不用积极地关注当下的政治，也不从事文学工作，不用和撰稿人等打交道，因此可以随意地把我的社交圈子缩小到很少的几个人，这对那些过了孩子般虚荣年纪而又有思想的人来说是件自然的事。普通社交，就像那时英国的一样，是件乏味的差事，甚至对那些把社交变成这样的人来说，他们维持社交的目的不是因为它能提供乐趣，而是另有他因。严肃地讨论那些有不同见解的事情却被看作没有教养，全民缺少活力和社交能力，这妨碍了人们培养愉快地谈论琐事的艺术，而这种艺术是上世纪法国人很擅长的。对那些社会地位不够高的人来说，社交的唯一魅力就在于希望借此向更高的地位攀爬。而对那些已经位居社会顶层的人，社交主要是依从习惯和他们地位的需要。对一个思想或感情十分普通的人，除非他想通过社交达到个人目的，否则社交对他必定毫无吸引力。当今大多真正才智出众的人很少接触社交圈，参加社交的次数也很少，几乎让人以为他们完全脱离了这个圈子。而有些思想超凡的人却恰恰相反，他们几乎无一例外地受到社交圈的严重腐蚀，浪费了时间不说，他们的格调也有所降低。在常去的社交圈中，他们变得不那么认真对待自己的见解，还必须对它们讳莫如深。他们开始视那些最高尚的目标为不切实际，或至少离现实太远，只不过是幻想或理论。假如比大多数人幸运的话，他们还会保留较高原则不受损害，但对那个时代的人和事，他们不知不觉地采用了他们同伴的感情和判断方式，以期博得共鸣。一个高才智的人绝不该踏入没有才智的社交圈，除非他是作为传道者加入的。然而只有那些有崇高目标的人才能完全安全地进入这个圈子。如果可以的话，那些追求高才智的人最好与在知识、才智和高尚情操上高出自己很多，或至少与自己相当的人经常交往。另外，如果性格和思想是在人类观念的几个基本点之上形成的，那么在一个真正诚恳的人的心中，建立在这些基本点之上的信念和情感的一致，总是称得上是真正友谊必不可少的条件。所有这些情况统一起来，使得我现在愿意与之交往的人很少，愿意深交的人就更少了。

Among these, by far the principal was the incomparable friend of whom I have already spoken. At this period she lived mostly, with one young daughter, in a quiet part of the country, and only occasionally in town, with her first husband, Mr. Taylor. I visited her equally in both places; and was greatly indebted to the strength of character which enabled her to disregard the false interpretations liable to be put on the frequency of my visits to her while living generally apart from Mr. Taylor, and on our occasionally travelling together, though in all other respects our conduct during those years gave not the slightest ground for any other supposition than the true one, that our relation to each other at that time was one of strong affection and confidential intimacy only. For though we did not consider the ordinances of society binding on a subject so entirely personal, we did feel bound that our conduct should be such as in no degree to bring discredit on her husband, nor therefore on herself.

在这些人当中，至此最重要的一位就是我之前说过的那位无人可比的朋友。这段时间她大都和年幼的女儿一起住在乡下一个安静的地方，偶尔去城里和她的第一任丈夫泰勒先生一起住。我经常去这两个地方拜访她。她和泰勒先生分居时我经常去拜访她，偶尔我们还一起去旅行，这些行为很容易引起误解，我很感激她性格中有无视种种误解的力量。然而从其他方面来说，这些年来我们的行为没有丝毫理由引起别人的猜测，除了真正的原因。我们之间的关系仅仅是一种强烈的爱慕和互相信任的亲密友人。虽然我们不认为社会风俗能够约束这种完全私人的关系，但我们觉得有义务让我们的行为不至于影响她丈夫和她本人的名声。

In this third period (as it may be termed) of my mental progress, which now went hand in hand with hers, my opinions gained equally in breadth and depth, I understood more things, and those which I had understood before, I now understood more thoroughly. I had now completely turned back from what there had been of excess in my reaction against Benthamism. I had, at the height of that reaction, certainly become much more indulgent to the common opinions of society and the world, and more willing to be content with seconding the superficial improvement which had begun to take place in those common opinions, than became one whose convictions, on so many points, differed fundamentally from them. I was much more inclined, than I can now approve, to put in abeyance the more decidedly heretical part of my opinions, which I now look upon as almost the only ones, the assertion of which tends in any way to regenerate society. But in addition to this, our opinions were now far more heretical than mine had been in the days of my most extreme Benthamism. In those days I had seen little further than the old school of political economists into the possibilities of fundamental improvement in social arrangements. Private property, as now understood, and inheritance, appeared to me, as to them, the dernier mot of legislation: and I looked no further than to mitigating the inequalities consequent on these institutions, by getting rid of primogeniture and entails1. The notion that it was possible to go further than this in removing the injustice—for injustice it is, whether admitting of a complete remedy or not—involved in the fact that some are born to riches and the vast majority to poverty, I then reckoned chimerical, and only hoped that by universal education, leading to voluntary restraint on population, the portion of the poor might be made more tolerable. In short, I was a democrat, but not the least of a Socialist. We were now much less democrats than I had been, because so long as education continues to be so wretchedly imperfect, we dreaded the ignorance and especially the selfishness and brutality of the mass: but our ideal of ultimate improvement went far beyond Democracy, and would class us decidedly under the general designation of Socialists. While we repudiated with the greatest energy that tyranny of society over the individual which most Socialistic systems are supposed to involve, we yet looked forward to a time when society will no longer be divided into the idle and the industrious; when the rule that they who do not work shall not eat, will be applied not to paupers only, but impartially to all; when the division of the produce of labour, instead of depending, as in so great a degree it now does, on the accident of birth, will be made by concert, on an acknowledged principle of justice; and when it will no longer either be, or be thought to be, impossible for human beings to exert themselves strenuously in procuring benefits which are not to be exclusively their own, but to be shared with the society they belong to. The social problem of the future we considered to be, how to unite the greatest individual liberty of action, with a common ownership in the raw material of the globe, and an equal participation of all in the benefits of combined labour. We had not the presumption to suppose that we could already foresee, by what precise form of institutions these objects could most effectually be attained, or at how near or how distant a period they would become practicable. We saw clearly that to render any such social transformation either possible or desirable, an equivalent change of character must take place both in the uncultivated herd who now compose the labouring masses, and in the immense majority of their employers. Both these classes must learn by practice to labour and combine for generous, or at all events for public and social purposes, and not, as hitherto, solely for narrowly interested ones. But the capacity to do this has always existed in mankind, and is not, nor is ever likely to be, extinct. Education, habit, and the cultivation of the sentiments, will make a common man dig or weave for his country, as readily as fight for his country. True enough, it is only by slow degrees, and a system of culture prolonged through successive generations, that men in general can be brought up to this point. But the hindrance is not in the essential constitution of human nature. Interest in the common good is at present so weak a motive in the generality, not because it can never be otherwise, but because the mind is not accustomed to dwell on it as it dwells from morning till night on things which tend only to personal advantage. When called into activity, as only self-interest now is, by the daily course of life, and spurred from behind by the love of distinction and the fear of shame, it is capable of producing, even in common men, the most strenuous exertions as well as the most heroic sacrifices. The deep-rooted selfishness which forms the general character of the existing state of society, is so deeply rooted, only because the whole course of existing institutions tends to foster it; modern institutions in some respects more than ancient, since the occasions on which the individual is called on to do anything for the public without receiving its pay, are far less frequent in modern life, than in the smaller commonwealths of antiquity. These considerations did not make us overlook the folly of premature attempts to dispense with the inducements of private interest in social affairs, while no substitute for them has been or can be provided: but we regarded all existing institutions and social arrangements as being (in a phrase I once heard from Austin) "merely provisional", and we welcomed with the greatest pleasure and interest all socialistic experiments by select individuals (such as the Co-operative Societies), which, whether they succeeded or failed, could not but operate as a most useful education of those who took part in them, by cultivating their capacity of acting upon motives pointing directly to the general good, or making them aware of the defects which render them and others incapable of doing so.

在我思想发展的第三个阶段（可以这样说），我和她的思想齐头并进，我的观点在广度和深度上都取得进展。我懂的东西比以前多，以前懂的东西现在则理解得更透彻。我现在已经完全从过分对抗边沁主义的状态中扭转过来。在那种对抗最强烈的时候，我的确对社会和世界的一般看法变得宽容了许多，而且更愿意满足于赞成这些看法里逐渐呈现的表面进步，而不愿变成在信仰的许多方面跟他们完全不同的人。我那时更倾向于把我的见解中更异端的部分搁置起来，现在则赞成视之为几乎唯一的，可以任何方式变革社会的主张。但除此以外，我们现在的见解比我在最极端的边沁主义时期中的见解异端得多。那段时间，对于根本改进社会结构的可能性，我看得并不比旧政治经济学家们远多少。和他们一样，我把现在所理解的私有财产和继承制视为立法的最终结果。除了通过取消长子继承权和限定继承权来减少这种制度带来的不公正现象，我也想不到其他办法。有种观点认为，要消除不公正现象可能还有比这更好的办法，因为无论是否有可能彻底消除，都包含这样一个事实，即有些人生来富有，而大部分人则生来贫穷。我那时认为这只是幻想，我只希望通过全民教育使人们自愿限制人口，这样穷人所占的比例就可以被控制在允许的范围内。简单地说，我那时是个民主主义者，而绝不是社会主义者。与那时的我相比，现在的我们已经没那么民主了，因为只要教育继续如此极不完善，我们就会对公众的无知，尤其是他们的自私和野蛮感到担心。但是，我们对社会最终改良的理想远远超过了民主主义，由此可以直接把我们归类到通常所称的社会主义者当中去。当我们竭尽全力地批判社会对个人的专制时，这也是大多社会主义制度中应有的内容，我们却期望有一天社会不再有勤奋之人和懒散之人之分。到那时，不劳动者不得食的原则不仅适用于穷人，而是公正地适用于所有人；到那时，劳动产品的分配将不再像现在这样很大程度上取决于出身，而是在公认的公正原则的基础上进行协商；到那时，人们不再只为自己获利而努力，而是为了其所在社会共同分享的利益而努力，这将不再是不可能或被认为是不可能的。我们认为将来的社会问题，是怎样把个人行动的最大自由和全球共有原料及所有人平等分享共同劳动成果结合起来。我们并没有自以为是地认为，我们已经预见到通过怎样的具体形式可以最有效地实现这些目的，或者距离实现这些目标还有多近或者多远。我们清楚地看到，若想给社会带来可能或令人向往的变革，就必须使劳动阶层中未受教育的民众和他们绝大多数雇主的个性发生等同的变化。这两个阶级必须在实践中学会慷慨，或者无论如何为公众和社会的目的而劳动和联合，而不是像目前这样仅仅为了狭隘的利益。但人类身上一直有这么做的能力，不会也永远不可能消失。教育、习惯和情感的培养会令一个普通人像时刻准备为祖国而战那样，时刻准备为国家耕耘或编织。诚然，只有通过循序渐进的和几代人长期的系统培养，才能把所有的普通人培养到这一步。但阻力不是人性的主要组成部分。目前，公众利益在大部分人心里还只是很微弱的动力，并不是因为它永远如此，而是因为人们还不习惯对它细加考虑，从早到晚只考虑那些可能对自身有利的事。当现在的个人利益受到日常生活的激发，又受到对荣誉的热爱和对耻辱的恐惧的推动，即便在最普通的人身上也会产生巨大的力量，作出最英勇的牺牲。形成现存社会一般特点的根深蒂固的利己主义，之所以能深深扎根，只因为现存制度的整体方针助长了这种想法。在某些方面现代制度比古代制度更有这种倾向，因为在现代社会中号召个人无私地为公众做事的情形要远远少于古代较小的联邦。这些考虑并未让我们忽视那些草率地尝试去除社会事务中个人利益刺激的愚蠢做法，尽管那时没有或不能提供相应的替代品。但我们认为一切现存制度和社会结构仅仅是临时的（这个词语是从奥斯汀那儿听到的），我们也以最大的乐意和兴趣欢迎精英人士做出的社会主义实验（如合作社会）。无论成功与否，这都是对参加者最有用的教育，培养了他们直接为公众利益行动的能力，或让他们意识到自己和其他人无法这么做的缺陷。

In the Principles of Political Economy, these opinions were promulgated, less clearly and fully in the first edition, rather more so in the second, and quite unequivocally in the third. The difference arose partly from the change of times, the first edition having been written and sent to press before the French Revolution of 18482, after which the public mind became more open to the reception of novelties in opinion, and doctrines appeared moderate which would have been thought very startling a short time before. In the first edition the difficulties of socialism were stated so strongly, that the tone was on the whole that of opposition to it. In the year or two which followed, much time was given to the study of the best Socialistic writers on the Continent, and to meditation and discussion on the whole range of topics involved in the controversy: and the result was that most of what had been written on the subject in the first edition was cancelled, and replaced by arguments and reflections which represent a more advanced opinion.

这些观点在《政治经济学原理》一书中得到了阐述，第一版表达得不够清晰全面，第二版有所改进，第三版则十分明确了。这种改变部分源于时代的变迁，1848年法国革命以前，第一版写成并送印，之后公众在思想上变得更乐于接受新观点，那些不久之前还让人吃惊的学说现在看来却相当温和。第一版着重论述了社会主义的困难，因而整体基调是反对社会主义的。在接下来的一两年里，我花了大量时间研究欧洲最优秀的社会主义作家，思考和讨论争议中的所有问题，结果是我删掉了第一版中关于这个问题所写的大部分内容，取而代之的是代表先进思想的论点和反思。

The Political Economy was far more rapidly executed than the Logic, or indeed than anything of importance which I had previously written. It was commenced in the autumn of 1845, and was ready for the press before the end of 1847. In this period of little more than two years there was an interval of six months during which the work was laid aside, while I was writing articles in the Morning Chronicle (which unexpectedly entered warmly into my purpose) urging the formation of peasant properties on the waste lands of Ireland. This was during the period of the Famine, the winter of 1846—47, when the stern necessities of the time seemed to afford a chance of gaining attention for what appeared to me the only mode of combining relief to immediate destitution with permanent improvement of the social and economical condition of the Irish people. But the idea was new and strange; there was no English precedent for such a proceeding: and the profound ignorance of English politicians and the English public concerning all social phenomena not generally met with in England (however common elsewhere), made my endeavours an entire failure. Instead of a great operation on the waste lands, and the conversion of cottiers into proprietors, Parliament passed a Poor Law for maintaining them as paupers: and if the nation has not since found itself in inextricable difficulties from the joint operation of the old evils and the quack remedy, it is indebted for its deliverance to that most unexpected and surprising fact, the depopulation of Ireland, commenced by famine, and continued by emigration.

《政治经济学原理》完成得比《逻辑学体系》快得多，事实上比我之前写过的所有重要著作都要快。1845年秋开始写作，1847年底前准备付印。而在这两年多一点的时间当中还有六个月的间隔，我把它搁置起来，去为《纪事晨报》撰稿（它意外地和我的目的一致），敦促建立爱尔兰农民对荒地的所有权。当时正值1846年冬季的饥荒期，严峻的现实似乎为我提供了一个赢得注意的机会，对我来说唯一的方法就是把救济眼前危机和长期改善爱尔兰人民的社会和经济状况结合起来。但这个想法新奇而陌生，在英国没有先例。英国政治家们和英国公众对于英国不普遍社会现象（无论在其他地方多么普遍）的完全无知使我的努力完全失败。议会没有大规模开发荒地，也没有使佃户变成土地所有者，而是通过了一项《济贫法》，对贫民给予救济。如果这个国家此后没有深陷旧的弊病和庸医治疗双重作用的困境，那么它应当感激被最出乎意料和令人惊讶的事实解救，即爱尔兰人口的减少始于饥荒，但继续发展于移民。

The rapid success of the Political Economy showed that the public wanted, and were prepared for such a book. Published early in 1848, an edition of a thousand copies was sold in less than a year. Another similar edition was published in the spring of 1849; and a third, of 1250 copies, early in 1852. It was, from the first, continually cited and referred to as an authority, because it was not a book merely of abstract science, but also of application, and treated Political Economy not as a thing by itself, but as a fragment of a greater whole; a branch of Social Philosophy, so interlinked with all the other branches, that its conclusions, even in its own peculiar province, are only true conditionally, subject to interference and counteraction from causes not directly within its scope: while to the character of a practical guide it has no pretension, apart from other classes of considerations. Political Economy, in truth, has never pretended to give advice to mankind with no lights but its own; though people who knew nothing but political economy (and therefore knew that ill) have taken upon themselves to advise, and could only do so by such lights as they had. But the numerous sentimental enemies of political economy, and its still more numerous interested enemies in sentimental guise, have been very successful in gaining belief for this among other unmerited imputations against it, and the Principles having, in spite of the freedom of many of its opinions, become for the present the most popular treatise on the subject, has helped to disarm the enemies of so important a study. The amount of its worth as an exposition of the science, and the value of the different applications which it suggests, others of course must judge.

《政治经济学原理》的迅速成功说明公众需要并且准备接受这样一本书。1848年初出版，不到一年就卖出1000册。1849年春第二版又印了1000册，第三版于1852年卖出了1250册。从一开始它就不断被作为权威引用，因为它不仅仅是抽象科学，也是应用科学的作品，它将政治经济学看作是更广泛学科的一部分，而不是孤立的一门学科；它是社会科学的分支，与其他分支相互联系，其结论的正确性即便在自己独特的领域内也是有条件的，受到其他分支各种原因的干扰和牵制。如果离开了其他需要考虑的因素，它就称不上拥有实际指导的特性。实际上，政治经济学从未自称单凭自身的理论就能给人以指导。虽然那些只懂政治经济学的人（因此他们对政治经济学的理解也是错误的）承担了引导人类的责任，他们也只能以他们所知道的理论去引导人们。但许多感情用事的政治经济学的敌人和更多伪装成感情用事借以牟利的敌人，却非常成功地让人们相信了这一点以及其他对政治经济学的不正当诋毁。《政治经济学原理》自由地发表了很多观点，成为目前关于这个问题最受欢迎的专著，它有助于解除那些敌视这一重要研究的人的武装。对于这样一部科学论述的价值和它提出的各种应用的价值，别人当然会作出评价。

For a considerable time after this, I published no work of magnitude; though I still occasionally wrote in periodicals, and my correspondence (much of it with persons quite unknown to me), on subjects of public interest, swelled to a considerable bulk. During these years I wrote or commenced various Essays, for eventual publication, on some of the fundamental questions of human and social life, with regard to several of which I have already much exceeded the severity of the Horatian precept. I continued to watch with keen interest the progress of public events. But it was not, on the whole, very encouraging to me. The European reaction after 18483, and the success of an unprincipled usurper in December 18514, put an end, as it seemed, to all present hope for freedom or social improvement in France and the Continent. In England, I had seen and continued to see many of the opinions of my youth obtain general recognition, and many of the reforms in institutions, for which I had through life contended, either effected or in course of being so. But these changes had been attended with much less benefit to human well-being than I should formerly have anticipated, because they had produced very little improvement in that which all real amelioration in the lot of mankind depends on, their intellectual and moral state: and it might even be questioned if the various causes of deterioration which had been at work in the meanwhile, had not more than counterbalanced the tendencies to improvement. I had learnt from experience that many false opinions may be exchanged for true ones, without in the least altering the habits of mind of which false opinions are the result. The English public, for example, are quite as raw and undiscerning on subjects of political economy since the nation has been converted to free-trade, as they were before; and are still further from having acquired better habits of thought and feeling, or being in any way better fortified against error, on subjects of a more elevated character. For, though they have thrown off certain errors, the general discipline of their minds, intellectually and morally, is not altered. I am now convinced, that no great improvements in the lot of mankind are possible, until a great change takes place in the fundamental constitution of their modes of thought. The old opinions in religion, morals, and politics, are so much discredited in the more intellectual minds as to have lost the greater part of their efficacy for good, while they have still life enough in them to be a powerful obstacle to the growing up of any better opinions on those subjects. When the philosophic minds of the world can no longer believe its religion, or can only believe it with modifications amounting to an essential change of its character, a transitional period commences, of weak convictions, paralysed intellects, and growing laxity of principle, which cannot terminate until a renovation has been effected in the basis of their belief, leading to the evolution of some faith, whether religious or merely human, which they can really believe: and when things are in this state, all thinking or writing which does not tend to promote such a renovation, is of very little value beyond the moment. Since there was little in the apparent condition of the public mind, indicative of any tendency in this direction, my view of the immediate prospects of human improvement was not sanguine. More recently a spirit of free speculation has sprung up, giving a more encouraging prospect of the gradual mental emancipation of England; and, concurring with the renewal under better auspices, of the movement for political freedom in the rest of Europe, has given to the present condition of human affairs a more hopeful aspect.

