Whengovernmentloansarelimitedtotheoverflowingsofthe
　　nationalcapital，ortothoseaccumulationswhichwouldnottake
　　placeatallunlesssufferedtooverflow，theyareatleastnot
　　liabletothisgravecondemnation:theyoccasionnoprivationto
　　anyoneatthetime，exceptbythepaymentoftheinterest，and
　　mayevenbebeneficialtothelabouringclassduringthetermof
　　theirexpenditure，byemployinginthedirectpurchaseoflabour，
　　asthatofsoldiers，sailors，&c。，fundswhichmightotherwise
　　havequittedthecountryaltogether。Inthiscasethereforethe
　　questionreallyis，whatitiscommonlysupposedtobeinall
　　cases，namely，achoicebetweenagreatsacrificeatonce，anda
　　smalloneindefinitelyprolonged。Onthismatteritseems
　　rationaltothink，thattheprudenceofanationwilldictatethe
　　sameconductastheprudenceofanindividual;tosubmittoas
　　muchoftheprivationimmediately，ascaneasilybeborne，and
　　onlywhenanyfurtherburthenwoulddistressorcripplethemtoo
　　much，toprovidefortheremainderbymortgagingtheirfuture
　　income。Itisanexcellentmaximtomakepresentresources
　　sufficeforpresentwants;thefuturewillhaveitsownwantsto
　　providefor。Ontheotherhand，itmayreasonablybetakeninto
　　considerationthatinacountryincreasinginwealth，the
　　necessaryexpensesofgovernmentdonotincreaseinthesame
　　ratioascapitalorpopulation;anyburthen，therefore，isalways
　　lessandlessfelt:andsincethoseextraordinaryexpensesof
　　governmentwhicharefittobeincurredatall，aremost
　　beneficialbeyondtheexistinggeneration，thereisnoinjustice
　　inmakingposteritypayapartoftheprice，iftheinconvenience
　　wouldbeextremeofdefrayingthewholeofitbytheexertions
　　andsacrificesofthegenerationwhichfirstincurredit。
　　2。Whenacountry，wiselyorunwisely，hasburtheneditself
　　withadebt，isitexpedienttotakestepsforredeemingthat
　　debt？Inprincipleitisimpossiblenottomaintainthe
　　affirmative。Itistruethatthepaymentoftheinterest，when
　　thecreditorsaremembersofthesamecommunity，isnonational
　　loss，butameretransfer。Thetransfer，however，being
　　compulsory，isaseriousevil，andtheraisingagreatextra
　　revenuebyanysystemoftaxationnecessitatessomuchexpense，
　　vexation，disturbanceofthechannelsofindustry，andother
　　mischiefsoverandabovethemerepaymentofthemoneywantedby
　　thegovernment，thattogetridofthenecessityofsuchtaxation
　　isatalltimesworthaconsiderableeffort。Thesameamountof
　　sacrificewhichwouldhavebeenworthincurringtoavoid
　　contractingthedebt，itisworthwhiletoincur，atany
　　subsequenttime，forthepurposeofextinguishingit。
　　Twomodeshavebeencontemplatedofpayingoffanational
　　debt:eitheratoncebyageneralcontribution，orgraduallybya
　　surplusrevenue。Thefirstwouldbeincomparablythebest，ifit
　　werepracticable;anditwouldbepracticableifitcouldjustly
　　bedonebyassessmentonpropertyalone。Ifpropertyborethe
　　wholeinterestofthedebt，propertymight，withgreatadvantage
　　toitself，payitoff;sincethiswouldbemerelysurrenderingto
　　acreditortheprincipalsum，thewholeannualproceedsofwhich
　　werealreadyhisbylaw;andwouldbeequivalenttowhata
　　landownerdoeswhenhesellspartofhisestate，tofreethe
　　remainderfromamortgage。Butproperty，itneedshardlybesaid，
　　doesnotpay，andcannotjustberequiredtopay，thewhole
　　interestofthedebt。Someindeedaffirmthatitcan，ontheplea
　　thattheexistinggenerationisonlyboundtopaythedebtsof
　　itspredecessorsfromtheassetsithasreceivedfromthem，and
　　notfromtheproduceofitsownindustry。Buthasnoonereceived
　　anythingfrompreviousgenerationsexceptthosewhohave
