SELF-Command, is that steady equanimity which enables a man in every situation to exert his reasoning faculty with coolness, and to do what the present circumstances require. It depends much upon the natural temperament of the body, and much upon the moral cultivation of the mind. He who enjoys good health, and has braced his frame by exercise, has always a greater command of himself than a man of equal mental powers, who has suffered his constitution to become relaxed by indolence; and he who has from his early youth been accustomed to make his passions submit to his reason, must, in any sudden emergency, be more capable of acting properly than he who has tamely yielded to his passion. Hence it is that recluse and literary men, when forced into the bustle of public life, are incapable of acting where promptness is requisite; and that men who have once or twice yielded to a sense of impending danger seldom acquire afterwards that command of themselves which may be necessary to extricate them from subsequent dangers. In one of the earliest battles fought by the late king of Prussia, the sovereign was among the first men who quitted the field: had he behaved in the same manner a second and a third time, he would never have become that hero whose actions astonished Europe. A celebrated engineer among ourselves, who was well known to the writer of this short article, had little science, and was a stranger to the principles of his own art; but being possessed of a firm and vigorous frame, and having been accustomed to struggle with dangers and difficulties, he had such a constant command of himself, as enabled him to employ with great coolness every necessary resource in the day of battle.
But it is not only in battle, and in the face of immediate danger, that self-command is necessary to enable a man to act with propriety. There is no situation in life where difficulties, greater or less, are not to be encountered; and he who would pass through life with comfort to himself, and with utility to the public, must endeavour to keep his passions in constant subjection to his reason. No man can enjoy without inquietude what he cannot lose without pain; and no man who is overwhelmed with despondency under any sudden misfortune can exert the talents necessary to retrieve his circumstances. We ought, therefore, by every means to endeavour to obtain a constant command of ourselves; and nowhere shall we find better lessons for this purpose than in ancient Lacedæmon. There certain occupations were appointed for each sex, for every hour, and for every season of life. In a life always active, the passions have no opportunity to deceive, seduce, or corrupt; and the nervous system acquires a firmness which makes it a fit instrument to a vigorous mind.
SELF-Defence implies not only the preservation of one's life, but also the protection of his property, because
cause without property life cannot be preserved in a civilized nation. The extent of property essential to life is indeed small, and this consideration may enable us to decide a question which some moralists have made intricate. By what means, it has been asked, may a man protect his property? May he kill the person who attacks it, if he cannot otherwise repel the attack?
That a man, in the state of nature, may kill the person who makes an attack on his life, if he cannot otherwise repel the attack, is a truth which has never been controverted; and he may do the same in civil society, if his danger be so imminent that it cannot be averted by the interposition of the protection provided for individuals by the state. In all possible situations, except the three following, whatever is absolutely necessary to the preservation of life may be lawfully performed, for the law of self-preservation is the first and most sacred of those laws which are impressed on every mind by the author of nature.
The three excepted situations are those of a soldier in the day of battle, of a criminal about to suffer by the laws of his country, and of a man called upon to renounce his religion. The soldier hazards his life in the most honourable of all causes, and cannot betray his trust, or play the coward, without incurring a high degree of moral turpitude. He knows that the very profession in which he is engaged necessarily subjects him to danger; and he voluntarily incurred that danger for the good of his country, which, with great propriety, annexes to his profession peculiar privileges and much glory. The criminal under sentence of death cannot, without adding to his guilt, resist the execution of that sentence; for the power of inflicting punishment is essential to society, and society is the ordinance of God, (see SOCIETY). The man who is called upon to renounce his religion ought to submit to the cruellest death rather than comply with that request, since religion is his only security for future and permanent happiness. But in every other situation, that which is absolutely necessary to the preservation of life is undoubtedly lawful. Hence it is that a person sinking in water is never thought to be guilty of any crime, though he drag his neighbour after him by his endeavours to save himself; and hence, too, a man in danger of perishing by shipwreck may drive another from a plank which cannot carry them both, for since one of two lives must be lost, no law, human or divine, calls upon either of them to prefer his neighbour's life to his own.
But though the rights of self-defence authorise us to repel every attack made upon our life, and in cases of extremity to save ourselves at the expence of the life of our innocent neighbour, it is not so evident that, rather than give to an unjust demand a few shillings or pounds, we may lawfully deprive a fellow creature of life, and the public of a citizen. A few pounds lost may be easily regained; but life when lost can never be recovered. If these pounds, indeed, be the whole of a man's property; if they include his clothes, his food, and the house where he shelters his head—there cannot be a doubt but that, rather than part with them, he may lawfully kill the aggressor, for no man can exist without shelter, food, and raiment. But it is seldom that an attempt is made, or is indeed practicable, to rob a man at once of all that he possesses. The question then of
any importance is, May a man put a robber to death rather than part with a small part of his property? Mr Paley doubts whether he could innocently do so in a state of nature, "because it cannot be contended to be for the augmentation of human happiness, that one man should lose his life or limb, rather than another a pennyworth of his property." He allows, that in civil society the life of the aggressor may be always taken away by the person aggrieved, or meant to be aggrieved, when the crime attempted is such as would subject its perpetrator to death by the laws of his country.
It is not often that we feel ourselves disposed to differ in opinion from this most valuable and intelligent writer; but on the present occasion we cannot help thinking that he does not reason with his usual precision. To us he even seems to lose sight of his own principles. No legislature can have a right to take away life in civil society, but in such cases as individuals have the same right in a state of nature. If therefore a man in the state of nature, have not a right to protect his property by killing the aggressor, when it cannot be otherwise protected, it appears to us self-evident that no legislature can have a right to inflict the punishment of death upon such offences; but if the laws inflicting death upon the crime of robbery be morally evil, it is certain that an individual cannot be innocent when he prevents robbery by the death of the robber, merely because he knows that the laws of his country have decreed that punishment against those convicted of that crime. But we think that the protection of property by the death of the aggressor may be completely vindicated upon more general principles. It is necessary, in every state, that property be protected, or mankind could not subsist; but in a state of nature every man must be the defender of his own property, which in that state must necessarily be small: and if he be not allowed to defend it by every means in his power, he will not long be able to protect it at all. By giving him such liberty, a few individuals may, indeed, occasionally lose their lives and limbs for the preservation of a very small portion of private property; but we believe that the sum of human happiness will be more augmented by cutting off such worthless wretches than by exposing property to perpetual depredation; and therefore, if general utility be the criterion of moral good, we must be of opinion that a man may in every case lawfully kill a robber rather than comply with his unjust demand.
But if a man may without guilt preserve his property by the death of the aggressor, when it cannot be preserved by any other means, much more may a woman have recourse to the last extremity to protect her chastity from forcible violation. This, indeed, is admitted by Mr Paley himself, and will be controverted by no man who reflects on the importance of the female character, and the probable consequences of the smallest deviation from the established laws of female honour. See SEDUCTION.