在此后相当长的一段时间里，我没有出版任何重要的作品。但我偶尔也为期刊撰稿，在公共利益的问题上，我通信的数量非常可观（其中很多是写给不认识的人）。这些年来，我写了或者着手了很多关于人类和社会生活的一些根本性问题的文章，开始为最终的出版作准备，其中几篇的严厉程度已经超过了贺拉斯箴言。我依旧热切地关注公众事件的进展。但整体形势并未使我受到鼓舞。1848年后欧洲的反动和1851年12月无耻篡权者的成功，似乎毁灭了法国和欧洲大陆得到自由或社会进步的一切希望。在英格兰，我已经看到而且继续看到很多我年轻时的见解得到普遍认可，很多我一生为之奋斗的制度改革已经实现或者正在实现。但这些改变并没有像我之前所期望的那样给人们带来很多益处，因为它们没有促进人类命运真正改善所依赖的智力和道德状况，甚至连同时起作用的各种倒退因素是否抵消了改良的趋势都值得怀疑。我从经验中得知，很多错误的观念可以转化为正确的观念，并且丝毫不改变产生错误观念的思维习惯。例如，英国的公众，自从国家转型为自由贸易国之后，对政治经济学问题仍然像之前那样生疏迟钝。他们还远没有形成更好的思维或感情习惯，也没有在培养高尚人格问题上更好地加强防范错误的能力。这是因为，他们虽然抛弃了一些错误，但他们思想中的总体原则，无论智力上还是道德上都没有改变。我现在深信，只有人类思维模式的基本结构发生巨大的变化，人类命运才会有巨大的改进。宗教、道德和政治的旧观念在智力超群的人心中已不足信，大部分好的功效已经失去，但这些问题的观念在他们身上却有足够强大的生命力，阻碍更好的观念的形成。当全世界具有哲学思想的人不再相信宗教，或者只有在宗教性质发生根本改变之后才相信它时，一个过渡的时代就开始了。在这个时代，人们信念薄弱，思想麻痹，纪律日益涣散，只有他们的信仰基础发生革新，使得一些信念，无论是宗教方面的，或仅仅是人类方面的，能发展到真正让他们相信的程度，这些现象才会终止。当事情发展到这一步，所有不能促进这种革新的思想或作品都会毫无价值，瞬间即逝。因为还没有明显的迹象表明公众的思想里出现了这种趋势，我认为当前实现人类进步的前景并不乐观。最近，一种自由思考的精神正在逐渐兴起，给英国思想逐渐解放的前景带来了更大的鼓舞。与这种革新同时发生的，是欧洲其他地方的政治自由运动，这是个更好的兆头，给当前人类事务的现状带来了更有希望的一面。

Between the time of which I have now spoken, and the present, took place the most important events of my private life. The first of these was my marriage, in April, 1851, to the lady whose incomparable worth had made her friendship the greatest source to me both of happiness and of improvement, during many years in which we never expected to be in any closer relation to one another. Ardently as I should have aspired to this complete union of our lives at any time in the course of my existence at which it had been practicable, I, as much as my wife, would far rather have foregone that privilege for ever, than have owed it to the premature death of one for whom I had the sincerest respect, and she the strongest affection. That event however having taken place in July, 1849, it was granted to me to derive from that evil my own greatest good, by adding to the partnership of thought, feeling, and writing which had long existed, a partnership of our entire existence. For seven and a-half years that blessing was mine; for seven and a-half only! I can say nothing which could describe, even in the faintest manner, what that loss was and is. But because I know that she would have wished it, I endeavour to make the best of what life I have left, and to work on for her purposes with such diminished strength as can be derived from thoughts of her, and communion with her memory.

从我刚才提到的那段时间到目前，在我的个人生活中发生了几件重大的事。第一件就是我与那位女士于1851年4月结婚。她无可比拟的价值使得我们之间的友谊成为我快乐和进步的最大源泉，那些年，我从未希望彼此的关系还能更亲密。我本该在我有生之年无时无刻不热切地期盼着我们生命的完全结合，但我和我太太宁愿永远放弃这样的恩惠，也不愿因为我最尊敬的朋友、她最欣赏的丈夫英年早逝而得到它。但不幸的事还是在1849年7月发生了，我从这个噩耗中得到的最大好处，就是在我们长期的思想、感情和写作伙伴关系上增添了一种生活伴侣的关系。我享受了七年半这样幸福的时光，但是只有七年半！我无法用言语表达这个损失在当时和现在意味着什么，即便是用最模糊的方式也无法表达。但是因为我知道她会希望我这样，所以我努力充分利用好我的余生，从她的思想和对她回忆的交流中，汲取我已减弱的力量，为她的目标继续工作。

During the years which intervened between the commencement of my married life and the catastrophe which closed it, the principal occurrences of my outward existence (unless I count as such a first attack of the family disease, and a consequent journey of more than six months for the recovery of health, in Italy, Sicily, and Greece) had reference to my position in the India House. In 1856 I was promoted to the rank of chief of the office in which I had served for upwards of thirty-three years. The appointment, that of Examiner of India Correspondence, was the highest, next to that of Secretary, in the East India Company's home service, involving the general superintendance of all the correspondence with the Indian Governments, except the military, naval, and financial. I held this office as long as it continued to exist, being a little more than two years; after which it pleased Parliament, in other words Lord Palmerston, to put an end to the East India Company as a branch of the government of India under the Crown, and convert the administration of that country into a thing to be scrambled for by the second and third class of English parliamentary politicians. I was the chief manager of the resistance which the Company made to their own political extinction. To the letters and petitions I wrote for them, and the concluding chapter of my treatise on Representative Government, I must refer for my opinions on the folly and mischief of this ill-considered change. Personally I considered myself a gainer by it, as I had given enough of my life to India, and was not unwilling to retire on the liberal compensation granted. After the change was consummated, Lord Stanley5, the first Secretary of State for India, made me the honorable offer of a seat in the Council, and the proposal was subsequently renewed by the Council itself, on the first occasion of its having to supply a vacancy in its own body. But the conditions of Indian government under the new system made me anticipate nothing but useless vexation and waste of effort from any participation in it: and nothing that has since happened has had any tendency to make me regret my refusal.

从结婚到灾难降临宣告我们婚姻结束的这些岁月里，我的外界生活主要就是任职于东印度公司（除了我提到家族病的第一次发作以及之后为了康复在意大利、西西里和希腊的六个多月的旅行）。1856年，即我任职的第33个年头，经过多次晋升后，我被提拔为办事处主任。这个职位，也就是印度通讯审查员，是东印度公司国内部仅次于部长的最高职位，主要监督与印度政府除陆军、海军和财政之外的所有通讯事宜。之后的两年多时间里，我一直担任这个职位，直到它不再存在为止。此后为了取悦议会，换言之为了取悦帕默斯顿勋爵，作为王室之下印度政府的一个分支，东印度公司被取消，这个国家的政府则变成被英国议会二、三流政客争夺的对象。公司反抗自己政治地位的消失，而我是主要领导者。在我写给他们的信件和请愿书中，以及我的专著《论代议政治》的结论章节中，我必须对这个欠考虑的改组的愚蠢性和危害性发表自己的看法。就我个人而言，我是获利者，因为我一生为东印度公司作了足够多的贡献，很乐意在拿到授予我的丰厚补偿金后退休。在改组圆满完成以后，印度第一位国务大臣斯坦利勋爵邀我在评议会任职，后来评议会为了填补自身的一个职位空缺，再次向我发出了邀请。但新制度下的印度政府的状况让我预感到，加入他们只会给我带来无谓的烦恼，造成我的精力浪费。之后发生的一切从未让我后悔谢绝这一邀请。

During the two years which immediately preceded the cessation of my official life, my wife and I were working together at the Liberty. I had first planned and written it as a short essay, in 1854. It was in mounting the steps of the Capitol6, in January 1855, that the thought first arose of converting it into a volume. None of my writings have been either so carefully composed, or so sedulously corrected as this. After it had been written as usual twice over, we kept it by us, bringing it out from time to time and going through it de novo, reading, weighing and criticizing every sentence. Its final revision was to have been a work of the winter of 1858—59, the first after my retirement, which we had arranged to pass in the South of Europe. That hope and every other were frustrated by the most unexpected and bitter calamity of her death—at Avignon7, on our way to Montpellier, from a sudden attack of pulmonary congestion.

就在我结束公职生涯的前两年，我太太和我一起写了《论自由》。1854年，我起初是打算把它写成一篇短文的。但是1855年1月，当我登上罗马朱庇特神庙台阶时，我第一次产生了把它写成一本书的想法。我的作品中没有哪一部像这本书一样作了细致的构思和孜孜不倦的修改。像通常那样写过两遍以后，我们就把它带在身上，时不时地拿出来，从头翻阅，字斟句酌。本书原定于1858年冬天完稿，那也是我退休后本打算在南欧度过的第一个冬天。但所有的希望都在我太太意外过世的悲痛中破灭了——在阿维尼翁，也就是在我们去蒙彼利埃的途中，她突然肺部充血而病逝。

Since then, I have sought for such alleviation as my state admitted of, by the mode of life which most enabled me to feel her still near me. I bought a cottage as close as possible to the place where she is buried, and there her daughter (my fellow-sufferer and now my chief comfort) and I, live constantly during a great portion of the year. My objects in life are solely those which were hers; my pursuits and occupations those in which she shared, or sympathized, and which are indissolubly associated with her. Her memory is to me a religion, and her approbation the standard by which, summing up as it does all worthiness, I endeavour to regulate my life.

从那以后，在状况允许的情况下，我为了寻求慰藉，以一种能使自己感觉到她就在身边的方式活着。我在离她墓地尽可能近的地方买了一栋小屋，和她的女儿（她也忍受着痛苦，现在是我的主要安慰）在那年的大部分时间都住在那里。我生活的目标完全就是她一贯的生活目标；我的追求和事业就是曾与她分享的或经她赞成的追求和事业，这些与她密不可分。对她的思念于我是一种宗教，她的认可也是我总结出来衡量所有价值的标准，我也努力用它来调节我的生活。

In resuming my pen some years after closing the preceding narrative, I am influenced by a desire not to leave incomplete the record, for the sake of which chiefly this biographical sketch was undertaken, of the obligations I owe to those who have either contributed essentially to my own mental development or had a direct share in my writings and in whatever else of a public nature I have done. In the preceding pages, this record, so far as it relates to my wife, is not so detailed and precise as it ought to be; and since I lost her, I have had other help, not less deserving and requiring acknowledgment.

我不希望让记录变得不完整，在这种想法的影响下，在结束前边故事后的几年，我又拿起了笔，主要是因为要写这本自传的草稿，这是我对那些曾经对我思想进步作出贡献的人，或者直接参与到我的写作以及其他我做过的有公众性质事情的人的义务。这个记录的前面几页谈到了我太太，但并没有应有的那样细致和精确。而自从我失去她以后，我还得到了别人的帮助，同样值得和需要感谢。

When two persons have their thoughts and speculations completely in common; when all subjects of intellectual or moral interest are discussed between them in daily life, and probed to much greater depths than are usually or conveniently sounded in writings intended for general readers; when they set out from the same principles, and arrive at their conclusions by processes pursued jointly, it is of little consequence in respect to the question of originality, which of them holds the pen; the one who contributes least to the composition may contribute most to the thought; the writings which result are the joint product of both, and it must often be impossible to disentangle their respective parts, and affirm that this belongs to one and that to the other. In this wide sense, not only during the years of our married life, but during many of the years of confidential friendship which preceded, all my published writings were as much her work as mine; her share in them constantly increasing as years advanced. But in certain cases, what belongs to her can be distinguished, and specially identified. Over and above the general influence which her mind had over mine, the most valuable ideas and features in these joint productions—those which have been most fruitful of important results, and have contributed most to the success and reputation of the works themselves—originated with her; were emanations from her mind, my part in them being no greater than in any of the thoughts which I found in previous writers, and made my own only by incorporating them with my own system of thought. During the greater part of my literary life I have performed the office in relation to her, which from a rather early period I had considered as the most useful part that I was qualified to take in the domain of thought, that of an interpreter of original thinkers, and mediator between them and the public; for I had always a humble opinion of my own powers as an original thinker, except in abstract science (logic, metaphysics, and the theoretic principles of political economy and politics), but thought myself much superior to most of my contemporaries in willingness and ability to learn from everybody; as I found hardly any one who made such a point of examining what was said in defence of all opinions, however new or however old, in the conviction that even if they were errors there might be a substratum of truth underneath them, and that in any case the discovery of what it was that made them plausible, would be a benefit to truth. I had, in consequence, marked out this as a sphere of usefulness in which I was under a special obligation to make myself active: the more so, as the acquaintance I had formed with the ideas of the Coleridgians, of the German thinkers, and of Carlyle, all of them fiercely opposed to the mode of thought in which I had been brought up, had convinced me that along with much error they possessed much truth, which was veiled from minds otherwise capable of receiving it by the transcendental and mystical phraseology in which they were accustomed to shut it up and from which they neither cared, nor knew how, to disengage it; and I did not despair of separating the truth from the error and expressing it in terms which would be intelligible and not repulsive to those on my own side in philosophy. Thus prepared, it will easily be believed that when I came into close intellectual communion with a person of the most eminent faculties, whose genius, as it grew and unfolded itself in thought, continually struck out truths far in advance of me, but in which I could not, as I had done in those others, detect any mixture of error, the greatest part of my mental growth consisted in the assimilation of those truths, and the most valuable part of my intellectual work was in building the bridges and clearing the paths which connected them with my general system of thought.

当两个人有完全一致的思想时；当他们在日常生活中讨论所有有关智力或道德趣味的问题，探讨的深度远远超过平时或传统意义上供普通读者阅读的作品时；当他们有相同的出发点，通过共同寻求的过程得出他们的结论时，最后对于由谁执笔的原创性问题就变得不那么重要了。对写作贡献最小的人，可能对文章思想的贡献最大。写出的作品是两个人共同努力的结果，想区分出各自的作用，确定这部分是你的，那部分是我的，这通常是不可能的。从广义上来说，我们婚后的作品，甚至当我们还是亲密友人时出版的作品都是我们所共同拥有的。她在作品中所占的比重随时间不断增长。但有几本书，属于她的部分是可以辨别的，并且被专门标注出来。除了她的思想对我的总体影响之外，这些合作作品中最有价值的思想和特征——这些是重要成果中最有成效的部分，对作品本身的成功和声誉贡献最大——都是她创作的，是她的思想的流露，其中我发挥的作用并不比以前作家的思想好很多，我只是把它们合并到我自己的思想体系中来了。在我写作生涯的大部分时间里，我的工作都与她有关，我从很早就认为这段时间是使我有资格进入思想领域的最有用的一段，那时的我是原创思想者的阐释者，将他们和公众联系起来。因为一直以来，除了在抽象科学领域（逻辑、形而上学、政治经济学和政治学的理论原则），我认为自己作为原创思想者的力量还不够大，但在向其他人学习的意愿和能力方面，我认为自己比大多数同时代人更胜一筹。因为我很少看到有人怀着这样一种看法审视所有为或新或旧的观点所做的辩护，即便它们是错误的观点，也可能有真理埋藏于其下，而发掘是什么让它们看起来合理的这个过程也有助于得出真理。因此，我把这段作为有用的部分划分出来，在这儿我有特别的义务让自己积极起来，尤其是当我了解了柯尔律治追随者、德国思想家和卡莱尔的思想时更是这样。他们都激烈地反对我从小形成的思想方式，这让我相信，他们带来许多错误的同时，也拥有很多真理，真理隐藏在思想的后面，否则其带有先验主义和神秘主义色彩的措词会令大脑在接收它时习惯性地关闭，既不关心也不知道如何摆脱掉它。我不急于将真理从谬误中分离出来，并用和我有相同哲学看法的人理解和不反感的话表达出来。做好了这样的准备，人们就很容易相信，当我和一个拥有最杰出能力的人有密切的思想交流时，她的天赋不断发展并且在思想方面展现出来，不断寻求真理，远超于我，但我却没有像在其他人身上那样发现她的真理里也混杂着谬误，我思想上的进步很大一部分在于吸收了这些真理，而我的智力工作中最有价值的一部分就是在真理和总体的思想体系间建立了桥梁，扫清了道路。

The first of my books in which her share was conspicuous was the Principles of Political Economy. The System of Logic owed little to her except in the minuter matters of composition, in which respect my writings, both great and small, have largely benefitted by her accurate and clear-sighted criticism. The chapter of the Political Economy which has had a greater influence on opinion than all the rest, that on "the Probable Future of the Labouring Classes", is entirely due to her: in the first draft of the book, that chapter did not exist. She pointed out the need of such a chapter, and the extreme imperfection of the book without it: she was the cause of my writing it; and the more general part of the chapter, the statement and discussion of the two opposite theories respecting the proper condition of the labouring classes, was wholly an exposition of her thoughts, often in words taken from her own lips. The purely scientific part of the Political Economy I did not learn from her; but it was chiefly her influence that gave to the book that general tone by which it is distinguished from all previous expositions of Political Economy that had any pretension to being scientific, and which has made it so useful in conciliating minds which those previous expositions had repelled. This tone consisted chiefly in making the proper distinction between the laws of the Production of Wealth, which are real laws of nature, dependent on the properties of objects, and the modes of its Distribution, which, subject to certain conditions, depend on human will. The common run of political economists confuse these together, under the designation of economic laws, which they deem incapable of being defeated or modified by human effort; ascribing the same necessity to things dependent on the unchangeable conditions of our earthly existence, and to those which, being but the necessary consequences of particular social arrangements, are merely coextensive with these: given certain institutions and customs, wages, profits, and rent will be determined by certain causes; but this class of political economists drop the indispensable presupposition, and argue that these causes must, by an inherent necessity, against which no human means can avail, determine the shares which fall, in the division of the produce, to labourers, capitalists, and landlords. The Principles of Political Economy yielded to none of its predecessors in aiming at the scientific appreciation of the action of these causes, under the conditions which they presuppose; but it set the example of not treating those conditions as final. The economic generalisations which depend, not on necessities of nature but on those combined with the existing arrangements of society, it deals with only as provisional, and as liable to be much altered by the progress of social improvement. I had indeed partially learnt this view of things from the thoughts awakened in me by the speculations of the Saint- Simonians8; but it was made a living principle pervading and animating the book by my wife's promptings. This example illustrates well the general character of what she contributed to my writings. What was abstract and purely scientific was generally mine; the properly human element came from her: in all that concerned the application of philosophy to the exigencies of human society and progress, I was her pupil, alike in boldness of speculation and cautiousness of practical judgment. For, on the one hand, she was much more courageous and far-sighted than without her I should have been, in anticipations of an order of things to come, in which many of the limited generalizations now so often confounded with universal principles will cease to be applicable. Those parts of my writings, and especially of the Political Economy which contemplate possibilities in the future such as, when affirmed by socialists, have in general been fiercely denied by political economists, would, but for her, either have been absent, or the suggestions would have been made much more timidly and in a more qualified form. But while she thus rendered me bolder in speculation on human affairs, her practical turn of mind, and her almost unerring estimate of practical obstacles, repressed in me all tendencies that were really visionary. Her mind invested all ideas in a concrete shape, and formed to itself a conception of how they would actually work: and her knowledge of the existing feelings and conduct of mankind was so seldom at fault, that the weak point in any unworkable suggestion seldom escaped her.

在我的作品中，第一本包含她的突出贡献的书就是《政治经济学原理》。而对于《逻辑学体系》，除了精心地安排了文章的结构外，她所作的贡献并不多，但正是在文章的结构方面，我的作品，无论长短，都从她精确和锐利的批评中受益良多。《政治经济学原理》中有一章是关于“劳动阶级可能的未来”的，它对观念产生的影响最大，这完全是她的功劳。初稿中并没有这一章，她指出有必要把这一章加进去，否则的话这本书就会十分不完美。因为她，我才着手写这一章，其中大部分是关于劳动阶级固有地位的两种对立理论的陈述和讨论，这完全是她思想的表达，经常由她亲自口述。《政治经济学原理》里的纯科学部分，我并不是从她那儿学来的，但主要还是她的影响给整本书定下了基调，使之不同于原来那些自称为科学的政治经济学论文，也有效地争取到了那些曾被这些论文排斥的人。这个基调的精髓在于正确区分了财富创造的定律和财富分配的模式，前者是真正的自然定律，取决于物的属性，后者受特定条件限制，取决于人的意志。一般的政治经济学家用经济学定律的名义将这些统统拒之门外，他们认为这些定律是无法通过人类努力来修改或战胜的。他们把相同的必然性归因于那些依赖尘世生活恒定条件的东西，也归因于那些在特定社会结构下唯一必然的结果，这两者仅仅是与之同等延伸的。在特定的惯例和习俗下，工资、利润和租金是由特定的原因决定的。但这批政治经济学家陷入了无法避免的假想当中，主张这些原因有一种内在的必然性，任何人力都起不了作用，也必然决定了在生产分工中，劳动者、资本家和地主所占的份额在减少。《政治经济学原理》不同意前人在他们假定的前提下针对这些原因的作用进行科学认定。但这个例子告诉我们，不要将条件视为决定性的。经济学的归纳不取决于自然的必然性，而取决于必然性和现有社会结构的结合，归纳仅仅是暂时的，容易被社会发展的进程所改变。实际上，我看问题的这种方法部分来自于圣西门主义者理论的激发，但却是因为我太太的提示，我的想法才变成赋予全书生命的通行的现实准则。这个例子很好地说明了她对我的作品所作贡献的一般特点。那些抽象的和纯科学的内容基本上由我负责，而她提出的是恰当的人类要素：就像我学习她大胆地思考和谨慎地作出实际判断一样，在所有涉及将哲学应用到人类社会和发展的迫切需要的方面，我也是她的学生。因为，一方面有了她我才在预见未来的规则上变得比原来更勇敢，更有远见，现在很多有限的归纳经常和普通的原则相混淆，从而失去了适用性。若不是她，我作品中的这些部分，尤其是《政治经济学原理》中那些被社会主义者肯定却被大部分政治经济学家强烈否定的对未来可能性的思考，要么不会出现，要么就是以一种更怯懦或更受限制的形式被提出。然而当她让我更大胆地思考人类事务时，她务实的思想方法，以及对实际困难的正确估计打消了我所有的空想倾向。她头脑中的想法具体有形，自身形成了如何实际操作的概念，而且她对现存的人类情感和行为的认识很少出错，所有不切实际的建议中的缺点几乎都逃不过她的眼睛。

The Liberty was more directly and literally our joint production than anything else which bears my name, for there was not a sentence of it that was not several times gone through by us together, turned over in many ways, and carefully weeded of any faults, either in thought or expression, that we detected in it. It is in consequence of this that, although it never underwent her final revision, it far surpasses, as a mere specimen of composition, anything which has proceeded from me either before or since. With regard to the thoughts, it is difficult to identify any particular part or element as being more hers than all the rest. The whole mode of thinking of which the book was the expression, was emphatically hers. But I also was so thoroughly imbued with it that the same thoughts naturally occurred to us both. That I was thus penetrated with it, however, I owe in a great degree to her. There was a moment in my mental progress when I might easily have fallen into a tendency towards over-government, both social and political; as there was also a moment when, by reaction from a contrary excess, I might have become a less thorough radical and democrat than I am. In both these points as in many others, she benefitted me as much by keeping me right where I was right, as by leading me to new truths and ridding me of errors. My great readiness and eagerness to learn from everybody, and to make room in my opinions for every new acquisition by adjusting the old and the new to one another, might, but for her steadying influence, have seduced me into modifying my early opinions too much. She was in nothing more valuable to my mental development than by her just measure of the relative importance of different considerations, which often protected me from allowing to truths I had only recently learnt to see, a more important place in my thoughts than was properly their due.

