can be enjoyed by the few alone; and that the conditions under which alone the few can enjoy them disturb the conditions of all happiness for the many.  The general good, therefore, gives us at once a test by which such kinds of happiness can be condemned.  But to eliminate these will by no means leave us a residue of virtue; for these so far from being co-extensive with moral evil, do in reality lie only on the borders of it; and the condemnation attached to them is a legal rather than a moral one.  It is based, that is, not so much on the kind of happiness itself as on the circumstances under which we are at present obliged to seek it.  Thus the practice of seduction may be said to be condemned sufficiently by the misery brought by it to its victims, and its victims’ families.  But suppose the victims are willing, and the families complacent, this ground of condemnation goes; though in the eye of the moralist, matters in this last will be far worse than in the former.  It is therefore quite a mistake to say that the kind of happiness which it is the end of life to realise is defined or narrowed down appreciably by the fact that it is a general end.  Vice can be enjoyed in common, just as well as virtue; nor if wisely regulated will it exhaust the tastes that it appeals to.  Regulated with equal skill, and with equal far-sightedness, it will take its place side by side with virtue; nor will sociology or social morality give us any reason for preferring the one to the other.

We may observe accordingly, that if happiness of some certain kind be the moral test, what Professor Huxley calls ’social morality’—­the rule that is, for producing the negative conditions of happiness, it is not in itself morality at all.  It may indeed become so, when the consciousness that we are conforming to it becomes one of the factors of our own personal happiness.  It then suffers a kind of apotheosis.  It is taken up into ourselves, and becomes part and parcel of our own personal morality.  But it then becomes quite a different matter, as we shall see very shortly; and even then it supplies us with but a very small part of the answer.

Thus far what has been made plain is this.  General, or social happiness, unless explained farther, is simply for moral purposes an unmeaning phrase.  It evades the whole question we are asking; for happiness is no more differentiated by saying that it is general, than food is by saying that everyone at a table is eating it; or than a language is by saying that every one in a room is talking it.  The social happiness of all of us means nothing but the personal happiness of each of us; and if social happiness have any single meaning—­in other words, if it be a test of morals—­it must postulate a personal happiness of some hitherto unexplained kind.  Else sociology will be subsidiary to nothing but individual license; general law will be but the protection of individual lawlessness; and the completest social