’To be conscious of Free-will, must mean to be conscious, before I have decided, that I am able to decide either way; exception may be taken in limine to the use of the word consciousness in such an application.  Consciousness tells me what I do or feel.  But what I am able to do, is not a subject of consciousness.  Consciousness is not prophetic; we are conscious of what is, not of what will or can be.  We never know that we are able to do a thing, except from having done it, or something similar to it.  Having acted, we know, as far as that experience reaches, how we are able to act; and this knowledge, when it has become familiar, is often confounded with, and called by, the name of consciousness. But it does not derive any increase of authority from being misnamed:  its truth is not supreme over, but depends upon, experience.  If our so-called consciousness is not borne out by experience, it is a delusion.  It has no title to credence, but as an interpretation of experience; and if it is a false interpretation, it must give way.’—­pp. 503, 504

After this salutary and much-needed warning against the confusion between consciousness as an infallible authority, and belief upon experience, of which we are conscious as a belief—­Mr Mill proceeds to sift the alleged self-evident connection between Free-will and Accountability.  He shows, not merely that there is no connection, but that there is a positive repugnance, between the two.  By Free-will is meant that a volition is not determined by motives, but is a spontaneous mental fact, neither having a cause, nor admitting of being predicted.  Now, the very reason for giving notice that we intend to punish certain acts, and for inflicting punishment if the acts be committed, is, that we trust in the efficacy of the threat and the punishment as deterring motives.  If the volition of agents be not influenced by motives, the whole machinery of law becomes unavailing, and punishment a purposeless infliction of pain.  In fact, it is on that very ground that the madman is exempted from punishment; his volition being presumed to be not capable of being acted upon by the deterring motive of legal sanction.  The free agent, thus understood, is one who can neither feel himself accountable, nor be rendered accountable, to or by others.  It is only the necessary agent (the person whose volitions are determined by motives, and, in case of conflict, by the strongest desire or the strongest apprehension) that can be held really accountable, or can feel himself to be so.

’The true doctrine of the Causation of human actions (says Mr Mill, p. 516) maintains, in opposition both to pure and to modified Fatalism, that not only our conduct, but our character, is in part amenable to our will:  that we can, by employing the proper means, improve our character:  and that if our character is such that, while it remains what it is, it necessitates us to