与其他我署名的作品相比，《论自由》是我们合作最直接的作品，因为里边的每一句话都经过了我们多次认真的思考和反复的推敲，我们细心地去除了所发现的所有思想上或表达上的错误。正因为如此，这本书虽然没有经过她最终的修正，但仅仅从文章的结构来看，就远远超过了我之前或之后创作的所有作品。在思想方面，很难辨别哪个特别的部分或要素更属于她。此书表达的整个思维方式显然都是她的。但我也完全受到这种思维的影响，所以我们自然会产生相同的想法。但我能看得这么透彻，很大程度上要归功于她。在我思想发展的一段时间中，我在社会和政治上的想法很容易陷入政府过多干预的倾向。还有一段时间我有可能矫枉过正，变得不像现在这么彻底的激进和民主。在这两方面和其他很多方面一样，她不仅帮助我保持正确的观点，而且引导我摆脱错误，走上新的真理之路。我热切而且很乐于向任何人学习，并修正旧观点，融合新观点以腾出空间接受新的见解，若不是她一贯的影响，这有可能诱使我过多地修改我早期的见解。她对我思想发展最有价值的帮助在于她适当地衡量各种见解的相对重要性，经常使我避免将刚刚明白的真理放在思想中高于它们应有的重要地位。

The Liberty is likely to survive longer than anything else that I have written (with the possible exception of the Logic), because the conjunction of her mind with mine has rendered it a kind of philosophic text-book of a single truth, which the changes progressively taking place in modern society tend to bring out into ever stronger relief: the importance, to man and society, of a large variety in types of character, and of giving full freedom to human nature to expand itself in innumerable and conflicting directions. Nothing can better show how deep are the foundations of this truth, than the great impression made by the exposition of it at a time which, to superficial observation, did not seem to stand much in need of such a lesson. The fears we expressed lest the inevitable growth of social equality and of the government of public opinion should impose on mankind an oppressive yoke of uniformity in opinion and practice, might easily have appeared chimerical to those who looked more at present facts than at tendencies; for the gradual revolution that is taking place in society and institutions has thus far been decidedly favourable to the development of new opinions, and has procured for them a much more unprejudiced hearing than they previously met with. But this is a feature belonging to periods of transition, when old notions and feelings have been unsettled and no new doctrines have yet succeeded to their ascendancy. At such times people of any mental activity, having given up many of their old beliefs, and not feeling quite sure that those they still retain can stand unmodified, listen eagerly to new opinions. But this state of things is necessarily transitory: some particular body of doctrine in time rallies the majority round it, organizes social institutions and modes of action conformably to itself, education impresses this new creed upon the new generations without the mental processes that have led to it, and by degrees it acquires the very same power of compression, so long exercised by the creeds of which it has taken the place. Whether this noxious power will be exercised depends on whether mankind have by that time become aware that it cannot be exercised without stunting and dwarfing human nature. It is then that the teachings of the Liberty will have their greatest value. And it is to be feared that they will retain that value a long time.

《论自由》可能比我的其他作品（或许《逻辑学体系》除外）更有生命力，因为我和她思想的结合让这本书成为某种单一真理的哲学教材，这个真理随着现代社会不断发生的变革变得更加突出：说明了性格类型多样化对人类和社会的重要性，给人性向无数的、相冲突的方向发展以充分的自由。这本书的论述所形成的深刻印象比其他任何事物都更好地说明了这个真理的基础有多深厚，尽管当时从表面看来似乎没有必要上这样一课。我们担心社会公正和代表舆论的政府不可避免的发展会给人类套上言论和行动一致的枷锁，对那些只看目前现实而忽视未来趋势的人来说，这种担心看起来似乎只是空想。因为在社会和制度中逐渐发生的变革还远未对新见解的发展绝对有利，使这些新见解获得比从前更多的公正的倾听。但这是属于过渡期的一个特点，此时的旧观念和旧情感已经动摇，而新学说还没有取得优势。在这样的时刻，所有有思想活动的人放弃了旧的信仰，还不确定他们所保留的东西是否会改变，所以他们迫切地倾听新的见解。但这种状态必定是暂时的：某个特定学说体系会适时地得到周围大多数人的支持，建立与之相符的社会制度和行为方式，通过教育使新一代人牢记新的教条，而不用告诉他们得出这个新教条的思想过程，渐渐地这个教条取得了与它所取代的教条相同的压制力。这种有害的力量是否会发挥作用取决于人类在那时是否意识到它会阻碍人性的发展。只有到那时，《论自由》的教导才会有最大的价值。令人担心的是，这些教导在很长时间都会保留这种价值。

As regards originality, it has of course no other than that which every thoughtful mind gives to its own mode of conceiving and expressing truths which are common property. The leading thought of the book is one which, though in many ages confined to insulated thinkers, mankind have probably at no time since the beginning of civilisation been entirely without. To speak only of the last few generations, it is distinctly contained in the vein of important thought respecting education and culture spread through the European mind by the labours and genius of Pestalozzi9. The unqualified championship of it by Wilhelm von Humboldt10 is referred to in the book; but he by no means stood alone in his own country. During the early part of the present century, the doctrine of the rights of individuality, and the claim of the moral nature to develope itself in its own way, was pushed by a whole school of German authors even to exaggeration; and the writings of Goethe, the most celebrated of all German authors, though not belonging to that or to any other school, are penetrated throughout by views of morals and of conduct in life, often in my opinion not defensible, but which are incessantly seeking whatever defence they admit of in the theory of the right and duty of self-development. In our own country, before the book On Liberty was written, the doctrine of Individuality had been enthusiastically asserted, in a stile of vigorous declamation sometimes reminding one of Fichte, by Mr. William Maccall, in a series of writings of which the most elaborate is entitled Elements of Individualism. And a remarkable American, Mr. Warren11, had framed a System of Society, on the foundation of the Sovereignty of the Individual, had obtained a number of followers, and had actually commenced the formation of a Village Community (whether it now exists I know not) which, though bearing a superficial resemblance to some of the projects of Socialists, is diametrically opposite to them in principle, since it recognises no authority whatever in Society over the individual, except to enforce equal freedom of development for all individualities. As the book which bears my name claimed no originality for any of its doctrines, and was not intended to write their history, the only author who had preceded me in their assertion, of whom I thought it appropriate to say anything, was Humboldt, who furnished the motto to the work; although in one passage I borrowed from the Warrenites their phrase, the sovereignty of the individual. It is hardly necessary here to remark that there are abundant differences in detail, between the conception of the doctrine by any of the predecessors I have mentioned, and that set forth in the book.

至于原创性问题，当然它正是每个有思想的人以自己的方式来构想和表达属于人类共同属性的真理。这本书的主导思想是，虽然在很多时代只有孤立的思想家才有这种思想，但它自人类文明开始以来就很可能已经存在了。仅仅拿最近几代人来说，这种思想明显地存在于与教育、文化相关的重要思想中，并通过裴斯泰洛齐的努力传播到欧洲人的心中。书中提到威廉·冯·洪堡无条件地支持这种思想，他在自己的国家绝不是孤立无援。在本世纪初，个人权利学说以及道德应自行发展的主张被德国作家的整个流派推广到了夸张的地步。德国最著名的作家歌德的作品虽然不属于任何一个学派，但却渗透着人生的道德观和处事观，我认为虽然不应当拥护，但它在不停地为自我发展的权利和义务的理论寻求自身可容许的各种辩护。在我们自己的国家，在《论自由》写完之前，威廉·麦考尔先生在一系列作品中以雄辩的方式狂热地维护个人主义理论，让人想起了菲希特，其中最详尽的一部题为《个人主义的要素》。另外，一位杰出的美国人沃伦先生以个人主权为基础建构了一种社会体系，赢得了许多追随者，并着手将建立村庄团体付诸行动（我不知道它现在是否存在），虽然这表面上和社会主义者的一些计划相似，但在原则上与他们完全相反，因为除了推行所有个人具有平等的发展自由，它不承认社会对个人有任何权威。我对自己署名的《论自由》一书中的学说没有原创权，也不打算书写它们的历史，在我之前唯一值得一提的坚持这些理论的作家是洪堡特。他为此书题了词，虽然书中有一段中的词语个人主权是我从沃伦派那里借用的。我提到的前人对这个学说的概念在细节上与我书中提到的概念有天壤之别，在这里没必要赘述。

After my irreparable loss one of my earliest cares was to print and publish the treatise, so much of which was the work of her whom I had lost, and consecrate it to her memory. I have made no alteration or addition to it, nor shall I ever. Though it wants the last touch of her hand, no substitute for that touch shall ever be attempted by mine.

在我遭受了这个无法弥补的损失后，我最先关心的就是《论自由》的印刷和出版，其中大部分是她写的，我以此书来祭奠她，作为对她的怀念。我没有更改或补充其中的内容，以后也不会改动。虽然没有经过她最终润色，但我从没想过替代她做这项工作。

The political circumstances of the time induced me shortly after to complete and publish a pamphlet (Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform), part of which had been written some years previously on the occasion of one of the abortive Reform Bills and had at the time been approved and revised by her. Its principal features were, hostility to the Ballot (a change of opinion in both of us, in which she rather preceded me) and a claim of representation for minorities; not however at that time going beyond the cumulative vote proposed by Mr. Garth Marshall12. In finishing the pamphlet for publication with a view to the discussions on the Reform Bill of Lord Derby's and Mr. Disraeli13's Government in 1859. I added a third feature, a plurality of votes, to be given, not to property, but to proved superiority of education. This recommended itself to me, as a means of reconciling the irresistible claim of every man or woman to be consulted, and to be allowed a voice, in the regulation of affairs which vitally concern them, with the superiority of weight justly due to opinions grounded on superiority of knowledge. The suggestion, however, was one which I had never discussed with my almost infallible counsellor, and I have no evidence that she would have concurred in it. As far as I have been able to observe, it has found favour with nobody; all who desire any sort of inequality in the electoral vote, desiring it in favour of property and not of intelligence or knowledge. If it ever overcomes the strong feeling which exists against it, this will only be after the establishment of a systematic National Education by which the various grades of politically valuable acquirement may be accurately defined and authenticated. Without this it will always remain liable to strong, possibly conclusive, objections; and with this, it would perhaps not be needed.

那时的政治状况促使我不久之后出版了一本小册子《议会改革的思考》，其中一部分是几年前在《改良法案》流产时写的，当时还得到了她的赞同和修改。它的两个主要特色是敌视投票制度（我们两人思想已转变，她比我还超前一点），以及为少数派争取代表权。但是，这些主张在当时没有超出加思·马歇尔先生提出的累积投票制的范围。在这本书准备付印出版时，考虑到1859年德比勋爵和迪斯雷里内阁对《改良法案》的讨论，我又加入了第三个特色，即把选票的多数投给证明受过高等教育的人，而不是投给财产。这个建议本身对我来说是调解以下两个方面的手段，既考虑到每个男女在管理与自己息息相关的事务时对发言权不可抗拒的要求，又立足于知识优势决定权力优势的理论。但这个建议我从未与我几乎不会犯错的顾问讨论过，所以我不能证明她和我的意见是否相同。就我所能观察的来讲，这个建议不被任何人看好，所有希望在选举投票中谋取这种不平等的人都希望选举以财产为准，而不以智力或知识为准。如果这个建议能够克服反对的强烈情绪，那就只能等到系统的国民教育建立以后，通过制度来准确地定义和认定有政治价值的学识等级。否则这个建议将永远遭到强烈的、可能是决定性的反对。而等有了这种制度，人们也许就不需要它了。

It was soon after the publication of Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform that I became acquainted with Mr. Hare's admirable system of Personal Representation, which, in its present shape, was then for the first time published. I saw in this great practical and philosophical idea, the greatest improvement of which the system of representative government is susceptible; an improvement which, in the most felicitous manner, exactly meets and cures the grand, and what before seemed the inherent, defect of the representative system; that of giving to a numerical majority all power, instead of only a power proportional to its numbers, and enabling the strongest party to exclude all weaker parties from making their opinions heard in the assembly of the nation, except through such opportunity as may be given to them by the accidentally unequal distribution of opinions in different localities. To these great evils nothing more than very imperfect palliatives had seemed possible; but Mr. Hare's system affords a radical cure. This great discovery, for it is no less, in the political art, inspired me, as I believe it has inspired all thoughtful persons who have adopted it, with new and more sanguine hopes respecting the prospects of human society; by freeing the form of political institutions towards which the whole civilized world is manifestly and irresistibly tending, from the chief part of what seemed to qualify, or render doubtful, its ultimate benefits. Minorities, so long as they remain minorities, are, and ought to be, outvoted; but under arrangements which enable any assemblage of voters, amounting to a certain number, to place in the legislature, a representative of its own choice, minorities cannot be suppressed. Independent opinions will force their way into the council of the nation and make themselves heard there, a thing which often cannot happen in the existing forms of representative democracy; and the legislature, instead of being weeded of individual peculiarities and entirely made up of men who simply represent the creed of great political or religious parties, will comprise a large proportion of the most eminent individual minds in the country, placed there, without reference to party, by voters who appreciate their individual eminence. I can understand that persons, otherwise intelligent, should, for want of sufficient examination, be repelled from Mr. Hare's plan by what they think the complex nature of its machinery. But any one who does not feel the want which the scheme is intended to supply; any one who throws it over as a mere theoretical subtlety or crotchet, tending to no valuable purpose, and unworthy of the attention of practical men, may be pronounced an incompetent statesman, unequal to the politics of the future. I mean, unless he is a minister, or aspires to become one: for we are quite accustomed to a minister's continuing to profess unqualified hostility to an improvement almost to the very day when his conscience, or his interest, induces him to take it up as a public measure, and carry it.

《议会改革的思考》出版后不久，我接触了黑尔先生令人敬佩的《个人代表制》一书，当时还是第一次出版。从这本书中我看到了非常实际和有哲理的思想，以及代议制政府制度所能容许的最大改良。改良以最恰当的方式刚好弥补了代议制以前似乎固有的重大缺陷，这种缺陷就是把所有权力赋予多数派，而不只是按得票数比例分配权力，使最强大的党派排除所有较弱小的党派，不让他们在全民议会上发表见解，除非通过不同地区偶尔不平等分配得到的机会，他们的政见才能得以发表。对于这些重大缺陷似乎不可能找到很完美的缓和剂，但黑尔先生的制度提供了根治的良方。这个政治艺术上的伟大发现激励了我，我也相信它曾经激励了所有接纳它的有思想的人，它给人类社会的前景带来了新的更加乐观的希望，把整个文明世界显然势必遵从的政治制度形式，从看起来限制它或怀疑它的最终利益的主要部分中解放出来。少数派只要还是少数派，就会，也应该会在票数上落后。但规定投票者的集会达到一定数量时，可以自己选出一个代表进入立法机关，少数派就不会被压制。独立的见解将强行进入国民议会，让其他人听到，这种情况在现有的代议民主制度下不是经常发生的。立法机关不再排除个人特性，不再完全由那些代表强大政党或宗教派别教义的人组成，而是包含了国内大部分最优秀的个人，他们进入立法机关与党派无关，而是选民欣赏他们的个人才华。我可以理解，那些在其他方面聪明的人由于缺少充分的考察，会被他们所认为的制度复杂的本性排除在黑尔的方案之外。但任何觉得不需要黑尔方案弥补缺陷的人，任何仅仅把它视为理论上的微妙想法或怪念头的人，任何认为它无助于有价值的目标，不值得引起务实的人注意的人，都可谓是一个不称职的政治家，不能胜任未来的政治。我的意思是，除非他是大臣，或者向往成为大臣的人。因为我们已经习惯于大臣对改良一贯无条件的敌视，几乎要等到他的良知或利益驱使他采纳它作为一项公共措施并且执行它的那一天为止。

Had I met with Mr. Hare's system before the publication of my pamphlet, I should have given an account of it there. Not having done so, I wrote an article in Fraser's Magazine (reprinted in my miscellaneous writings) principally for that purpose, though I included in it, along with Mr. Hare's book, a review of two other productions on the question of the day; one of them a pamphlet by my early friend, Mr. John Austin, who had in his old age become an enemy of all further Parliamentary reform; the other an able and ingenious, though partially erroneous work by Mr. Lorimer.

如果我在小册子出版前读了黑尔先生的方案，我一定会在里边细加论述。因为没能这么做，我在《弗雷泽杂志》上写了一篇文章（我的杂文集里也有收录），主要目的也在于此，除了在里边介绍黑尔先生的书，我还评论了两本谈论时事问题的作品。其中一本是我的老朋友约翰·奥斯汀先生的小册子，他在晚年变成了议会所有进一步改革的反对者。另一本是洛里默先生有才气和智慧的作品，但里边存在部分错误。

In the course of the same summer I fulfilled a duty particularly incumbent upon me, that of helping (by an article in the Edinburgh Review) to make known Mr. Bain14's profound treatise on the Mind, just then completed by the publication of its second volume. And I carried through the press a selection of my minor writings, forming the first two volumes of Dissertations and Discussions. The selection had been made during my wife's lifetime, but the revision, in concert with her, with a view to republication, had been barely commenced; and when I had no longer the guidance of her judgment I despaired of pursuing it further, and republished the papers as they were, with the exception of striking out such passages as were no longer in accordance with my opinions. My literary work of the year terminated with an essay in Fraser's Magazine (afterwards republished in the third volume of Dissertations and Discussions) entitled "A Few Words on Non-Intervention”. I was prompted to write this paper by a desire, while vindicating England from the imputations commonly brought against her on the Continent, of a peculiar selfishness in matters of foreign policy, to warn Englishmen of the colour given to this imputation by the low tone in which English statesmen are accustomed to speak of English policy as concerned only with English interests, and by the conduct of Lord Palmerston at that particular time in opposing the Suez Canal. And I took the opportunity of expressing ideas which had long been in my mind (some of them generated by my Indian experience, and others by the international questions which then greatly occupied the European public), respecting the true principles of international morality, and the legitimate modifications made in it by difference of times and circumstances; a subject I had already, to some extent, discussed in the vindication of the French Provisional Government of 1848 against the attacks of Lord Brougham and others, which I published at the time in the Westminster Review, and which is reprinted in the Dissertations.