　　succeededtoproperty？Isthewholedifferencebetweentheearth
　　asitis，withitsclearingsandimprovements，itsroadsand
　　canals，itstownsandmanufactories，andtheearthasitwaswhen
　　thefirsthumanbeingsetfootonit，ofnobenefittoanybut
　　thosewhoarecalledtheownersofthesoil？Isthecapital
　　accumulatedbythelabourandabstinenceofallformer
　　generations，ofnoadvantagetoanybutthosewhohavesucceeded
　　tothelegalownershipofpartofit？Andhavewenotinheriteda
　　massofacquiredknow。ledge，bothscientificandempirical，due
　　tothesagacityandindustryofthosewhoprecededus，the
　　benefitsofwhicharethecommonwealthofall？Thosewhoare
　　borntotheownershipofpropertyhave，inadditiontothese
　　commonbenefits，aseparateinheritance，andtothisdifference
　　itisrightthatadvertenceshouldbehadinregulatingtaxation。
　　Itbelongstothegeneralfinancialsystemofthecountrytotake
　　dueaccountofthisprinciple，andIhaveindicated，asinmy
　　opinionapropermodeoftakingaccountofit，aconsiderabletax
　　onlegaciesandinheritances。Letitbedetermineddirectlyand
　　openlywhatisduefrompropertytothestate，andfromthestate
　　toproperty，andlettheinstitutionsofthestateberegulated
　　accordingly。Whateveristhefittingcontributionfromproperty
　　tothegeneralexpensesofthestate，inthesameandinno
　　greaterproportionshoulditcontributetowardseitherthe
　　interestortherepaymentofthenationaldebt。
　　This，however，ifadmitted，isfataltoanyschemeforthe
　　extinctionofthedebtbyageneralassessmentonthecommunity。
　　Personsofpropertycouldpaytheirshareoftheamountbya
　　sacrificeofproperty，andhavethesamenetincomeasbefore;
　　butifthosewhohavenoaccumulations，butonlyincomes，were
　　requiredtomakeupbyasinglepaymenttheequivalentofthe
　　annualchargelaidonthembythetaxesmaintainedtopaythe
　　interestofthedebt，theycouldonlydosobyincurringa
　　privatedebtequaltotheirshareofthepublicdebt;while，from
　　thein。sufficiency，inmostcases，ofthesecuritywhichthey
　　couldgive，theinterestwouldamounttoamuchlargerannualsum
　　thantheirshareofthatnowpaidbythestate。Besides，a
　　collectivedebtdefrayedbytaxes，hasoverthesamedebt
　　parcelledoutamongindividuals，theimmenseadvantage，thatit
　　isvirtuallyamutualinsuranceamongthecontributors。Ifthe
　　fortuneofacontributordiminishes，histaxesdiminish;ifheis
　　ruined，theyceasealtogether，andhisportionofthedebtis
　　whollytransferredtothesolventmembersofthecommunity。Ifit
　　werelaidonhimasaprivateobligation，hewouldstillbe
　　liabletoitevenwhenpenniless。
　　Whenthestatepossessesproperty，inlandorotherwise，
　　whichtherearenotstrongreasonsofpublicutilityforits
　　retainingatitsdisposal，thisshouldbeemployed，asfarasit
　　willgo，inextinguishingdebt。Anycasualgain，orgodsend，is
　　naturallydevotedtothesamepurpose。Beyondthis，theonlymode
　　whichisbothjustandfeasible，ofextinguishingorreducinga
　　nationaldebt，isbymeansofasurplusrevenue。
　　3。Thedesirableness，perse，ofmaintainingasurplusfor
　　thispurpose，doesnot，Ithink，admitofadoubt。Wesometimes，
　　indeed，hearitsaidthattheamountshouldratherbeleftto
　　’fructifyinthepocketsofthepeople’。Thisisagoodargument，
　　asfarasitgoes，againstlevyingtaxesunnecessarilyfor
　　purposesofunproductiveexpenditure，butnotagainstpayingoff
　　anationaldebt。For，whatismeantbythewordfructify？Ifit
　　meansanything，itmeansproductiveemployment;andasan
　　argumentagainsttaxation，wemustunderstandittoassert，that
　　iftheamountwereleftwiththepeopletheywouldsaveit，and
