to which, as we have seen, scarcely a step can be taken in Practice or Conduct.

Whether or not a new name be assigned, and whether the subject matter itself be relegated to Logic or to Ethics or be discussed apart, the main topics with which we should be thus concerned may be readily indicated. They may be summed up by saying that they comprise the pure Theory of Rules of Action, and of the processes of applying such rules in Conduct generally. What, for instance, is the nature and function of a Rule of Action, considered apart from all reference to the ultimate End at which it is aimed, and to the motives which incite us to follow it? What are the principal subdivisions of such rules, and are they all alike truly general rules? Are they equally relevant to the individual agent and to the class to which he is assigned? Can any test be furnished to decide when appeal should be made to a rule, and when the agent should act as a solitary individual? And as regards the resort to Hypotheses; what are their functions? And what the limits of their admissibility when introduced into speculations upon social phenomena? Such questions as these must always, as occasional problems, have occupied the attention of the thinker; and also, as practical difficulties, have impeded the path of the humblest agent. But their interest and importance appear to be on the increase. For as the range of Science is enlarged, and its accuracy and certainty are improved, the more numerous are the occasions on which rational conduct must appeal to its conclusions, and the more precise the answers which we expect it to furnish.

It is in Ethics that such topics have hitherto chiefly claimed attention, but their scope is far wider than the limits conventionally assigned to Ethics; being in fact co-extensive with Conduct generally. Precisely similar difficulties recur in the applications of every science which deals with human conduct: prominently, for instance, in those of Political Economy, of Jurisprudence, of Statistics, of Sociology, and in the speculations of socialists and reformers in general. In every one of these studies we meet with indications, so to say, of a missing science. This is not so much shown by the absence of agreement about facts of detail, for plain men will always find that they disagree here; nor by disputes about ultimate principles, for thinkers

will never abandon their immemorial rights there; but rather in the general lack of any commonly recognized body of axiomata media, or middle propositions. Within this limited range it does not seem unreasonable to hope that the majority of human minds, which after all much resemble each other, should in course of time come into fairly close agreement. The remarks in this chapter are designed to indicate the principal directions in which this agreement is still lacking, and to furnish a small contribution towards its ultimate attainment.