同年夏天，我完成了一项义不容辞的任务，那就是帮忙（通过《爱丁堡评论》上的一篇文章）介绍贝恩先生一部深奥的专著《论精神》，当时此书刚出版了第二卷。此外，我还完成了短文选集的出版事宜，构成了《论述和讨论》的前两卷。这个选集是在我太太在世时完成的，但为了再版，我和她一起进行的修订工作才刚刚开始。当我不再拥有她的判断作指导时，我失去了继续修订的动力，除了删掉与我见解不相符的段落外，我原封不动地把它交去再版。我那年的文学工作以发表在《弗雷泽杂志》上的一篇名为《略谈不干涉政策》的文章而告终（后来收录在《论述和讨论》的第三卷）。我在这样一个愿望的促使下写了这篇文章，欧洲各国普遍指责英国外交政策特别自私，对此我在为英国澄清的同时提醒英国人，英国政治家惯于称英国的外交政策是关心英国的利益，这一低沉的腔调和当时帕默斯顿勋爵反对开凿苏伊士运河的所作所为都给这种指责提供了借口。我借这个机会表达了长久以来心中关于国际道德的正确原则，和根据不同时间、不同情况合法修改这些原则的想法（有些源自我在印度的经历，另一些来自当时欧洲公众十分关注的国际问题）。在某种程度上，我已经在一篇文章中谈到这个问题，该文章为1848年法国临时政府辩护，反对布鲁厄姆勋爵等人的攻击，它当时发表在《威斯敏斯特评论》上，并收录在《论述和讨论》中。

I had now settled, as I believed, for the remainder of my existence into a purely literary life; if that can be called literary which continued to be occupied in a pre-eminent degree with politics, and not merely with theoretical, but practical politics, although a great part of the year was spent at a distance of many hundred miles from the chief seat of the politics of my own country, to which, and primarily for which, I wrote. But, in truth, the modern facilities of communication have not only removed all the disadvantages, to a political writer in tolerably easy circumstances, of distance from the scene of political action, but have converted them into advantages. The immediate and regular receipt of newspapers and periodicals keeps him au courant of even the most temporary politics, and gives him a much more correct view of the state and progress of opinion than he could acquire by personal contact with individuals: for every one's social intercourse is more or less limited to particular sets or classes, whose impressions and no others reach him through that channel; and experience has taught me that those who give their time to the absorbing claims of what is called society, not having leisure to keep up a large acquaintance with the organs of opinion, remain much more ignorant of the general state either of the public mind, or of the active and instructed part of it, than a recluse who reads the newspapers need be. There are, no doubt, disadvantages in too long a separation from one's country—in not occasionally renewing one's impressions of the light in which men and things appear when seen from a position in the midst of them; but the deliberate judgment formed at a distance, and undisturbed by inequalities of perspective, is the most to be depended on, even for application to practice. Alternating between the two positions I combined the advantages of both. And, though the inspirer of my best thoughts was no longer with me, I was not alone: she had left a daughter, my step-daughter, Miss Helen Taylor, the inheritor of much of her wisdom, and of all her nobleness of character, whose ever growing and ripening talents from that day to this have been devoted to the same great purposes, and have already made her name better and more widely known than was that of her mother, though far less so than I predict that if she lives, it is destined to become. Of the value of her direct cooperation with me, something will be said hereafter: of what I owe in the way of instruction to her great powers of original thought and soundness of practical judgment, it would be a vain attempt to give an adequate idea. Surely no one ever before was so fortunate, as, after such a loss as mine, to draw another such prize in the lottery of life—another companion, stimulator, adviser, and instructor of the rarest quality. Whoever, either now or hereafter, may think of me and of the work I have done, must never forget that it is the product not of one intellect and conscience but of three, the least considerable of whom, and above all the least original, is the one whose name is attached to it.

我相信那时我已经习惯于在纯文学的生活中度过我的余生，如果这种在很大程度上一直与理论和实践政治相关的写作可以称作文学生活的话。虽然一年中的大部分时间我都在远离自己国家政治中心几百英里外的地方度过，我仍是，而且主要是为自己国家写作的。但实际上，对一个生活环境简单且条件尚可的政治作家来说，现代交通的便捷不仅消除了远离政治活动现场的所有不利条件，还把这些不利条件变成有利条件。即时、频繁地接收报刊的信息令他时刻了解当下的政治，并且为他提供比私人接触更准确的舆论观点及它们的进展情况。因为每个人的社会交往或多或少局限于特定的集团或阶级，通过这个渠道他只能得到这些集团或阶级的印象而没有其他的印象。经验告诉我，那些把时间花在所谓社交中吸引人的索求的人，无暇经常了解舆论的喉舌，对舆论的大体情况或其中积极的、有指示作用的部分还不如经常读报的隐居者知道的多。离开自己的国家太久无疑有种种不利：不能经常更新自己对所处环境看到的人和事的印象，但在远处作出的深思熟虑的判断不受不公平看法的干扰，所以才是最值得信赖的，甚至可以用于实践。交替于这两个位置间，我综合了两者的有利条件。虽然能最好地启发我思想的人已经不在了，但我并不孤单。她留下了一个女儿——我的继女，海伦·泰勒小姐，她的智慧、高贵和性格的继承者。从那天起至今，她不断成长和成熟的才智一直贡献于同样伟大的目标，比起母亲，泰勒的名字为更多的人所熟知，虽然就我预测，如果泰勒的母亲一直活着的话，她的名气一定会比她女儿大。现在起要说点有关与她直接合作的价值的事：我感谢她伟大的原创思考能力以及实际判断的合理性带给我的指导，否则得出完整的想法只能是徒劳。过去肯定没有人像我这么幸运，在经历过这样巨大的损失后，变化莫测的人生却又赋予了我另一个瑰宝——另一个非凡的同伴、激励者、顾问和老师。现在或以后若有人想起我和我的作品，一定不要忘记这不是一个人而是三个人智慧和良心的结晶，其中最不重要的，且原创性最低的就是名字写在作品上的那个人。

The work of the years 1860 and 1861 consisted chiefly of two treatises, only one of which was intended for immediate publication. This was the Considerations on Representative Government, a connected exposition of what, by the thoughts of many years, I had come to regard as the best form of a popular constitution. Along with as much of the general theory of government as is necessary to support this particular portion of its practice, the volume contains my matured views of the principal questions which occupy the present age, within the province of purely organic institutions, and raises by anticipation, some other questions to which growing necessities will sooner or later compel the attention both of theoretical and of practical politicians. The chief of these last, is the distinction between the function of making laws, for which a numerous popular assembly is radically unfit, and that of getting good laws made, which is its proper duty, and cannot be satisfactorily fulfilled by any other authority: and the consequent need of a Legislative Commission, as a permanent part of the constitution of a free country; consisting of a small number of highly trained political minds, on whom, when Parliament has determined that a law shall be made, the task of making it should be devolved; Parliament retaining the power of passing or rejecting the bill when drawn up, but not of altering it otherwise than by sending proposed amendments to be dealt with by the Commission. The question here raised respecting the most important of all public functions, that of legislation, is a particular case of the great problem of modern political organization, stated, I believe, for the first time in its full extent by Bentham, though in my opinion not always satisfactorily resolved by him; the combination of complete popular control over public affairs, with the greatest attainable perfection of skilled agency.

1860和1861年我的主要作品是两部专著，其中只有一部是为了立即出版，这就是《代议制政府的思考》。经过多年的思考，我认为代议制是最好的民主政体形式，这本著作就与之相关。它不仅包含了实施这种特殊政体所必需的一般理论，还有对纯组织制度领域内重大时事的成熟看法。通过预期，我还提出其他早晚都有必要迫使理论上和实践中的政治家重视的问题。这其中最主要的问题是，区分制定法律的职能和促使良好法律得以制定的职能。前者大多数公民大会都不能胜任，后者是公民大会的分内之事，其他机构都不能令人满意地完成。所以结论是作为一个自由国家的永久组成部分需要建立立法委员会，其中有少数受过高等训练有政治头脑的人，当议会决定制定一项法律时，这个任务应当转交给委员会。议会保留通过或反对委员会起草法案的权力，但是没有权力修改，只能将修改建议提交委员会处理。这里提出的有关公共职能中最重要的立法职能问题，也是现代政治组织中重大问题的一个特殊例子，我相信这个问题已由边沁首次全面地论述过，虽然我并不认为他的解决方案令人满意。应当把公众对公共事务的完全监督和最完美的专业机构结合起来。

The other treatise written at this time is the one which was published some years later under the title of "The Subjection of Women". It was written at my daughter's suggestion that there might, in any event, be in existence a written exposition of my opinions on that great question, as full and conclusive as I could make it. The intention was to keep this among other unpublished papers, improving it from time to time if I was able, and to publish it at the time when it should seem likely to be most useful. As ultimately published it was enriched with some important ideas of my daughter's, and passages of her writing. But in what was of my own composition, all that is most striking and profound belongs to my wife; coming from the fund of thought which had been made common to us both, by our innumerable conversations and discussions on a topic which filled so large a place in our minds.

当时写的另一本专著是几年后出版的《论妇女的从属地位》。这本书是我女儿建议我写的，无论如何，我尽可能全面、有说服力地把对这个重大问题的见解呈现给公众。我的打算是把它放在其他尚未出版的文章中，尽可能随时修改，等到它最有可能有用的时候再出版。当它最终出版的时候，里面已经加入了我女儿的许多重要想法，其中很多段落是她写的。但在属于我的段落当中，最显著、最深刻的部分是我妻子写的。对一个在我们心中占据重要位置的问题，我们进行了无数次的交谈和讨论，所以它来自我们共同的思想储备。

Soon after this time I took from their repository a portion of the unpublished papers which I had written during the last years of our married life, and shaped them, with some additional matter, into the little work entitled Utilitarianism; which was first published in three parts, in successive numbers of Fraser's Magazine, and afterwards reprinted in a volume.

之后不久，我从堆积的手稿里拿走了一部分未出版的文章，都是在我们婚后生活的最后几年写成的。经过修改，增加了一些内容，最后形成了名为《功利主义》的小书。第一次出版时分为三个部分，在《弗雷泽杂志》连载，后来重印成一卷。

Before this, however, the state of public affairs had become extremely critical, by the commencement of the American civil war. My strongest feelings were engaged in this struggle, which, I felt from the beginning, was destined to be a turning point, for good or evil, of the course of human affairs for an indefinite duration. Having been a deeply interested observer of the slavery quarrel in America, during the many years that preceded the open breach, I knew that it was in all its stages an aggressive enterprise of the slave-owners to extend the territory of slavery; under the combined influences of pecuniary interest, domineering temper, and the fanaticism of a class for its class privileges, influences so fully and powerfully depicted in the admirable work of my friend Professor Cairnes15, The Slave Power. Their success, if they succeeded, would be a victory of the powers of evil which would give courage to the enemies of progress and damp the spirits of its friends all over the civilised world, while it would create a formidable military power, grounded on the worst and most antisocial form of the tyranny of men over men, and, by destroying for a long time the prestige of the great democratic republic, would give to all the privileged classes of Europe a false confidence, probably only to be extinguished in blood. On the other hand, if the spirit of the North was sufficiently roused to carry the war to a successful termination, and if that termination did not come too soon and too easily, I foresaw, from the laws of human nature, and the experience of revolutions, that when it did come it would in all probability be thorough: that the bulk of the Northern population, whose conscience had as yet been awakened only to the point of resisting the further extension of slavery, but whose fidelity to the Constitution of the United States made them disapprove of any attempt by the Federal Government to interfere with slavery in the States where it already existed, would acquire feelings of another kind when the Constitution had been shaken off by armed rebellion, would determine to have done for ever with the accursed thing, and would join their banner with that of the noble body of Abolitionists, of whom Garrison was the courageous and single-minded apostle, Wendell Phillips16 the eloquent orator, and John Brown the voluntary martyr. Then, too, the whole mind of the United States would be let loose from its bonds, no longer corrupted by the supposed necessity of apologising to foreigners for the most flagrant of all possible violations of the free principles of their Constitution; while the tendency of a fixed state of society to stereotype a set of national opinions would be at least temporarily checked, and the national mind would become more open to the recognition of whatever was bad in either the institutions or the customs of the people. These hopes, so far as related to slavery, have been completely, and in other respects are in course of being progressively realized. Foreseeing from the first this double set of consequences from the success or failure of the rebellion, it may be imagined with what feelings I contemplated the rush of nearly the whole upper and middle classes of my own country, even those who passed for Liberals, into a furious pro-Southern partisanship: the working classes, and some of the literary and scientific men, being almost the sole exceptions to the general frenzy. I never before felt so keenly how little permanent improvement had reached the minds of our influential classes, and of what small value were the liberal opinions they had got into the habit of professing. None of the Continental Liberals committed the same frightful mistake. But the generation which had extorted negro emancipation from our West India planters had passed away; another had succeeded which had not learnt by many years of discussion and exposure to feel strongly the enormities of slavery; and the inattention habitual with Englishmen to whatever is going on in the world outside their own island, made them profoundly ignorant of all the antecedents of the struggle, insomuch that it was not generally believed in England, for the first year or two of the war, that the quarrel was one of slavery. There were men of high principle and unquestionable liberality of opinion, who thought it a dispute about tariffs, or assimilated it to the cases in which they were accustomed to sympathise, of a people struggling for independence.

但在此之前，由于美国内战爆发，公共事态就变得十分紧张。我最强烈的感情也投入到这场战争中，我从一开始就认为无论结果是好是坏，这在一段不确定时间内将注定是人类历史的一个转折点。在南北公开分裂前的那些年，我一直很有兴趣地观察美国的奴隶制之争，我知道在斗争的每个阶段，奴隶主都咄咄逼人地想要扩大奴隶制的领域，这主要是受到金钱利益、作威作福的特性和追求阶级特权的阶级狂热三者的共同影响。我的朋友凯恩斯教授在他的优秀作品《奴隶劳力》中充分有力地描述了这种影响。如果奴隶主成功了，那就代表了邪恶力量的胜利，将会助长进步的敌人，压制整个文明世界中进步精神的朋友，以最坏、最反社会的人压迫人的专制形式为基础，形成一股强大的军事力量，并且在很长时间内毁灭伟大的民主共和制的声誉，这会给欧洲所有特权阶级一个错误的信心，这种信心很可能只有在血泊中才会消失。另一种可能是，如果北方的士气足够高涨，最后成功赢得战争，如果这个胜利来得不是太快且不太容易，从人性的法则和革命经验来看，我预见这种胜利一旦来了就很可能是彻底的。然而北方民众的良知到那时仅仅止步于意识到抵制奴隶制的进一步扩展。他们对美国宪法的忠诚使他们反对联邦政府干涉各个蓄奴州的奴隶制，但当宪法受到武装叛乱的动摇时，他们又会产生另一种感情，并下决心永远去除那个可恶的东西，加入到高尚的废奴主义者麾下，后者认为加里森是勇敢和忠心的传道者，温德尔·菲利普斯是雄辩的演说家，约翰·布朗是自发的殉难者。到那时，所有美国人的思想将从枷锁中解放出来，不再受到那种假想的必要的腐蚀，以为必须为对其宪法中自由原则最骇人听闻的违背而向外国人道歉。当一个社会停滞的状态趋于墨守成规时，国民思想至少将暂时阻止这种趋势，而全民思想将变得更容易认识到制度中或人民习惯中坏的东西。目前关于奴隶制的这些希望已经全部实现，在其他方面也在逐步实现。从叛乱的成功或失败两种结局的预测中，可以想象当我国几乎全部中上层阶级，甚至那些被认为是“自由派”的人都一窝蜂地成为支持南方派的狂热伙伴时，我会带着怎样的感情来思索。工人阶级，还有一些文学、科学领域的人，几乎成为这场全民狂热的唯一例外。我之前从未如此强烈地感觉到永久进步在有权阶级身上起效多么小，而他们习惯声称的那些自由理念的价值又是多么小。欧洲大陆的自由派从未犯过同样可怕的错误。但那个逼迫我们西印度种植园主解放黑人奴隶的一代已经一去不复返。其后的一代没有经过多年的讨论和揭露，所以不能强烈地感觉到奴隶制的罪大恶极。而英国人习惯于对发生在他们国土之外的世事不闻不问，这使他们对这场战争的前因毫不知情，以至于在战争开始的头一两年他们还不相信这是一场关于奴隶制的斗争。那些道德准则高尚，观点开通的人认为，这场战争是关税之争，或者把它同化成他们一直同情的民族争取独立的战争。

It was my obvious duty to be one of the small minority who protested against this perverted state of public opinion. I was not the first to protest. It ought to be remembered to the honour of Mr. Hughes and of Mr. Ludlow, that they, by writings published at the very beginning of the struggle, began the protestation. Mr. Bright17 followed in one of the most powerful of his speeches, followed by others not less striking. I was on the point of adding my words to theirs, when there occurred, towards the end of 1861, the seizure of the Southern envoys on board a British vessel, by an officer of the United States. Even English forgetfulness has not yet had time to lose all remembrance of the explosion of feeling in England which then burst forth, the expectation, which prevailed for some weeks, of war with the United States, and the warlike preparations actually commenced on this side. While this state of things lasted, there was no chance of a hearing for anything favourable to the American cause; and, moreover, I agreed with those who thought the act unjustifiable and such as to require that England should demand its disavowal. When the disavowal came, and the alarm of war was over, I wrote, in January, 1862, the paper, in Fraser's Magazine, entitled "The Contest in America". And I shall always feel grateful to my daughter that her urgency prevailed on me to write it when I did: for we were then on the point of setting out for a journey of some months in Greece and Turkey, and but for her, I should have deferred writing till our return. Written and published when it was, this paper helped to encourage those Liberals who had felt overborne by the tide of illiberal opinion, and to form in favour of the good cause a nucleus of opinion which increased gradually, and, after the success of the North began to seem probable, rapidly. When we returned from our journey I wrote a second article, a review of Professor Cairnes' book, published in the Westminster Review. England is paying the penalty, in many uncomfortable ways, of the durable resentment which her ruling classes stirred up in the United States by their ostentatious wishes for the ruin of America as a nation: they have reason to be thankful that a few, if only a few, known writers and speakers, standing firmly by the Americans in the time of their greatest difficulty, effected a partial diversion of these bitter feelings, and made Great Britain not altogether odious to the Americans.

显然，我有义务和少数人一起反对这种反常的舆论。我不是第一个提出抗议的人。应当记住这是休斯先生和勒德洛先生的功劳，通过在斗争刚开始时发表作品来提出抗议。紧接着布赖特先生用一篇最强有力的演说表示抗议，后续者的表现也同样精彩。临近1861年年底时，美国的一名军官在英国的船上抓住了南方的使节，就在这时我以自己的文章加入了他们的行列。即使健忘的英国人也不会这么快忘记，当时英国迸发出了一股持续数周，期盼与美国并肩作战的情感洪流，事实上英国这边还进行了作战准备。当这种状态持续时，英国人就没有机会听到任何有利于美国事业的声音，另外，我赞同那些认为这个行动不合理的人，以至于要求英国应当拒绝参战。后来英国拒绝参战，战争的警报才告解除。我于1862年1月在《弗雷泽杂志》上发表了一篇文章，题为《美国之争》。我一直感谢我的女儿敦促我写成这篇文章，因为我们当时正要出发去希腊和土耳其旅行几个月，要不是因为她，我本会推迟到回来后再写。文章写成并发表，它有助于鼓励那些感觉被狭隘观点压制的自由派人士，也有助于形成有利于正义事业的思想核心，这个核心在慢慢发展，并会在北方有望胜利后迅速发展起来。我们旅行回来后，我又写了另一篇评论凯恩斯教授著作的文章，发表在《威斯敏斯特评论》上。英国统治阶级希望美国这个国家毁灭，这激起了美国长期的怨恨，英国也因此受到了许多令之不快的惩罚。他们有理由感谢那一小部分的——哪怕只有一小部分的——知名作家、演说家在他们最困难的时候坚定地站在美国人这边，部分转移了他们的痛恨情绪，使大不列颠在美国人眼中不是完全丑恶的。

This duty having been performed, my principal occupation for the next two years was on subjects not political. The publication of Mr. Austin's Lectures on Jurisprudence after his decease, gave me an opportunity of paying a deserved tribute to his memory, and at the same time expressing some thoughts on a subject on which, in my old days of Benthamism, I had bestowed much study. But the chief product of those years was the Examination of Sir William Hamilton18's Philosophy. His Lectures, published in 1860 and 1861, I had read towards the end of the latter year, with a half-formed intention of giving an account of them in a Review, but I soon found that this would be idle, and that justice could not be done to the subject in less than a volume. I had then to consider whether it would be advisable that I myself should attempt such a performance. On consideration, there seemed to be strong reasons for doing so. I was greatly disappointed with the Lectures. I read them, certainly, with no prejudice against Sir William Hamilton. I had up to that time deferred the study of his Notes to Reid on account of their unfinished state, but I had not neglected his Discussions in Philosophy; and though I knew that his general mode of treating the facts of mental philosophy differed from that of which I most approved, yet his vigorous polemic against the later Transcendentalists, and his strenuous assertion of some important principles, especially the Relativity of human knowledge, gave me many points of sympathy with his opinions, and made me think that genuine psychology had considerably more to gain than to lose by his authority and reputation. His Lectures and the Dissertations on Reid dispelled this illusion: and even the Discussions, read by the light which these threw on them, lost much of their value. I found that the points of apparent agreement between his opinions and mine were more verbal than real; that the important philosophical principles which I had thought he recognised, were so explained away by him as to mean little or nothing, or were continually lost sight of, and doctrines entirely inconsistent with them were taught in nearly every part of his philosophical writings. My estimation of him was therefore so far altered, that instead of regarding him as occupying a kind of intermediate position between the two rival philosophies, holding some of the principles of both, and supplying to both powerful weapons of attack and defence, I now looked upon him as one of the pillars, and in this country from his high philosophical reputation the chief pillar, of that one of the two which seemed to me to be erroneous.

完成了这个义务后，我接下来两年中的主要工作与政治无关。奥斯汀先生的遗著《法理学演说集》使我有机会向他表示应有的怀念，同时在许多问题上发表我的想法，之前在我信奉边沁主义的时候曾经对这些问题有过研究。但那些年的主要成果是《威廉·汉密尔顿爵士哲学研究》，他的《演说集》于1860—1861年间出版，我在1861年底读到这本书时就打算在某期《威斯敏斯特评论》上对这些演说进行阐述，但很快我就发现这样是偷懒的做法，要想公正地评价这本书起码要写一卷书才行。于是我考虑自己尝试这样做是否可取。考虑过后，我似乎有充分的理由去这样做。我对《演说集》十分失望，当然我读它的时候对威廉·汉密尔顿爵士并没有偏见。在那之前，因为《里德论》还没有完成，所以我推迟了对它的研究，但我也留意了他的《哲学讨论》，虽然我知道他论述精神哲学的总体方式与我最推崇的方式不同，但他反对后期先验主义者的有力辩论和对一些重要原则的极力支持，尤其是对人类知识相对性的坚持，使我和他在思想上产生共鸣，感到在他的权威和声誉影响下，真正的心理学得到的比失去的要多。他的《演说集》和《里德论》打破了这样的幻想：即使是《哲学讨论》，如果带着这种理解来读，也会失去很多价值。我发现我和他的观点明显一致的地方很多都是在书面上的，在实践上的却很少。那些他认同的重要哲学原理已经被他解释得几乎没有意义或毫无意义了，或者意义慢慢消失掉了，而与这些原理完全矛盾的学说却几乎在他哲学作品中的每个部分都得到了讲解。所以到目前为止，我对他的评价改变了，不再认为他占据了两个对立哲学的中间位置，掌握两者的原理并且为相互攻守提供有力的武器。我现在把他视为支柱之一，在这个国家以他的高度哲学声望来讲是一根主要的支柱，而且在我看来是两根当中错误的一根。

Now, the difference between these two schools of philosophy, that of Intuition, and that of Experience and Association, is not a mere matter of abstract speculation; it is full of practical consequences, and lies at the foundation of all the greatest differences of practical opinion in an age of progress. The practical reformer has continually to demand that changes be made in things which are supported by powerful and widely-spread feelings, or to question the apparent necessity and indefeasibleness of established facts; and it is often an indispensable part of his argument to show, how those powerful feelings had their origin, and how those facts came to seem necessary and indefeasible. There is therefore a natural hostility between him and a philosophy which discourages the explanation of feelings and moral facts by circumstances and association, and prefers to treat them as ultimate elements of human nature; a philosophy which is addicted to holding up favourite doctrines as intuitive truths, and deems intuition to be the voice of Nature and of God, speaking with an authority higher than that of our reason. In particular, I have long felt that the prevailing tendency to regard all the marked distinctions of human character as innate, and in the main indelible, and to ignore the irresistible proofs that by far the greater part of those differences, whether between individuals, races, or sexes, are such as not only might but naturally would be produced by differences in circumstances, is one of the chief hindrances to the rational treatment of great social questions and one of the greatest stumbling blocks to human improvement. This tendency has its source in the intuitional metaphysics which characterized the reaction of the nineteenth century against the eighteenth, and it is a tendency so agreeable to human indolence, as well as to conservative interests generally, that unless attacked at the very root, it is sure to be carried to even a greater length than is really justified by the more moderate forms of the intuitional philosophy. That philosophy, not always in its moderate forms, had ruled the thought of Europe for the greater part of a century. My father's Analysis of the Mind, my own Logic, and Professor Bain's great treatise, had attempted to re-introduce a better mode of philosophizing, latterly with quite as much success as could be expected; but I had for some time felt that the mere contrast of the two philosophies was not enough, that there ought to be a hand-to-hand fight between them, that controversial as well as expository writings were needed, and that the time was come when such controversy would be useful. Considering then the writings and fame of Sir W. Hamilton as the great fortress of the intuitional philosophy in this country, a fortress the more formidable from the imposing character, and the in many respects great personal merits and mental endowments, of the man, I thought it might be a real service to philosophy to attempt a thorough examination of all his most important doctrines, and an estimate of his general claims to eminence as a philosopher, and I was confirmed in this resolution by observing that in the writings of at least one, and him one of the ablest, of Sir W. Hamilton's followers, his peculiar doctrines were made the justification of a view of religion which I hold to be profoundly immoral—that it is our duty to bow down in worship before a Being whose moral attributes are affirmed to be unknowable by us, and to be perhaps extremely different from those which, when we are speaking of our fellow creatures, we call by the same names.

现在，哲学两大学派——直觉派和经验联想派之间的区别不仅仅是抽象思考的问题，而是带有实际的后果，造成了进步时代中所有实际观念间的巨大差别。务实的改革者一直坚持在那些有强烈和广泛感情支撑的事物中进行改革，或者一直质疑既成事实的表面必要性和不可取消性。他的论据中一个不可缺少的部分就是，这些强大的感情从哪里来，这些事实为何看起来是必要的和不可取消的。因此，在他和哲学之间存在自然的敌对状态，因为哲学反对通过环境和联想来解释感情和道德事实，而将其视为人性的终极要素。哲学坚持支持受欢迎的学说作为直觉真理，认为直觉是大自然和神的声音，其话语的权威性高于理性。尤其是我早就感觉到一种普遍的倾向，即把所有人性明显的差异视为天生的，而且基本上是不能消除的，但却忽略了无可争议的证据，那就是到目前为止，无论是个人、种族还是性别间的差异，绝大部分不仅可能是，而且自然是由环境的不同造成的。这是理性对待重大社会问题的主要障碍，也是人类进步的最大绊脚石之一。这种倾向根源于直觉形而上学，以19世纪对18世纪的抗拒为特征，它总体上符合人类的惰性和保守利益，除非从根源下手，否则它肯定大大超过较温和形式的直觉哲学能真正证明其为正当的程度。然而哲学的形式不是一直温和的，它在一个世纪的大部分时间里统治了欧洲的思想。我父亲的《人类心灵现象的分析》，我的《逻辑学体系》和贝恩教授的伟大著作都试图重新介绍一种更好的研究哲学的方式，后来我们取得了预想的成功。但是，有一段时间我认为仅仅对比两个哲学派别是不够的，应当让它们短兵相接，需要有争议和论述的作品，然后这种争议方才有用。考虑到威廉·汉密尔顿爵士的作品和声誉是这个国家直觉派的重要堡垒，因为他令人印象深刻的性格，和方方面面的突出优点，以及思想的天赋令这个堡垒更加坚不可摧。我认为，彻底考察他所有最重要的学说和评估他作为一个哲学家对崇高的一般主张，对哲学或许是一种真正的贡献。通过观察威廉·汉密尔顿爵士的追随者，且是最有才能的追随者之一的作品，我更坚定了我的想法，他的特殊学说只证明了一个我认为最不道德的宗教观点的正当性，即在神的面前屈膝朝拜是我们的义务，而神的道德属性被证明是不可知的，或许完全不同于我们谈论人类时用同样名称所表示的道德属性。

As I advanced in my task, the damage to Sir W. Hamilton's reputation became greater than I at first expected, through the almost incredible multitude of inconsistencies which showed themselves on comparing different passages with one another. It was my business, however, to show things exactly as they were, and I did not flinch from it. I endeavoured always to treat the philosopher whom I criticized with the most scrupulous fairness; and I knew that he had abundance of disciples and admirers to correct me if I ever unintentionally did him injustice. Many of them accordingly have answered me, more or less elaborately; and they have pointed out oversights and misunderstandings, though few in number, and mostly very unimportant in substance. Such of those as had (to my knowledge) been pointed out before the publication of the latest edition (at present the third) have been corrected there, and the remainder of the criticisms have been, as far as seemed necessary, replied to. On the whole, the book has done its work: it has shewn the weak side of Sir W. Hamilton, and has reduced his too great philosophical reputation within more moderate bounds; and by some of its discussions, as well as by two expository chapters, on the notions of Matter and of Mind, it has perhaps thrown additional light on some of the disputed questions in the domain of psychology and metaphysics.

随着我这项工作的进展，对威廉·汉密尔顿爵士名誉的损坏程度超过了我原先的预期。通过对比书中的不同段落，我发现了大量难以致信的矛盾之处。但我的工作是说明事情的真相，并且毫不退缩。我努力保持用最谨慎的公正态度批评哲学家，我知道如果我一旦无意中对他不公的话，他的很多信徒和追随者就会出面纠正我。他们中的许多人都或多或少详细地回答了我，指出我的疏忽和误解之处，虽然数量不多，且大部分内容极不重要。这些疏忽和误解（就我所知）在最新版本（现在是第三版）出版前得到了纠正，其余的那些批评，只要看起来有必要，我都一一回复了。总体来说，这本书已经完成了它的使命。它说明了威廉·汉密尔顿爵士的缺点，将他过高的哲学声誉降到适中的范围内。通过一些讨论和两章关于物质概念和精神概念的阐述，它可能使哲学和形而上学领域内一些有争议的问题更明朗化了。

After the completion of the book on Hamilton, I applied myself to a task which a variety of reasons seemed to render specially incumbent upon me; that of giving an account, and forming an estimate, of the doctrines of Auguste Comte. I had contributed more than any one else to make his speculations known in England. In consequence chiefly of what I had said of him in my Logic, he had readers and admirers among thoughtful men on this side of the Channel at a time when his name had not yet in France, emerged from obscurity. So unknown and unappreciated was he at the time when my Logic was written and published, that to criticise his weak points might well appear superfluous, while it was a duty to give as much publicity as one could to the important contributions he had made to philosophic thought. At the time, however, at which I have now arrived, this state of affairs had entirely changed. His name, at least, was known almost universally, and the general character of his doctrines very widely. He had taken his place in the estimation both of friends and opponents, as one of the conspicuous figures in the thought of the age. The better parts of his speculations had made great progress in working their way into those minds, which, by their previous culture and tendencies, were fitted to receive them: under cover of those better parts those of a worse character, greatly developed and added to in his later writings, had also made some way, having obtained active and enthusiastic adherents, some of them of no inconsiderable personal merit, in England, France, and other countries. These causes not only made it desirable that some one should undertake the task of sifting what is good from what is bad in M. Comte's speculations, but seemed to impose on myself in particular a special obligation to make the attempt. This I accordingly did in two essays, published in successive numbers of the Westminster Review, and reprinted in a small volume under the title "Auguste Comte and Positivism".

写完了这本评论汉密尔顿的书以后，我又从事了一项有很多理由令我格外义不容辞的工作，那就是解释和评价奥古斯特·孔德的学说。在让英国了解他的思想方面，我所作的贡献比任何人都大。原因是我在《逻辑学体系》中提到他，当他在法国还名不见经传时，在海峡这边已经有很多有思想的人在读他的书，钦佩他的思想了。我的《逻辑学体系》写完并出版时，他还那么的默默无闻，不被人欣赏，所以批评他的弱点看起来似乎多此一举，当时我的责任是尽力宣传他对哲学思想作出的重要贡献。但到此时，事态已经完全改变。至少他的名字已经家喻户晓，他理论的一般特点也已传播得很广。在他朋友和对手的眼中，他已经成为思想史上一个引人注目的人物。他的理论中较好的部分已经深入那些原有文化和倾向适合接受他思想的人心中。在这些较好部分的掩盖下，他后期的作品大量发展和加入了许多不好的部分，在英国、法国及其他国家也赢得了积极热情的拥护者，他们中有些还有很高的个人声誉。这些原因要求必须有人将孔德先生理论中好的部分从坏的部分中筛选出来。我似乎负有特别的义务来做这件事情。为此我写了两篇文章，在《威斯敏斯特评论》上连载，后来在名为《奥古斯特·孔德和实证主义》的小册子上重印。

The writings which I have now mentioned, together with a small number of papers in periodicals which I have not deemed worth preserving, were the whole of the products of my activity as a writer during the years from 1859 to 1865. In the early part of the last-mentioned year, in compliance with a wish frequently expressed to me by working men, I published cheap People's Editions of those of my writings which seemed the most likely to find readers among the working classes; viz. Principles of Political Economy, Liberty, and Representative Government. This was a considerable sacrifice of my pecuniary interest, especially as I resigned all idea of deriving profit from the cheap editions, and after ascertaining from my publishers the lowest price which they thought would remunerate them on the usual terms of an equal division of profits, I gave up my half share to enable the price to be fixed still lower. To the credit of Messrs. Longman they fixed, unasked, a certain number of years after which the copyright and stereotype plates were to revert to me, and a certain number of copies after the sale of which I should receive half of any further profit. This number of copies (which in the case of the Political Economy was 10,000) has for some time been exceeded, and the People's Editions have begun to yield me a small but unexpected pecuniary return, though very far from an equivalent for the diminution of profit from the Library Editions.

我刚才提到的作品，还有一些我认为没有保存价值的期刊论文就是我在1859—1865年间写的全部作品。在1865年上半年，按照工人们经常向我表达的愿望，我将那些看起来最容易被工人们接受的作品集合成廉价的大众版出版，如《政治经济学原理》《论自由》和《论代议制政府》。这样做牺牲了我可观的经济利益，尤其是在我放弃了从这些廉价版本中获利的想法，和出版商确认了按照利润平分的一般条款能保证他们获利之后，我放弃了我的那份收入，以使价格更低一些。感谢朗文出版社，他们主动提出一定的年限，期满后此书的版权和铅版归我，同时规定了一定的册数，售完后我可以得到那一半的利润。这个数量（《政治经济学原理》是一万册）有段时间已经超过了，大众版也开始带给我意想不到的小额收益，虽然还远远不能弥补文库版利润的减少。

In this summary of my outward life I have now arrived at the period at which my tranquil and retired existence as a writer of books was to be exchanged for the less congenial occupation of a member of the House of Commons. The proposal made to me early in 1865, by some electors of Westminster, did not present the idea to me for the first time. It was not even the first offer I had received, for, more than ten years previous, in consequence of my opinions on the Irish Land Question, Mr. Lucas and Mr. Duffy, in the name of the popular party in Ireland, offered to bring me into Parliament for an Irish county, which they could easily have done: but the incompatibility of a seat in Parliament with the office I then held in the India House precluded even consideration of the proposal. After I had quitted the India House, several of my friends would gladly have seen me a member of Parliament; but there seemed no probability that the idea would ever take any practical shape. I was convinced that no numerous or influential portion of any electoral body, really wished to be represented by a person of my opinions; and that one who possessed no local connexion or popularity, and who did not choose to stand as the mere organ of a party, had small chance of being elected anywhere unless through the expenditure of money. Now it was, and is, my fixed conviction, that a candidate ought not to incur one farthing of expense for undertaking a public duty. Such of the lawful expenses of an election as have no special reference to any particular candidate, ought to be borne as a public charge, either by the State or by the locality. What has to be done by the supporters of each candidate in order to bring his claims properly before the constituency, should be done by unpaid agency, or by voluntary subscription. If members of the electoral body, or others, are willing to subscribe money of their own for the purpose of bringing by lawful means into Parliament some one who they think would be useful there, no one is entitled to object: but that the expense, or any part of it, should fall on the candidate, is fundamentally wrong; because it amounts, in reality, to buying his seat. Even on the most favourable supposition as to the mode in which the money is expended, there is a legitimate suspicion that any one who gives money for leave to undertake a public trust, has other than public ends to promote by it; and (a consideration of the greatest importance) the cost of elections, when borne by the candidates, deprives the nation of the services, as members of Parliament, of all who cannot or will not afford to incur a heavy expense. I do not say that, so long as there is scarcely a chance for an independent candidate to come into Parliament without complying with this vicious practice, it must always be morally wrong in him to spend money, provided that no part of it is either directly or indirectly employed in corruption. But, to justify it, he ought to be very certain that he can be of more use to his country as a member of Parliament than in any other mode which is open to him; and this assurance, in my own case, I did not feel. It was by no means clear to me that I could do more to advance the public objects which had a claim on my exertions, from the benches of the House of Commons, than from the simple position of a writer. I felt, therefore, that I ought not to seek election to Parliament, much less to expend any money in procuring it.

我的外部生活概述到这里，之后，我宁静的隐居作家生活转变成与我趣味不那么相投的下院生活。1865年初，威斯敏斯特的一些选民提议我加入议会，这已经不是第一次了，甚至不是我收到的第一份邀请，因为十多年前，由于我对爱尔兰土地问题的见解，卢卡斯先生和达菲先生以爱尔兰一个受欢迎政党的名义，邀请我代表爱尔兰的一个郡加入议会。这对他们来说很容易办到，但当时我在东印度公司任职，无法兼任议员，所以我根本都没有考虑这个提议。后来我离开了东印度公司，很多朋友本可以很高兴地看到我成为议员，但这个想法实现的可能性似乎并不存在。我相信没有任何一个选举团体的多数派或实力派真正愿意让有我这种见解的人当代表。我也深信，一个在当地没有任何关系又不受欢迎的人，一个不想成为政党喉舌的人，除非花费金钱，否则当选的几率很小。过去和现在我都坚信，一个候选人不应当为了担任公职而花费分文。这种合法的选举开支不应当由某个特殊的候选人承担，而应当由国家或当地的公共开支负责。为了使全体选民正确理解候选人的主张，每位候选人的支持者必须做的事应当由不支酬劳的机构，或从自愿捐款中支付。如果选举机构成员或其他人自愿捐款，通过合法途径使某个他们认为在议会中有用的人入选议会，没有人有权反对他们。但是，如果全部或部分的花费都落在候选人头上，则是完全错误的。因为这实际上等同于花钱买席位。即便是对金钱支出作最有利的推测，人们仍可以正当地怀疑那些花钱博取公众信任的人另有企图。选举的成本（最重要的因素）如果由候选人承担，就失去了所有不能或不愿承担这笔巨额费用的人作为议员为国家服务。我并不是说一个独立的候选人不遵从这种卑鄙的方式就几乎没有希望进入议会，如果他的钱不是直接或间接地用于贿赂，他花钱就不总是道德上的错误。但为了证明这一点，他应当十分确定，他当议员比做其他事情对他的国家贡献更大。就我自己而言，我并没有感觉到这种自信。我一点也不清楚，我做议员会比单纯当一个作家更能促进需要我尽力的公共目标的实现。所以我觉得我不应当参选议员，更不应当花钱来谋取议会的席位。

But the conditions of the question were considerably altered when a body of electors sought me out, and spontaneously offered to bring me forward as their candidate. If it should appear, on explanation, that they persisted in this wish, knowing my opinions, and accepting the only conditions on which I could conscientiously serve, it was questionable whether this was not one of those calls upon a member of the community by his fellow citizens, which he was scarcely justified in rejecting. I therefore put their disposition to the proof by one of the frankest explanations ever tendered, I should think, to an electoral body by a candidate. I wrote, in reply to the offer, a letter for publication, saying that I had no personal wish to be a member of parliament, that I thought a candidate ought neither to canvass nor to incur any expense, and that I could not consent to do either. I said further, that if elected, I could not undertake to give any of my time and labour to their local interests. With respect to general politics, I told them without reserve, what I thought on a number of important subjects on which they had asked my opinion; and one of these being the suffrage, I made known to them, among other things, my conviction (as I was bound to do, since I intended, if elected, to act on it) that women were entitled to representation in Parliament on the same terms with men. It was the first time, doubtless, that such a doctrine had ever been mentioned to electors; and the fact that I was elected after proposing it, gave the start to the movement which has since become so vigorous in favour of women's suffrage. Nothing, at the time, appeared more unlikely than that a candidate (if candidate I could be called) whose professions and conduct set so completely at defiance all ordinary notions of electioneering, should nevertheless be elected. A well-known literary man, who was also a man of society, was heard to say, that the Almighty himself would have no chance of being elected on such a programme. I strictly adhered to it, neither spending money nor canvassing, nor did I take any personal part in the election, until about a week preceding the day of nomination, when I attended a few public meetings to state my principles and give answers to any questions which the electors might exercise their just right of putting to me for their own guidance, answers as plain and unreserved as my Address. On one subject only, my religious opinions, I announced from the beginning that I would answer no questions; a determination which appeared to be completely approved by those who attended the meetings. My frankness on all other subjects on which I was interrogated, evidently, did me far more good than my answers, whatever they might be, did harm. Among the proofs I received of this, one is too remarkable not to be recorded. In the pamphlet Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform I had said, rather bluntly, that the working classes, though differing from those of some other countries in being ashamed of lying, are yet generally liars. This passage some opponent got printed in a placard, which was handed to me at a meeting, chiefly composed of the working classes, and I was asked whether I had written and published it. I at once answered "I did". Scarcely were these two words out of my mouth, when vehement applause resounded through the whole meeting. It was evident that the working people were so accustomed to expect equivocation and evasion from those who sought their suffrages, that when they found, instead of that, a direct avowal of what was likely to be disagreeable to them, instead of being affronted, they concluded at once that this was a person whom they could trust. A more striking instance never came under my notice of what, I believe, is the experience of those who best know the working classes, that the most essential of all recommendations to their favour is that of complete straightforwardness; its presence outweights in their minds very strong objections, while no amount of other qualities will make amends for its apparent absence. The first working man who spoke after the incident I have mentioned (it was Mr. Odger) said, that the working classes had no desire not to be told of their faults; they wanted friends, not flatterers, and felt under obligation to any one who told them of anything in themselves which he sincerely believed to require amendment. And to this the meeting heartily responded.

但当一个选举团把我推选出来，并且自发地推举我做候选人时，情况就完全不同了。假如通过解释他们了解了我的想法，并接受我提出的让我按良心办事的唯一条件后，他们仍坚持这个希望，那么问题就是这是否就是一个选区的选民邀请一个成员当候选人，而他又几乎没有正当理由拒绝的情况。所以我通过一个候选人对他的选举团体作出的最坦率的解释之一来检验他们的意向。在答复他们的邀请时，我写了封公开信，说我个人无意做议员，并且认为一个候选人既不该拉选票，也不该承担任何费用，这两样我都不同意做。我又进一步说到，如果我当选了，我不能保证用我的时间和精力为他们谋取任何地方利益。至于一般政治，我毫无保留地告诉他们我对很多重要问题的想法，他们之前曾征询过我的意见。其中一个是选举权问题，我告诉他们我深信（我有义务这么做，因为我打算一旦当选就照此行事）女性有权在议会中担任代表，享有同男性一样的权利。这对选举人来说无疑是第一次听到这样的说法。提出这个想法后，我当选了议员，这一事实促使主张妇女选举权运动的蓬勃开展。当时，像我这样的职业且行为完全藐视所有正规选举活动的候选人（如果可以这样称呼的话）仍能当选，似乎没有什么比这件事更不可能的了。一个著名的文人，同时也是社交圈中的一员曾说过，按照这样的安排，即便是万能的上帝自己也没有机会当选。我坚持既不花钱也不拉选票，我个人也不参加任何选举活动，一直到提名前的一个星期，我才参加了几个公众集会，表明我的立场，并回答了选举人行使其正当权利将我推举为咨询指导所提出的问题，而我的回答和我的演说一样简单坦率。只有一个问题，即关于我的宗教见解，我从一开始就宣布不回答任何问题。这个决定似乎得到参会者的完全认可。我回答其他问题的坦率态度，明显比我的回答本身更能给我带来好处，因为我无论怎样回答都会造成伤害。在我得到的证据中，有一个特别值得注意，那就是我曾在《议会改革的思考》中直言不讳地说，（英国的）工人阶级虽然不同于其他一些国家的工人阶级羞于说谎，但通常还是说谎者。这段话被我的对手印在标语牌上，并在一个主要由工人阶级组成的会议上递给我，问我是否曾写了并发表了这段话。我立即回答“是的”。话一出口即刻赢得了会场热烈的掌声。显然工人阶级已经习惯了从那些寻求他们选票的人口中听到推诿和借口，所以当他们听到直接公开承认了可能令他们不满的话之后，他们并没有感觉被冒犯，反而立即断定这是一个他们可以信赖的人。我从未听说过那些最懂得工人阶级的人的经历中有比这更惊人的例子。在他们喜欢的优点中最重要的就是彻底的坦诚，坦诚比他们心中十分强烈反对的更重要，没有其他的品质可以弥补坦诚的缺乏。事后第一个发言的工人（奥杰先生）说，工人阶级并不是不希望有人告诉他们自己的过错，他们需要的是朋友，不是奉承者，并且他们会对向他们真诚提出身上需要改进之处的人负有义务，会议对这一点反响热烈。

Had I been defeated in the election, I should still have had no reason to regret the contact it had brought me into with large bodies of my countrymen; which not only gave me much new experience, but enabled me to scatter my political opinions rather widely, and, by making me known in many quarters where I had never before been heard of, increased the number of my readers and the presumable influence of my writings. These latter effects were of course produced in a still greater degree, when, as much to my own surprise as to that of any one, I was returned to Parliament by a majority of some hundreds over my Conservative competitor.

假如我在竞选中失利，我也没有理由后悔，因为它让我有机会接触许多同胞。这不仅给我许多新的体验，并且使我能够更广泛地传播我的政治见解，让很多以前从未听过我名字的人认识我，增加了我的读者和我作品可能的影响。令我和所有人惊讶的是，我以几百张票的多数战胜了保守党的竞争对手，恢复了议会席位，当然我的读者和作品的影响随之增加了不少。

I was a member of the House during the three sessions of the Parliament which passed the Reform Bill; during which time Parliament was necessarily my main occupation, except during the recess. I was a tolerably frequent speaker, sometimes of prepared speeches, sometimes extemporaneously. But my choice of occasions was not such as I should have made if my leading object had been Parliamentary influence. When I had gained the ear of the House, which I did by a successful speech on Mr. Gladstone's Reform Bill, the idea I proceeded on was that when anything was likely to be as well done, or sufficiently well done, by other people, there was no necessity for me to meddle with it. As I therefore, in general, reserved myself for work which no others were likely to do, a great proportion of my appearances were on points on which the bulk of the Liberal party, even the advanced portion of it, either were of a different opinion from mine, or were comparatively indifferent. Several of my speeches, especially one against the motion for the abolition of capital punishment, and another in favour of resuming the right of seizing enemies' goods in neutral vessels, were opposed to what then was, and probably still is, regarded as the advanced liberal opinion. My advocacy of women's suffrage, and of Personal Representation, were at the time looked upon by many as whims of my own; but the great progress since made by those opinions, and especially the zealous response made from almost all parts of the kingdom to the demand for women's suffrage, fully justified the timeliness of those movements, and have made what was undertaken as a moral and social duty, a personal success. Another duty which was particularly incumbent on me as one of the Metropolitan Members, was the attempt to obtain a Municipal Government for the Metropolis: but on that subject the indifference of the House of Commons was such that I found hardly any help or support within its walls. On this subject, however, I was the organ of an active and intelligent body of persons outside, with whom and not with me, the scheme originated, who carried on all the agitation on the subject and drew up the Bills. My part was to bring in Bills already prepared, and to sustain the discussion of them during the short time they were allowed to remain before the House; after having taken an active part in the work of a Committee presided over by Mr. Ayrton, which sat through the greater part of the Session of 1866, to take evidence on the subject. The very different position in which the question now stands 1870 may justly be attributed to the preparation which went on during those years, and which produced but little visible effect at the time; but all questions on which there are strong private interests on one side, and only the public good on the other, have a similar period of incubation to go through.

在议会通过《改良法案》的三届会期中，我是下院的议员。这期间除了休会期，议会工作就是我的主要工作。我还经常发言，有时是有准备的演讲，有时是即兴演讲。假如我的主要目的是在议会中造成个人影响，我的演说就不会选在这样的时机。就格莱斯顿先生的《改良法案》我作了一次成功的演讲，赢得了下院的注意。之后我想，如果其他人很有可能或者足以做好的事，我就不必加以干涉。因而，既然我通常在别人不可能做好的情况下才出面，所以我大多是在自由党人甚至是其中的高级分子与我意见出现分歧，或者他们相对不太关心的事情上发表意见。我的很多次演讲，尤其是反对废除死刑的提议和赞成恢复在中立国家船只上没收敌人货物的权利的演说，都违背了当时是，可能现在仍然被认为是先进的自由理念。我支持妇女选举权和个人代表制，在当时被很多人认为是我自己的怪念头。但此后这些主张取得的巨大进步，尤其是几乎整个国家对妇女选举权要求作出的热烈反应，充分证明了这些运动的及时性，并且使履行道德和社会义务的事业变成个人的成功。另外一个我作为大都市中的成员义不容辞的义务是尝试为大都市建立市政府。但下议院对这个问题漠不关心，令我在下院内几乎找不到任何帮助或支持。然而，在这个问题上我是一个由议会外活跃聪明的人士组成的团体的喉舌，是他们而不是我想到了这个方案。他们对此进行了一切鼓动宣传，并起草了法案。我的工作就是把早已准备好的议案呈交，并在议会允许讨论该议案的短时间内维持对其的讨论。后来我曾积极参与由艾尔顿先生主持的委员会工作，占用了1866年议会期的大部分时间来取得关于这个议案的证据。现在（1870年）这个问题所处的位置完全不同，这一点可以公平地归因于那些年所做的准备工作，但当时却收效甚微。所有既涉及强大私人利益又只对公众有利的问题，都同样要经历一段酝酿期。

The same idea, that the use of my being in Parliament was to do work which others were not able or not willing to do, made me think it my duty to come to the front in defence of advanced Liberalism on occasions when the obloquy to be encountered was such as most of the advanced Liberals in the House, preferred not to incur. My first vote in the House was in support of an amendment in favour of Ireland, moved by an Irish member, and for which only five English and Scotch votes were given, including my own: the other four were Mr. Bright, Mr. McLaren, Mr. T. B. Potter, and Mr. Hadfield. And the second speech I delivered was on the Bill to prolong the suspension of the Habeas Corpus in Ireland. In denouncing, on this occasion, the English mode of governing Ireland, I did no more than the general opinion of England now admits to have been just; but the anger against Fenianism was then in all its freshness; any attack on what Fenians19 attacked was looked upon as an apology for them; and I was so unfavourably received by the House, that more than one of my friends advised me (and my own judgment agreed with the advice) to wait, before speaking again, for the favourable opportunity that would be given by the first great debate on the Reform Bill. During this silence, many flattered themselves that I had turned out a failure, and that they should not be troubled with me any more. Perhaps their uncomplimentary comments may, by the force of reaction, have helped to make my speech on the Reform Bill the success it was. My position in the House was further improved by a speech in which I insisted on the duty of paying off the National Debt before our coal supplies are exhausted, and by an ironical reply to some of the Tory leaders who had quoted against me certain passages of my writings and called me to account for others, especially for one in my Considerations on Representative Government which said that the Conservative party was, by the law of its composition, the stupidest party. They gained nothing by drawing attention to this passage, which up to that time had not excited any notice, but the sobriquet of "the stupid party" stuck to them for a considerable time afterwards. Having now no longer any apprehension of not being listened to, I confined myself, as I have since thought, too much, to occasions on which my services seemed specially needed, and abstained more than enough from speaking on the great party questions. With the exception of Irish questions, and those which concerned the working classes, a single speech on Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill was nearly all that I contributed to the great decisive debates of the last two of my three sessions.

我在议会所起的作用是做其他人不能或不愿意做的事情，同样的想法使我想到自己的义务是当先进的自由主义面临指责而议会中大多数进步的自由党人不愿引火烧身时站出来为其辩护。我在议会的第一次投票是支持爱尔兰议员提出的有利于爱尔兰的修正案，包括我在内只有五位英格兰和苏格兰议员投了赞成票，其他四个人是布赖特先生、麦克拉伦先生、T.B.波特先生和哈德菲尔德先生。我的第二次演讲是关于延长爱尔兰人身保护令暂停期限的法案。我在演说中谴责英国统治爱尔兰的方式，我只是做了现在英国舆论普遍承认是公正的事情。但那时反对芬尼亚共和主义的怒潮才刚刚开始，所有攻击芬尼亚组织成员所攻击目标的行为都被看作是对他们的辩护。因此我在议会很不受欢迎，所以不止一个朋友建议我（我自己也同意这个建议）等待《改良法案》的第一次大讨论给出有利的机会后再发表第二次演说。在沉默的期间，许多人自鸣得意地以为我以失败告终，所以不用再因为我而烦恼。或许正是他们贬损的评论所起到的反作用力帮助我对《改良法案》作的演讲大获成功。后来我在一篇演说中坚持认为在我们的煤供应耗尽之前我们有责任还清国债。之后一些托利党领导人引用了我作品中几段对我不利的话，要求我解释另外的几句话，尤其是《代议政府的思考》中说到从构成规律来看保守党是最愚蠢的政党，对此我作出了讥讽的回复。通过以上这两件事，我在议院的地位得到了提高。他们并没有通过让人们注意到这些话而得到好处，以前没有人注意这段话，但之后的很长一段时间内“愚蠢政党”的绰号却与他们如影随形。现在我无需担心没有人听我的演说，我想我过多地限制了自己，只在看起来特别需要我帮助的场合才发表演说，避免过多地谈论重大的政党问题。除了爱尔兰问题和那些涉及工人阶级的问题外，唯一一次论迪斯累里先生《改良法案》的演说几乎是我在三届会期的后两届对于重大决定性辩论所作的全部贡献。

I have, however, much satisfaction in looking back to the part I took on the two classes of subjects just mentioned. With regard to the working classes, the chief topic of my speech on Mr. Gladstone's Reform Bill was the assertion of their claims to the suffrage. A little later, after the resignation of Lord Russell20's Ministry and the succession of a Tory Government, came the attempt of the working classes to hold a meeting in Hyde Park, their exclusion by the police, and the breaking down of the park railing by the crowd. Though Mr. Beales and the leaders of the working men had retired under protest when this took place, a scuffle ensued in which many innocent persons were maltreated by the police, and the exasperation of the working men was extreme. They showed a determination to make another attempt at a meeting in the Park, to which many of them would probably have come armed; the Government made military preparations to resist the attempt, and something very serious seemed impending. At this crisis I really believe that I was the means of preventing much mischief. I had in my place in Parliament taken the side of the working men, and strongly censured the conduct of the Government. I was invited, with several other Radical members, to a conference with the leading members of the Council of the Reform League; and the task fell chiefly upon myself of persuading them to give up the Hyde Park project, and hold their meeting elsewhere. It was not Mr. Beales and Colonel Dickson who needed persuading; on the contrary, it was evident that those gentlemen had already exerted their influence in the same direction, thus far without success. It was the working men who held out, and so bent were they on their original scheme that I was obliged to have recourse to les grands moyens. I told them that a proceeding which would certainly produce a collision with the military, could only be justifiable on two conditions: if the position of affairs had become such that a revolution was desirable, and if they thought themselves able to accomplish one. To this argument, after considerable discussion, they at last yielded: and I was able to inform Mr. Walpole that their intention was given up. I shall never forget the depth of his relief or the warmth of his expressions of gratitude. After the working men had conceded so much to me, I felt bound to comply with their request that I would attend and speak at their meeting at the Agricultural Hall; the only meeting called by the Reform League which I ever attended. I had always declined being a member of the League, on the avowed ground that I did not agree in its programme of manhood suffrage and the ballot: from the ballot I dissented entirely; and I could not consent to hoist the flag of manhood suffrage, even on the assurance that the exclusion of women was not intended to be implied; since if one goes beyond what can be immediately carried and professes to take one's stand on a principle, one should go the whole length of the principle. I have entered thus particularly into this matter because my conduct on this occasion gave great displeasure to the Tory and Tory-Liberal press, who have charged me ever since with having shown myself, in the trials of public life, intemperate and passionate. I do not know what they expected from me; but they had reason to be thankful to me if they knew from what I had, in all probability, preserved them. And I do not believe it could have been done, at that particular juncture, by any one else. No other person, I believe, had at that moment the necessary influence for restraining the working classes, except Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright, neither of whom was available: Mr. Gladstone, for obvious reasons; Mr. Bright, because he was out of town.

然而，回顾我在刚才提到的那两类问题上所起的作用，我十分满意。关于工人阶级，我在论格莱斯顿先生《改良法案》的演说中的主要观点就是支持工人对选举权的要求。之后不久，在罗素勋爵内阁辞职，托利党政府接任后，工人阶级试图在海德公园举行集会，却被警察拒之门外，后来群众拆除了公园围栏。虽然比尔斯先生和工人阶级领导人之前在抗议中离开了，但随后发生了扭打，很多无辜的人受到警察的粗暴对待，令工人阶级的愤怒达到顶点。他们决心再次在海德公园集会，而且他们中的很多人可能会带上武器。政府作好军事准备以抵御他们的行动，十分严重的事情似乎就要发生。在这个危急时刻，我真的相信我能够阻止很多灾祸的发生。在议会中我是支持工人阶级的一方，并且强烈谴责政府的行为。我与其他几位激进派成员受邀参加了改革同盟委员会几个主要成员的会议，劝说他们放弃海德公园计划，并在其他地方举行会议的任务主要落在了我的身上。要说服的不是比尔斯先生和迪克森上校，正相反，这两位绅士显然已经朝相同的方向发挥了他们的影响力，但还远没取得成功。坚持的是那些工人，他们如此坚持原计划，使我被迫寻求最后的方案。我告诉他们，一次必定与军方产生冲突的行动只有在两个前提下才是正当的：第一，如果事态已经发展到迫切需要革命的程度；第二，他们确信自己可以取得成功。经过相当长时间的讨论，他们终于听从了我的观点，因此我可以通知沃波尔先生，工人们放弃了计划。我永远不会忘记当时他松了一大口气，向我表示衷心的感谢。在工人阶级对我作出如此大的让步以后，我认为有义务满足他们的要求，参加他们在农业厅召开的会议并发言。这是我唯一一次参加由改革同盟会召开的会议。我之前一直谢绝成为同盟会的一员，公开的理由是，我不同意其男子选举权和无记名投票的纲领，对于后者我完全不赞同。我也不同意他们高举男子选举权的大旗，即使他们保证没有排斥妇女选举权的意思。因为一旦一个人没能立即执行并公开承认他对一个原则的立场，那么他应该全面遵守这个原则。我之所以特意提到这件事，是因为我那次的行为引起了托利党和托利党自由派媒体的极大不满，后来他们指责我在公众生活的考验中表现得过激和狂热。我不知道他们希望我怎么做，但如果他们知道我所做的事情尽可能地保全了他们，他们就有理由向我表示感谢。我相信在那个特殊的时刻，没有人能够做到这点。我也相信在那个时刻，除了格莱斯顿先生和布赖特先生，没有人有足够的影响力约束工人阶级，但他们都无能为力：格莱斯顿先生的理由很明显，而布赖特先生当时不在城里。

When, some time later, the Tory Government brought in a bill to prevent public meetings in the Parks, I not only spoke strongly in opposition to it, but formed one of a number of advanced Liberals, who, aided by the very late period of the Session, succeeded in defeating the Bill by what is called talking it out. It has not since been renewed.

一段时间以后，托利党政府提出了一个禁止在公园集会的议案，我不仅发言对此表示强烈反对，而且组织了一个由进步自由党人组成的团体，在会期即将结束的时候，通过所谓讨论拖延战术，成功地击败了这个议案。之后再没有人提起过。

On Irish affairs also I felt bound to take a decided part. I was one of the foremost in the deputation of members of Parliament who prevailed on Lord Derby to spare the life of the condemned Fenian insurgent, General Burke. The Church question was so vigorously handled by the leaders of the party, in the session of 1868, as to require no more from me than an emphatic adhesion; but the land question was by no means in so advanced a position: the superstitions of landlordism had up to that time been little challenged, especially in Parliament, and the backward state of the question, so far as concerned the Parliamentary mind, was evidenced by the extremely mild measure brought in by Lord Russell's Government in 1866, which nevertheless could not be carried. On that bill I delivered one of my most careful speeches, in which I attempted to lay down some of the principles of the subject, in a manner calculated less to stimulate friends, than to conciliate and convince opponents. The engrossing subject of Parliamentary Reform prevented either this bill, or one of a similar character brought in by Lord Derby's Government, from being carried through. They never got beyond the second reading. Meanwhile the signs of Irish disaffection had become much more decided; the demand for complete separation between the two countries had assumed a menacing aspect, and there were few who did not feel that if there was still any chance of reconciling Ireland to British connexion, it could only be by the adoption of much more thorough reforms in the territorial and social relations of the country, than had yet been contemplated. The time seemed to me to have come when it would be useful to speak out my whole mind; and the result was my pamphlet England and Ireland, which was written in the winter of 1867, and published shortly before the commencement of the session of 1868. The leading features of the pamphlet were, on the one hand, an argument to show the undesirableness, for Ireland as well as England, of separation between the countries, and on the other, a proposal for settling the land question by giving to the existing tenants a permanent tenure, at a fixed rent, to be assessed after due enquiry by the State.

在爱尔兰问题上，我同样感到有义务在其中起到决定性的作用。我是议员代表团的重要人物之一，说服德比勋爵放过了已被判刑的芬尼亚党暴动者伯克将军的性命。1868年会议期间，在教会问题上党魁们的处理态度十分积极，我只需要有力附和即可。土地问题从未取得如此大的进展。对地主所有制的盲目崇拜在当时几乎没被动摇，尤其是在议会中。而这个问题的滞后状态，就议会的思想来说，1866年罗素政府提出的极其温和的议案就可以证明，但这项议案还是未能通过。我就这个议案发表了极为谨慎的演说，我试图制定土地问题的一些原则，这样做不是为了激励朋友，而是为了安抚和说服对手。议会改革这个显赫的主题阻碍了这个议案，或者另一个德比勋爵政府提出的类似议案的通过。它们从未通过二读。同时，爱尔兰的不满迹象越来越明显，对两国完全分离的要求已经显现出了威胁性的一面，几乎所有人都觉得要想恢复爱尔兰和不列颠之间的关系，只有采纳比原来设想的更加彻底的国家领土和社会关系的改革。在我看来时机已经到来，现在把我全部想法讲出来应该有用。所以，我在1867年冬天写了小册子《英格兰和爱尔兰》，在1868年议会会期开始前不久出版。这本小册子的主要特色是，一方面表明两国分离对英格兰和爱尔兰都不合时宜，另一方面提出建议，给现有佃农永久的土地使用权来解决土地问题，由国家进行适当的调查后确定固定的地租。

The pamphlet was not popular, except in Ireland, as I did not expect it to be. But, if no measure short of that which I proposed would do full justice to Ireland, or afford a prospect of conciliating the mass of the Irish people, the duty of proposing it was imperative; while if, on the other hand, there was any intermediate course which had a claim to a trial, I well knew that to propose something which would be called extreme was the true way not to impede but to facilitate a more moderate experiment. It is most improbable that a measure conceding so much to the tenantry as Mr. Gladstone's Irish Land Bill, would have been proposed by a Government, or could have been carried through Parliament, unless the British public had been led to perceive that a case might be made, and perhaps a party formed, for a measure considerably stronger. It is the character of the British people, or at least of the higher and middle classes who pass muster for the British people, that to induce them to approve of any change, it is necessary that they should look upon it as a middle course: they think every proposal extreme and violent unless they hear of some other proposal going still farther, upon which their antipathy to extreme views may discharge itself. So it proved in the present instance; my proposal was condemned, but any scheme for Irish Land reform, short of mine, came to be thought moderate by comparison. I may observe that the attacks made on my plan usually gave a very incorrect idea of its nature. It was usually discussed as a proposal that the State should buy up the land and become the universal landlord; though in fact it only offered to each individual landlord this as an alternative, if he liked better to sell his estate than to retain it on the new conditions; and I fully anticipated that most landlords would continue to prefer the position of landowners to that of Government annuitants, and would retain their existing relation to their tenants, often on more indulgent terms than the full rents on which the compensation to be given them by Government would have been based. This and many other explanations I gave in a speech on Ireland, in the debate on Mr. Maguire21's Resolution, early in the session of 1868. A corrected report of this speech, together with my speech on Mr. Fortescue's Bill, has been published (not by me, but with my permission) in Ireland.

除了在爱尔兰，这本小册子并不受人欢迎，这在我的意料之中。但是如果除了我所建议的方法外，没有其他方法可以公正地解决爱尔兰问题，或者有安抚爱尔兰人民大众的愿望，那么我提出的建议就是必要的。另一方面，假如有折中的途径可以尝试，我很清楚，提出所谓极端的建议不是阻碍，而是促进产生一个更加温和的实验的正确途径。除非英国公众知道可能会出现一种采取更加强硬方法的情况，或者可能会组成一个更加强硬的政党，否则一个对佃户作出如此大让步的方法，例如格莱斯顿先生的《爱尔兰土地法案》，不大可能是由政府提出的，或者在议会获得通过。正是不列颠人的性格，或者至少是符合不列颠人要求的中上层阶级的性格，诱使他们同意改革的。而且必要的是，他们应当把它看作是一条中间路线。他们认为每个建议都是极端的，猛烈的，除非他们听到其他更极端、更猛烈的建议，他们对极端意见的反感才会自行消除。目前的情况证明了这一点，我的建议遭到谴责，但通过比较，其他任何关于爱尔兰土地改革的方案都被认为是温和的。我发现对我计划的攻击通常在本质上都是错误的观点。人们通常认为我的建议就是，国家应当买下土地进而成为全国土地的地主。但实际上我的建议只是为每个地主提供一种选择，假如在新的条件下他更愿意卖掉而不是保留土地。我充分预见到，大多数地主宁愿继续保留土地所有人的地位，而不愿从政府那里每年领取养老金。他们愿意以比全额地租更优厚的条件保持与佃户的现存关系，政府本可以基于这些全额地租给他们补偿。我早在1868年会议初期论马圭尔先生的决议案时，在一篇爱尔兰问题的演讲中说明了这一点，也作了其他的解释。这篇演说的修改稿，以及我评论福蒂斯丘先生议案的演说稿都已在爱尔兰出版（并非我自己出版，而是经过我允许）。

Another public duty, of a most serious kind, it was my lot to have to perform, both in and out of Parliament, during these years. A disturbance in Jamaica, provoked in the first instance by injustice, and exaggerated by rage and panic into a premeditated rebellion, had been the motive or excuse for taking hundreds of innocent lives by military violence, or by sentence of what were called courts martial, continuing for weeks after the brief disturbance had been put down; with many added atrocities of destruction of property, flogging women as well as men, and a great display of the brutal recklessness which generally prevails when fire and sword are let loose. The perpetrators of those deeds were defended and applauded in England by the same kind of people who had so long upheld negro slavery: and it seemed at first as if the British nation was about to incur the disgrace of letting pass without even a protest, excesses of authority as revolting as any of those for which, when perpetrated by the instruments of other governments, Englishmen can hardly find terms sufficient to express their abhorrence. After a short time, however, an indignant feeling was roused; a voluntary Association formed itself under the name of the Jamaica Committee, to take such deliberation and action as the case might admit of, and adhesions poured in from all parts of the country. I was abroad at the time, but I sent in my name to the Committee as soon as I heard of it, and took an active part in the proceedings from the time of my return. There was much more at stake than only justice to the Negroes, imperative as was that consideration. The question was, whether the British dependencies, and eventually, perhaps, Great Britain itself, were to be under the government of law, or of military license; whether the lives and persons of British subjects are at the mercy of any two or three officers however raw and inexperienced or reckless and brutal, whom a panicstricken Governor or other functionary may assume the right to constitute into a so-called Court Martial. This question could only be decided by an appeal to the tribunals; and such an appeal the Committee determined to make. Their determination led to a change in the Chairmanship of the Committee, as the Chairman, Mr. Charles Buxton22, thought it not unjust indeed, but inexpedient, to prosecute Governor Eyre23 and his principal subordinates in a criminal court: but a numerously attended General meeting of the Association having decided this point against him, Mr. Buxton withdrew from the Committee, though continuing to work in the cause, and I was, quite unexpectedly on my own part, proposed and elected Chairman. It became, in consequence, my duty to represent the Committee in the House of Commons, sometimes by putting questions to the Government, sometimes as the recipient of questions more or less provocative, addressed by individual members to myself; but especially as speaker in the important debate originated in the session of 1866, by Mr. Buxton: and the speech I then delivered is that which I should probably select as the best of my speeches in Parliament. For more than two years we carried on the combat, trying every avenue legally open to us, to the Courts of Criminal Justice. A bench of magistrates in one of the most Tory counties in England dismissed our case: we were more successful before the magistrates at Bow Street; which gave an opportunity to the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, Sir Alexander Cockburn24, for delivering his celebrated charge, which settled the law of the question in favour of liberty, as far as it is in the power of a judge's charge to settle it. There, however, our success ended, for the Old Bailey Grand Jury by throwing out our bill prevented the case from coming to trial. It was clear that to bring English functionaries to the bar of a criminal court for abuses of power committed against negroes and mulattoes, was not a popular proceeding with the English middle classes. We had, however, redeemed, so far as lay in us, the character of our country, by showing that there was at any rate a body of persons determined to use all the means which the law afforded to obtain justice for the injured. We had elicited from the highest criminal judge in the nation an authoritative declaration that the law was what we maintained it to be; and we had given an emphatic warning to those who might be tempted to similar guilt hereafter, that, though they might escape the actual sentence of a criminal tribunal, they were not safe against being put to some trouble and expense in order to avoid it. Colonial Governors and other persons in authority will have a considerable motive to stop short of such extremities in future.

这些年还有另一个十分重要的公共职责，是我必须承担起来的，不管是在议会内还是在议会外。牙买加发生的骚动一开始是由不公正行为引起的，后来由于愤怒和惊恐被夸大成有蓄谋的叛乱，这成为军警暴力和所谓军事法庭判决夺走成百上千条无辜性命的动机或借口。短暂的暴动被镇压后，骚乱又持续了几个星期，伴有很多毁坏财务、鞭打男女的暴行，到处都是大肆烧杀的野蛮场景。这些犯罪者的行径受到英国那些长期支持黑奴制的同类人的辩护和喝彩。起初，不列颠民族似乎将要遭受对当局令人作呕的暴行置之不理，甚至没有任何反抗的耻辱。如果是被其他政府所利用，那么英国人对它的憎恨确实无以言表。然而不久之后，一种愤慨的情绪被激起，人们自发组织起了名为牙买加委员会的协会，他们在形势允许的范围内进行商议，采取行动，来自全国各地的支持者蜂拥而入。我当时在国外，但是我一听到消息就报名申请加入，回国以后积极参加到他们的行动当中。这里有比公正地对待黑人更危急、更有必要考虑的问题。问题是不列颠的属地，也许最终还有大不列颠本身是在受法律的管理还是军事特权的管理。不列颠子民的生命和人格是否受到两三个既没经验又粗鲁的军官支配？一个惊慌失措的总督或者其他官吏是否可以行使权利，构建一个所谓的军事法庭？这个问题只有上诉到法庭才能解决，所以委员会决定上诉。他们的决心引起委员会主席的更换，因为原主席查尔斯·巴克斯顿先生认为向刑事法庭起诉艾尔总督及其主要属下并非不公正，而是失策的行为。然而，有许多人参加的委员会大会决定反对他的观点，最终巴克斯顿先生退出了委员会，但继续为这项事业工作。出乎我意料的是，我被提名当选为委员会主席。结果在下院代表这个委员会就成了我的责任。有时向政府提问，有时接受个别议员向我提出的或多或少有些挑衅的问题。特别是，作为1866年会期由巴克斯顿发起的一场重要辩论的发言者，我那时的演说也许是我在议会里最好的演说。在这两年多的时间里，我们一直在进行斗争，尝试每一条合法通向刑事法庭的道路。英格兰一个拥有最多托利党人的郡的法庭不受理我们的诉讼，但在鲍街法庭我们却取得了成功，这使王座法院的大法官亚历山大·科伯恩爵士有机会作出最著名的判决，就法官解决问题的权力来讲，他的判决解决了有利于自由的法律问题。但我们的成功就此结束了，因为中央刑事法院大陪审团撤销了我们的诉讼，使其最终未被受理。显然，向刑事法庭起诉英国官员对黑人和混血儿滥用职权的罪名并不受英国中层阶级的欢迎。但就我们而言，我们挽回了我们国家的声誉，表明我们在任何时候都有一群人决心利用法律提供的所有手段为受害人伸张正义。我们从国家最高刑事法庭得到权威性的宣言，宣布法律就是我们所坚持的东西。我们已经郑重警告那些以后可能被诱惑去犯类似罪行的人，虽然他们可能一时逃过刑事法庭的实际制裁，但是为了逃脱免不了会陷入麻烦并付出代价。殖民地总督和其他当权人士将来就有十足的理由避免这种困境。

As a matter of curiosity I kept some specimens of the abusive letters, almost all of them anonymous, which I received while these proceedings were going on. They are evidence of the sympathy felt with the brutalities in Jamaica by the brutal part of the population at home. They graduated from coarse jokes, verbal and pictorial, up to threats of assassination.

出于好奇，我收藏了几封在行动期间收到的辱骂信，大部分是匿名的。这些信是一些国内残暴人士同情牙买加暴行的证据，里边既有粗俗的文字和图片笑话，也有暗杀恐吓。

Among other matters of importance in which I took an active part, but which excited little interest in the public, two deserve particular mention. I joined with several other independent Liberals in defeating an Extradition Bill, introduced at the very end of the session of 1866, and by which, though surrender avowedly for political offences was not authorised, political refugees, if charged by a foreign government with acts which are necessarily incident to all attempts at insurrection, would have been surrendered to be dealt with by the criminal courts of the government against which they had rebelled: thus making the British Government an accomplice in the vengeance of foreign despotisms. The defeat of this proposal led to the appointment of a Select Committee (in which I was included) to examine and report on the whole subject of Extradition Treaties; and the result was that in the Extradition Act, which passed through Parliament after I had ceased to be a member, opportunity is given to any one whose extradition is demanded, of being heard before an English Court of justice to prove that the offence with which he is charged, is really political. The cause of European freedom has thus been saved from a serious misfortune, and our own country from a great iniquity. The other subject to be mentioned is the fight kept up by a body of advanced Liberals in the session of 1868, on the Bribery Bill of Mr. Disraeli's Government, in which I took a very active part. I had taken counsel with several of those who had applied their minds most carefully to the details of the subject—Mr. W. D. Christie, Serjeant Pulling, Mr. Chadwick25—as well as bestowed much thought of my own, for the purpose of framing such amendments and additional clauses as might make the Bill really effective against the numerous modes of corruption, direct and indirect, which might otherwise, as there was much reason to fear, be increased instead of diminished by the Reform Act. We also aimed at engrafting on the Bill, measures for diminishing the mischievous burthen of what are called the legitimate expenses of elections. Among our many amendments, was that of Mr. Fawcett26 for making the returning officer's expenses a charge on the rates, instead of on the candidates; another was the prohibition of paid canvassers, and the limitation of paid agents to one for each candidate; a third was the extension of the precautions and penalties against bribery, to municipal elections, which are well known to be not only a preparatory school for bribery at parliamentary elections, but an habitual cover for it. The Conservative Government, however, when once they had carried the leading provision of their Bill (for which I voted and spoke), the transfer of the jurisdiction in elections from the House of Commons to the Judges, made a determined resistance to all other improvements; and after one of our most important proposals, that of Mr. Fawcett, had actually obtained a majority, they summoned the strength of their party and threw out the clause in a subsequent stage. The Liberal party in the House was greatly dishonoured by the conduct of many of its members in giving no help whatever to this attempt to secure the necessary conditions of an honest representation of the people. With their large majority in the House they could have carried all the amendments, or better ones if they had better to propose. But it was late in the Session; members were eager to set about their preparations for the impending General Election: and while some (such as Sir Robert Anstruther27) honourably remained at their post, though rival candidates were already canvassing their constituency, a much greater number placed their electioneering interests before their public duty. Many Liberals also looked with indifference on legislation against bribery, thinking that it merely diverted public interest from the Ballot, which they considered, very mistakenly as I expect it will turn out, to be a sufficient, and the only, remedy. From these causes our fight, though kept up with great vigour for several nights, was wholly unsuccessful, and the practices which we sought to render more difficult, prevailed more widely than ever in the first General Election held under the new electoral law.

在我积极参加却很少引起公众兴趣的其他重要事情中，有两件事特别值得一提。我和其他几个独立的自由党人一起击败了1866年会期结束前提出的《引渡法案》。法案中规定，虽然引渡政治犯未得到公开授权，但如果政治避难者被外国政府指控有必然引发暴动的行为，就要被引渡去他们反叛政府的刑事法庭听受处分。这使大不列颠政府成为外国专制政府报复的帮凶。这个议案的失败使得特别委员会（包括我在内）成立，以审查和报告引渡条约的全部内容。结果是在我离开议会以后，议会通过了《引渡法》，使任何被要求引渡的人都有机会在英国法庭前证明他所受的指控是真正政治性的。欧洲的自由事业由此而免受一场不幸，我们的国家也幸免于一次严重的邪恶行为。另外需要提到的是，在1868年的会期中，一批自由党进步人士坚持就迪斯累里政府提出的《贿赂法案》进行斗争，我也积极参与其中。我与几位对这个问题的细节做过十分认真研究的人——克里斯蒂先生、普林律师和查德威克先生——商议并提出了很多我自己的想法，目的是制定修正案和增加条款，使《法案》真正有效地防范许多直接和间接的贿赂行为，否则我们有充分的理由担心，贿赂行为可能因《改良法》增加而非减少。我们还致力于在法案中加入其他措施，以减少所谓的竞选合法开支这种有害负担。在许多修正案当中，有一个是由福西特先生提出的，规定选举检察人的费用应当由税收而非候选人承担。另外禁止有偿拉选票，以及限制每位候选人只有一位带薪代理人。第三条是将防范和惩罚贿赂行为扩展到市级选举。众所周知，市级选举不但是议会选举贿赂的预备学校，也一贯是包庇贿赂的地方。然而，保守政府一旦通过了法案中的主要条款（我曾投票支持并发言），把选举管辖权从下院移至法院，他们就会坚决反对所有其他的改进。福西特先生提出了一个最重要的提议，实际上已获得了大多数人的赞成，之后他们号召党内力量在下一阶段否决这个提议。下院的自由党人因其许多成员的行为深感耻辱，因为他们对确保人们诚实选举必要条件的尝试未曾给过任何帮助。凭他们在下院占有的绝大多数席位，他们本可以通过所有的修正案，假如有更好的议案也会通过。但会期已晚，议员们已在迫切地准备即将到来的大选。虽然几位议员（比如罗伯特·安斯特拉瑟爵士）仍令人尊敬地坚守着岗位，而竞争对手已经开始游说他们选区的选民，但他们中的大多数人把个人选举的利益放在公共责任之上。很多自由党人也对反贿赂立法漠然处之，认为它仅仅是将公众注意从无记名投票转移过来，他们把无记名投票视为一种充分且唯一的补救方法，我想将来肯定会证明这是十分错误的。由于这些原因，我们虽然斗志昂扬地坚持战斗了几个晚上，但战斗还是彻底失败了。我们曾试图增加贿赂的难度，而在新选举法实施后举行的第一届大选中，贿赂却比以前更加猖獗。

In the general debates on Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill, my participation was limited to the one speech already mentioned; but I made the Bill an occasion for bringing the two greatest improvements which remain to be made in representative government formally before the House and the nation. One of them was Personal, or as it is called with equal propriety, Proportional Representation. I brought this under the consideration of the House, by an expository and argumentative speech on Mr. Hare's plan; and subsequently I was active in support of the very imperfect substitute for that plan, which, in a small number of constituencies, Parliament was induced to adopt. This poor makeshift had scarcely any recommendation, except that it was a partial recognition of the evil which it did so little to remedy. As such however it was attacked by the same fallacies, and required to be defended on the same principles, as a really good measure; and its adoption in a few parliamentary elections, as well as the subsequent introduction of what is called the Cumulative Vote in the elections for the London School Board, have had the good effect of converting the equal claim of all electors to a proportional share in the representation, from a subject of merely speculative discussion, into a question of practical politics, much sooner than would otherwise have been the case.

在对迪斯累里《改良法案》的一般辩论中，我的参与仅仅限于上文提到的那篇演说，但我借机把代议制政府尚需做的两项重大改进措施正式摆到了下院和全国人民面前。一个是个人代表制，或者同样可以恰当地称为比例代表制。我通过就黑尔先生的方案发表阐述性和议论性的演说提出这项措施让下院考虑。之后我积极支持一项代替黑尔方案但很不完善的方案，这个方案在少数选区被议会采纳。这个可怜的权宜之计除了部分承认它不能根治的弊病外，几乎没有可取之处。但即便如此，它还是受到同样谬误的攻击，需要用同样的原则保护，就像真正良好的措施那样。它在一些议会选举中被采纳，同样伦敦教育委员会选举中也引进了所谓的累计投票制。它把所有选举人的平等权利转变为代表制中的按比例分配名额，把纯粹的理论探讨转变成实际的政治问题，效果很好。如果没有实施这个方案，就不会产生如此立竿见影的效果。

This assertion of my opinions on Personal Representation cannot be credited with any considerable or visible amount of practical result. It was otherwise with the other motion which I made in the form of an amendment to the Reform Bill, and which was by far the most important, perhaps the only really important public service I performed in the capacity of a Member of Parliament: a motion to strike out the words which were understood to limit the electoral franchise to males, and thereby to admit to the suffrage all women who, as householders or otherwise, possess the qualification required of male electors. For women not to make their claim to the suffrage, at the time when the elective franchise was being largely extended, would have been to abjure the claim altogether; and a movement on the subject was begun in 1866, when I presented a petition for the suffrage, signed by a considerable number of distinguished women. But it was as yet uncertain whether the proposal would obtain more than a few stray votes in the House: and when, after a debate in which the speakers on the contrary side were conspicuous by their feebleness, the votes recorded in favour of the motion amounted to 73—made up by pairs and tellers to above 80—the surprise was general, and the encouragement great: the greater, too, because one of those who voted for the motion was Mr. Bright, a fact which could only be attributed to the impression made on him by the debate, as he had previously made no secret of his non-concurrence in the proposal. The time appeared to my daughter, Miss Helen Taylor, to have come for forming a Society for the extension of the suffrage to women. The existence of the Society is due to my daughter's initiative; its constitution was planned entirely by her, and she was the soul of the movement during its first years, though delicate health and superabundant occupation made her decline to be a member of the Executive Committee. Many distinguished members of parliament, professors, and others, and some of the most eminent women of whom the country can boast, became members of the Society, a large proportion either directly or indirectly through my daughter's influence, she having written the greater number, and all the best, of the letters by which adhesion was obtained, even when those letters bore my signature. In two remarkable instances, those of Miss Nightingale28 and Miss Mary Carpenter29, the reluctance those ladies had at first felt to come forward (for it was not on their part difference of opinion) was overcome by appeals written by my daughter though signed by me. Associations for the same object were formed in various local centres, Manchester, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, and others which have done much valuable work for the cause. All the Societies take the title of branches of the National Society for Women's Suffrage; but each has its own governing body, and acts in complete independence of the others.

我支持个人代表制，并不是因为它会产生相当多的或明显的实际效果。相反，我提出的另一个动议就不同，它是《改良法案》的一个修正案，是我做议员期间履行的最重要的，也许是唯一重要的公职。这项动议去掉了被理解成选举权仅限于男性的措辞，从而允许所有拥有男性选民资格的妇女，无论是否为户主，都有选举权。当选举权大规模增加时，不要求选举权的妇女就相当于完全公开放弃这个权利。这个运动开始于1866年，我呈递了一份由许多杰出妇女签名的争取选举权的请愿书。但不确定的是这个提议能否获得下院议员们零星的几张赞成票。当辩论过后，反对方的发言显然软弱无力，所以赞成动议的票数达到73票。加上不投票的议员和计票员，总数达80多票。这在我们意料之外，也因此令人大受鼓舞。更鼓舞我们的是这些投赞成票的人当中有布赖特先生，这只能归因于这场辩论对他产生的影响，因为他以前毫不掩饰地表示不同意这个提议。这次看来是我的女儿，海伦·泰勒小姐组织了一个社团来扩大妇女选举权。这个社团是由我女儿创办的，章程也完全是由她设计的，虽然因为身体孱弱加上工作缠身，她谢绝成为执行委员会的一员，但运动的第一年她仍是活动的灵魂。很多尊贵的议员、教授及其他人，还有一些国家引以为傲的出色女性也成为社团成员，这其中很大的一部分是受我女儿直接或间接的影响。她写了大量的信件，并以此赢得了支持，甚至有些信件上署了我的名字。有两件事让我记忆犹新，分别与南丁格尔小姐和玛丽·卡彭特小姐有关，她们起初都不愿意加入（因为这和她们的意见相左）。后来我女儿以我的名义写了几封请求信，才得到她们的同意。其他的一些地区中心也以相同的目的成立了协会，包括曼彻斯特、爱丁堡、伯明翰、布里斯托尔、格拉斯哥以及其他一些为这项事业作出卓著贡献的城市。所有的社团都取名为“国家妇女选举权协会”分会，但每个分会都有自己的管理机构，以完全独立的方式运作。

I believe I have mentioned all that is worth remembering of my proceedings in the House. But their enumeration, even if complete, would give but an inadequate idea of my occupations during that period, and especially of the time taken up by correspondence. For many years before my election to Parliament, I had been continually receiving letters from strangers, mostly addressed to me as a writer on philosophy, and either propounding difficulties or communicating thoughts on subjects connected with logic or political economy. In common, I suppose, with all who are known as political economists, I was a recipient of all the shallow theories and absurd proposals by which people are perpetually endeavouring to shew the way to universal wealth and happiness by some artful reorganisation of the currency. When there were signs of sufficient intelligence in the writers to make it worth while attempting to put them right, I took the trouble to point out their errors, until the growth of my correspondence made it necessary to dismiss such persons with very brief answers. Many, however, of the communications I received were more worthy of attention than these, and in some, over-sights of detail were pointed out in my writings, which I was thus enabled to correct. Correspondence of this sort naturally multiplied with the multiplication of the subjects on which I wrote, especially those of a metaphysical character. But when I became a member of Parliament, I began to receive letters on private grievances and on every imaginable subject that related to any kind of public affairs, however remote from my knowledge or pursuits. It was not my constituents in Westminster who laid this burthen on me: they kept with remarkable fidelity the understanding on which I had consented to serve. I received, indeed, now and then an application from some ingenuous youth to procure for him a small Government appointment; but these were few, and how simple and ignorant the writers were, was shown by the fact that the applications came in about equally whichever party was in power. My invariable answer was, that it was contrary to the principles on which I was elected to ask favours of any Government. But, on the whole, hardly any part of the country gave me less trouble than my own constituents. The general mass of correspondence, however, swelled into an oppressive burthen. At this time, and thenceforth, a great proportion of all my letters (including many which found their way into the newspapers) were not written by me but by my daughter; at first merely from her willingness to help in disposing of a mass of letters greater than I could get through without assistance, but afterwards because I thought the letters she wrote superior to mine, and more so in proportion to the difficulty and importance of the occasion. Even those which I wrote myself were generally much improved by her, as is also the case with all the more recent of my prepared speeches, of which, and of some of my published writings, not a few passages, and those the most successful, were hers.

我相信我已经提到了我在下院期间所有值得回忆的事情。但这些描述即便是完整的，仍然不能让人们充分了解我那段时期的工作，尤其是通信花去的那段时间。在我入选议会前的那几年，我经常收到陌生人的来信，大多都称我为哲学方面的作家，他们就逻辑学或者政治经济学方面，要么和我探讨些难懂的问题，要么与我交流想法。总的来说，我猜想我和所有著名的政治学家一样，收到了很多包含肤浅理论和荒谬提议的来信，通过这些来信，人们以巧妙的重组货币的方式，不断努力展示通往全民富裕和幸福的道路。当写信人表现出足够的智慧，还有纠正的可能时，我就会不辞辛劳地指出他们的错误，直到后来我的通信数量的增长使我不得不用简短的话回复这些人。但是我收到的许多来信中很多比这些更值得关注，其中有些指出我作品中忽略的细节，使我能够改正。这种通信自然随着我写作主题的增加而增加，尤其是那些关于形而上学的主题。但自从我成为议员之后，我开始收到私人的投诉信，以及有关公众事务能想到的问题的信件，尽管很多与我的知识和追求相去甚远。带给我这些负担的并不是我在威斯敏斯特的选民，他们对我同意效忠的事业保持着相当的忠诚。事实上，我不时收到一个天真的年轻人写来的申请信，要我帮他在政府中谋得一官半职。无论是哪个政党执政，我都会收到这样的来信，虽然这种信件很少，但可以表明写信人是多么的单纯无知。我不变的回答是，请求政府的帮助与我当选的原则背道而驰。但总的来说，我自己的选民带给我的麻烦少于全国其他地区。然而，越来越多的来信成为我沉重的负担。那时以及从那以后，我的大部分回信（包括登报回复）都由我的女儿代笔。她的初衷只是帮助我处理大量的超过我个人回复能力的信件，但后来我发现她回信的水平比我的高，尤其是她能作出与当时的难度和重要性相应的回复。即使我自己写的信也基本交给她修改，就像我最近准备的演讲稿一样，我的一些出版作品，不仅仅是其中几段，就连最成功的那部分都是她的杰作。

While I remained in Parliament my work as an author was unavoidably limited to the recess. During that time I wrote (besides the pamphlet on Ireland already mentioned), the Essay on Plato published in the Edinburgh Review, and reprinted in the third volume of Dissertations and Discussions; and the address which conformably to custom I delivered to the University of St. Andrew's, whose students had done me the honour of electing me to the office of Rector. In this Discourse I gave expression to many thoughts and opinions which had been accumulating in me through life, respecting the various studies which belong to a liberal education, their uses and influences, and the mode in which they should be pursued to render those influences most beneficial. The position taken up, vindicating the high educational value alike of the old classic and the new scientific studies, on even stronger grounds than are urged by most of their advocates, and insisting that it is only the stupid inefficiency of the usual teaching which makes those studies be regarded as competitors instead of allies, was, I think, calculated, not only to aid and stimulate the improvement which has happily commenced in the national institutions for higher education, but to diffuse juster ideas than we often find, even in highly educated men, on the conditions of the highest mental cultivation.

在议会工作期间，我的写作不可避免地被限制在休会期间进行。那段时间我写了《论柏拉图》（还有刚才提到的关于爱尔兰问题的小册子），发表在《爱丁堡评论》上，后来收在《论述和讨论》的第三卷中。我很荣幸地被圣安德鲁斯大学的学生选为校长，并按照惯例发表了演说。在这篇演说中，我就一生中积累的有关自由教育的许多学科发表了很多想法和见解，讲到了它们的用处和影响，以及为使这些学科发挥最有益的影响应当采取的方法。为证明旧的古典学科以及新的科学学科有同样高的教育价值，我采取的立场比大多数宣传者极力主张的更加坚实，认为只因平常教导法的愚蠢无能才使得这些学科被人视为竞争者而不是同盟者。我认为这不仅有助于促进在全国高等院校中已顺利展开的改革，而且能够在最崇高思想的培养下，在受过高等教育的人中间传播比我们平常接触到的更公正的思想。

During this period also I commenced (and completed soon after I had left Parliament) the performance of a duty to philosophy and to the memory of my father, by preparing and publishing an edition of the Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind, with notes bringing up the doctrines of that admirable book to the latest improvements in science and in speculation. This was a joint undertaking: the psychological notes being furnished in about equal proportions by Mr. Bain and myself, while Mr. Grote supplied some valuable contributions on points in the history of philosophy incidentally raised, and Dr. Andrew Findlater30 supplied the deficiencies in the book which had been occasioned by the imperfect philological knowledge of the time when it was written. Having been originally published at a time when the current of metaphysical speculation ran in a quite opposite direction to the psychology of Experience and Association, the "Analysis" had not obtained the amount of immediate success which it deserved, though it had made a deep impression on many individual minds, and had largely contributed, through those minds, to create that more favourable atmosphere for the Association Psychology of which we now have the benefit. Admirably adapted for a class-book of the Experience Metaphysics, it only required to be enriched, and in some cases corrected, by the results of more recent labours in the same school of thought, to stand, as it now does, in company with Mr. Bain's treatises, at the head of the systematic works on Analytic Psychology.

在这段时间里，我也开始履行我对哲学的责任（这在我离开议会后很快得以完成），也为了纪念我的父亲，我准备并出版了《人类心灵现象分析》的一个版本，并作了注释，使这本出色的作品跟上了科学和理论方面的最新进展。这是一个合作的项目：心理学的注释由贝恩先生和我平均分担，格罗特先生对书中附带提及的哲学历史问题作出了有价值的贡献，而安德鲁·芬勒特先生弥补了写书时由于不完善的哲学知识造成的不足。该书第一次发表时正值形而上学理论的思潮与经验心理学和联想心理学背道而驰的时候，所以它没能立即获得应有的成功，但还是给很多人留下了深刻的印象，并通过这些人营造出一种更有利于联想心理学的气氛，到现在我们仍从中受益良多。这本书很适合做学习经验形而上学的课本，只需扩充些相同思想流派的最新研究成果，或在某些情况下只需对其加以更正，它就可以像现在这样，和贝恩先生的专著一起，成为分析心理学系统著作的佼佼者。

In the autumn of 1868 the Parliament which passed the Reform Act was dissolved, and at the new election for Westminster I was thrown out; not to my surprise, nor, I believe, to that of my principal supporters, though in the few days preceding the election they had become more sanguine than before. That I should not have been elected at all would not have required any explanation; what excites curiosity is that I should have been elected the first time, or, having been elected then, should have been defeated afterwards. But the efforts made to defeat me were far greater on the second occasion than on the first. For one thing, the Tory Government was now struggling for existence, and success in any contest was of more importance to them. Then, too, all persons of Tory feelings were far more embittered against me individually than on the previous occasion; many who had at first been either favourable or indifferent, were vehemently opposed to my re-election. As I had shown in my political writings that I was aware of the weak points in democratic opinions, some Conservatives, it seems, had not been without hopes of finding me an opponent of democracy: as I was able to see the Conservative side of the question, they presumed that, like them, I could not see any other side. Yet if they had really read my writings they would have known that after giving full weight to all that appeared to me well grounded in the arguments against democracy, I unhesitatingly decided in its favour, while recommending that it should be accompanied by such institutions as were consistent with its principle and calculated to ward off its inconveniences: one of the chief of these remedies being Proportional Representation, on which scarcely any of the Conservatives gave me any support. Some Tory expectations appear to have been founded on the approbation I had expressed of plural voting, under certain conditions: and it has been surmised that the suggestion of this sort made in one of the resolutions which Mr. Disraeli introduced into the House preparatory to his Reform Bill (a suggestion which meeting with no favour he did not press), may have been occasioned by what I had written on the point: but if so, it was forgotten that I had made it an express condition that the privilege of a plurality of votes should be annexed to education, not to property, and even so, had approved of it only on the supposition of universal suffrage. How utterly inadmissible such plural voting would be under the suffrage given by the present Reform Act, is proved, to any who could otherwise doubt it, by the very small weight which the working classes are found to possess in elections, even under the law which gives no more votes to any one elector than to any other.

1868年秋天，通过《改良法》的议会解散了，在新一届威斯敏斯特选举中我竞选失利，这并没让我吃惊，我相信我的主要支持者们也不会吃惊，虽然在接下来几天的选举中他们抱着更大的希望。如果我从未当选也就无需解释，让人好奇的是我第一次当选了，或者已经当选，但后来又落选了。但是第二次他们为了打败我所作的努力远远比第一次多。一方面，托利党政府正在为继续当选努力，在任何竞选中的胜利对他们来说都很重要。另外，所有同情托利党的人对我个人的怨恨也比上一届多很多。许多原来对我当选不置可否的人，现在都激烈地反对我再次当选。因为我在很多政治作品中表明自己已经意识到了民主见解的弱点，一些保守派人士似乎希望把我当作民主制度的敌人，因为我可以从保守党的角度去看待问题，他们就断定我像他们一样看不到其他的方面。但如果他们真的读过我的作品，他们就会知道在强调了所有我认为有充分证据支持的反对民主的观点后，我毫不犹豫地作出了有利于民主的论断，并且建议民主应当通过符合其原则并能去除其不便的制度来实现。其中一个主要的解决方法就是比例代表制，但保守党几乎没有人支持这个建议。一些托利党人的期待似乎是建立在我对多选区投票权认可的前提上的。人们推测，这个建议是迪斯累里在准备他的《改良法案》时向下院提出的决议案中的一个（没有人支持他的建议，他也没有施加压力），这可能是由我就这个问题所写的文章引起的。但假如是这样，人们忘记了我的建议还有一个明确的条件，那就是一人多选区的特权附加的是关于教育程度而不是财产状况的条件，即便如此，我只是在假定普选权的情况下才同意的。在目前《改良法》规定的选举制度下，这种多选区投票权是不能接受的。怀疑这一点的人，只要看看工人阶级在选举中所占的如此小的分量就会明白，即使法律规定一人只能投一票。

While I thus was far more obnoxious to the Tory interest, and to many Conservative Liberals than I had formerly been, the course I pursued in Parliament had by no means been such as to make Liberals generally at all enthusiastic in my support. It has already been mentioned, how large a proportion of my prominent appearances had been on questions on which I differed from most of the Liberal party or about which they cared little, and how few occasions there had been on which the line I took was such as could lead them to attach any great value to me as an organ of their opinions. I had moreover done things which had excited, in many minds, a personal prejudice against me. Many were offended by what they called the persecution of Mr. Eyre: and still greater offence was taken at my sending a subscription to the election expenses of Mr. Bradlaugh31. Having refused to be at any expense for my own election, and having had all its expenses defrayed by others, I felt under a peculiar obligation to subscribe in my turn where funds were deficient for candidates whose election was desirable. I accordingly sent subscriptions to nearly all the working class candidates, and among others to Mr. Bradlaugh. He had the support of the working classes; having heard him speak, I knew him to be a man of ability, and he had proved that he was the reverse of a demagogue, by placing himself in strong opposition to the prevailing opinion of the democratic party on two such important subjects as Malthusianism and Personal Representation. Men of this sort, who, while sharing the democratic feelings of the working classes, judged political questions for themselves, and had courage to assert their individual convictions against popular opposition, were needed, as it seemed to me, in Parliament, and I did not think that Mr. Bradlaugh's anti-religious opinions (even though he had been intemperate in the expression of them) ought to exclude him. In subscribing, however, to his election, I did what would have been highly imprudent if I had been at liberty to consider only the interests of my own reelection; and, as might be expected, the utmost possible use, both fair and unfair, was made of this act of mine to stir up the electors of Westminster against me. To these various causes, combined with an unscrupulous use of the usual pecuniary and other influences on the side of my Tory competitor, while none were used on my side, it is to be ascribed that I failed at my second election after having succeeded at the first. No sooner was the result of the election known than I received three or four invitations to become a candidate for other constituencies, chiefly counties; but even if success could have been expected, and this without expense, I was not disposed to deny myself the relief of returning to private life. I had no cause to feel humiliated at my rejection by the electors; and if I had, the feeling would have been far outweighed by the numerous expressions of regret which I received from all sorts of persons and places, and in a most marked degree from those members of the Liberal party in Parliament with whom I had been accustomed to act.

与原来相比，我现在更加危及托利党人的利益，也更令保守的自由派人士不愉快，我在议会中所追求的事业绝对不会让多数自由派人士热情地支持我。这之前我已经提到，我出色的登台演讲大多是论述与多数自由派见解不同的观点或他们极少关心的问题，我采取的方针路线很少能引起他们的重视，并使他们把我当作自己意见的喉舌。另外我做的事情引起了很多人对我的个人偏见。很多人因为他们所谓的迫害艾尔先生的事件而大怒，令他们更加愤怒的是我捐了一些钱作为布雷德洛先生的竞选费用。我自己竞选时没有花费任何费用，几乎都由他人支付，我感到有特殊的义务用捐款来回报那些缺少资金但有望当选的候选人。所以我几乎给所有工人阶级候选人捐款，尤其是对布雷德洛先生。他受到工人阶级的支持，我听过他的演讲，认定他是有能力之人，在马尔萨斯主义和个人代表制这两个重要问题上，他强烈反对当时流行的民主党意见，证明了自己不是蛊惑民心之人。这样一个既有劳动阶级民主情感，自己判断政治问题，又有勇气逆流而上主张个人信念的人，在我看来是议会需要的人物。我认为不应当因为布雷德洛反对宗教的见解而把他排除在议会之外（虽然他曾经言辞激烈地表达过这样的见解）。如果我只考虑自己再次当选的利益，那为他的竞选捐款是十分鲁莽的。不出所料，很多人对我的这个举动大加利用，无论公正与否，来煽动威斯敏斯特选区的投票者反对我。基于这种种原因，加上我的托利党竞争者大肆利用惯用的金钱手段和其他影响力，而我却没有这么做，我在第一次竞选胜利后，第二次却失败了。竞选结果公布后不久，我就收到了三四封信，邀请我做其他选区的候选人（主要是郡级）。但即便有成功的希望，即便可以不用承担费用，我也不想摒弃让自己享受回归个人生活的轻松。我已没有理由因为选民对我的反对而感到耻辱。假如我真的有，这种感觉也远远不如我从各界人士和各地收到的无数慰问信重要，尤其是不如收到那些我惯于合作的自由党议员们的慰问信重要。

Since that time little has occurred which there is need to commemorate in this place. I returned to my old pursuits and to the enjoyment of a country life in the South of Europe, alternating twice a year with a residence of some weeks or months in the neighbourhood of London. I have written various articles in periodicals (chiefly in my friend Mr. Morley's Fortnightly Review), have made a small number of speeches on public occasions, especially at the meetings of the Women's Suffrage Society, have published The Subjection of Women, written some years before, with some additions by my daughter and myself, and have commenced the preparation of matter for future books, of which it will be time to speak more particularly if I live to finish them. Here therefore, for the present, this memoir may close.

从那以后，几乎没有发生什么事情值得我在此记录。我重拾旧趣，回到欧洲南部享受田园生活，每年轮流两次在伦敦附近住上几周或几个月。我为期刊写了许多文章（主要发表在我朋友莫利先生的《双周评论》上），在公共场合，特别是在妇女投票权协会的会议上发表过为数不多的几次演说，我女儿和我把几年前写的《论妇女的从属地位》增加了一些内容后出版，并开始为以后出书准备资料。如果我在有生之年能写完这些新作品的话，那还有机会再作说明。因此，这本自传到这里可以结束了。

(1)限定继承权，即对被继承人生前所欠债务负有限清偿责任的继承权。

(2) 法国“二月革命”，爆发于1848年2月22日。这次革命是19世纪上半叶法国经济、政治和思想发展的必然结果，是封建主义与资本主义的矛盾、压迫民族与被压迫民族的矛盾尖锐化的必然结果。

(3) 1848年1月，欧洲革命首先爆发于意大利，接着法国爆发了二月革命。为了推翻封建统治，实现国家统一，奥地利首都维也纳和普鲁士首都柏林在3月先后爆发了革命。在维也纳革命的影响下，匈牙利、捷克和罗马尼亚爆发了民族独立运动，革命烈火遍及欧洲。

(4) 1851年12月2日，路易·波拿巴发动了政变，结束了法兰西第二共和国，建立了专制体制。它是欧洲除了沙皇制度以外的又一个反动势力堡垒，成了国际冲突和军事冒险的政策源地。

(5) 爱德华·乔治·杰弗里·史密斯－斯坦利（1799—1869），英国保守党领袖和第32、35、38任英国首相。他在1844—1851年间被称为斯坦利勋爵。

(6) 朱庇特神庙，古罗马的主神殿。

(7) 阿维尼翁，法国东南部城市，沃克吕兹省首府。在罗讷河畔，南距迪朗斯河和罗讷河汇合处四公里。

(8) 圣西门主义者，主张空想社会主义的人。该学说的创始人是法国哲学家、经济学家圣西门（1760—1825）。

(9) 裴斯泰洛齐（1746—1827），瑞士教育家。

(10) 威廉·冯·洪堡特（1767—1835），德国语言学家、教育改革家。

(11) 乔赛亚·沃伦（1798—1874），美国的个人无政府主义者、发明家和作家。他被广泛地视为美国的第一名无政府主义者。

(12) 詹姆斯·加思·马歇尔（1802—1873），英国政治家。

(13) 本杰明·迪斯累里（1804—1881），英国首相、保守党领袖、作家，写过小说和政论作品。

(14) 亚历山大·贝恩（1818—1903），英国心理学家、哲学家、教育学家。

(15) 约翰·埃利奥特·凯恩斯（1823—1875），英国庸俗经济学家。他在美国南北战争时期写的《奴隶劳力》，揭露了对奴隶残酷使用和奴隶从事原始劳动的情形，但作为经济学家，他只能描写表面的现象。

(16) 温德尔·菲利普斯（1811—1884），美国废奴主义者、雄辩家。

(17) 约翰·布赖特（1811—1889），英国政界人士、政治经济学家。

(18) 威廉·汉密尔顿爵士（1788—1856），苏格兰形而上学者。

(19) 芬尼亚组织，19世纪中叶著名的爱尔兰反英统治组织。

(20) 约翰·罗素（1792—1878），辉格党自由改革派的主要人物，曾任英国首相。

(21) 约翰·弗朗西斯·马圭尔（1815—1872），爱尔兰政治家、著名的记者。曾任科克市市长，并于1841年创立了《科克考察家报》。

(22) 查尔斯·巴克斯顿（1823—1871），英国啤酒生产商、慈善家、作家和议员。

(23) 爱德华·约翰·艾尔（1815—1901），英国人、澳洲大陆拓荒者、殖民主义者、有争议的牙买加总督。

(24) 亚历山大·詹姆斯·埃德蒙·科伯恩爵士（1802—1880），英国政治家、律师、大法官。

(25) 埃德温·查德威克（1800—1890），英国社会改革家，因改良《济贫法》而著称。

(26) 亨利·福西特（1833—1884），英国政治家、经济学家，著有《政治经济学手册》。

(27) 罗伯特·安斯特拉瑟爵士（1834—1866），苏格兰政治家。

(28) 弗洛伦斯·南丁格尔（1820—1910），护理学先驱、护士教育创始人。

(29) 玛丽·卡彭特（1807—1877），英国著名的教育学家、社会改革家。

(30) 安德鲁·芬勒特（1810—1885），苏格兰编辑，编纂《钱伯斯百科全书》。

(31) 查尔斯·布雷德洛（1833—1891），19世纪英国著名政治活动家、无神论者，于1866年建立国家世俗协会。