　　convertitintocapital。Itisprobable，indeed，thattheywould
　　saveapart，butextremelyimprobablethattheywouldsavethe
　　whole:whileiftakenbytaxation，andemployedinpayingoff
　　debt，thewholeissaved，andmadeproductive。Tothefundholder
　　whoreceivesthepaymentitisalreadycapital，notrevenue，and
　　hewillmakeit’fructify’，thatitmaycontinuetoaffordhiman
　　income。Theobjection，therefore，isnotonlygroundless，butthe
　　realargumentisontheotherside:theamountismuchmore
　　certainoffructifyingifitisnot’leftinthepocketsofthe
　　people。’
　　Itisnot，however，advisableinallcasestomaintaina
　　surplusrevenuefortheextinctionofdebt。Theadvantageof
　　payingoffthenationaldebtofGreatBritain，forinstance，is
　　thatitwouldenableustogetridoftheworsehalfofour
　　taxation。Butofthisworsehalfsomeportionsmustbeworsethan
　　others，andtogetridofthosewouldbeagreaterbenefit
　　proportionallythantogetridoftherest。Ifrenouncinga
　　surplusrevenuewouldenableustodispensewithatax，weought
　　toconsidertheveryworstofallourtaxesaspreciselytheone
　　whichwearekeepingupforthesakeofultimatelyabolishing
　　taxesnotsobadasitself。Inacountryadvancinginwealth，
　　whoseincreasingrevenuegivesitthepowerofriddingitself
　　fromtimetotimeofthemostinconvenientportionsofits
　　taxation，Iconceivethattheincreaseofrevenueshouldrather
　　bedisposedofbytakingofftaxes，thanbyliquidatingdebt，as
　　longasanyveryobjectionableimpostsremain。Inthepresent
　　stateofEngland，therefore，Iholdittobegoodpolicyinthe
　　government，whenithasasurplusofanapparentlypermanent
　　character，totakeofftaxes，providedthesearerightly
　　selected。Evenwhennotaxesremainbutsuchasarenotunfitto
　　formpartofapermanentsystem，itiswisetocontinuethesame
　　policybyexperimentalreductionsofthosetaxes，untilthepoint
　　isdiscoveredatwhichagivenamountofrevenuecanberaised
　　withthesmallestpressureonthecontributors。Afterthis，such
　　surplusrevenueasmightarisefromanyfurtherincreaseofthe
　　produceofthetaxes，shouldnot，Iconceive，beremitted，but
　　appliedtotheredemptionofdebt。Eventually，itmightbe
　　expedienttoappropriatetheentireproduceofparticulartaxes
　　tothispurpose;sincetherewouldbemoreassurancethatthe
　　liquidationwouldbepersistedin，ifthefunddestinedtoitthe
　　werekeptapart，andnotblendedwiththegeneralrevenuesof
　　state。Thesuccessiondutieswouldbepeculiarlysuitedtosucha
　　purpose，sincetaxespaidastheyare，outofcapital，wouldsuch
　　abebetteremployedinreimbursingcapitalthanindefraying
　　currentexpenditure。Ifthisseparateappropriationweremade，
　　anysurplusafterwardsarisingfromtheincreasingproduceofthe
　　othertaxes，andfromthesavingofinterestonthesuccessive
　　portionsofdebtpaidoff，mightformagroundforaremissionof
　　taxation。
　　Ithasbeencontendedthatsomeamountofnationaldebtis
　　desirable，andalmostindispensable，asaninvestmentforthe
　　savingsofthepoorerormoreinexperiencedpartofthe
　　community。Itsconvenienceinthatrespectisundeniable;but
　　（besidesthattheprogressofindustryisgraduallyaffording
　　othermodesofinvestmentalmostassafeanduntroublesome，such
　　astheobligationsofgreatpubliccompanies）theonlyreal
　　superiorityofaninvestmentinthefundsconsistsinthe
　　nationalguarantee，andthiscouldbeaffordedbyothermeans
　　thanthatofapublicdebt，involvingcompulsorytaxation。One
　　modewhichwouldanswerthepurpose，wouldbeanationalbankof
　　depositanddiscount，withramificationsthroughoutthecountry;
　　whichmightreceiveanymoneyconfidedtoit，andeitherfundit
　　atafixedrateofinterest，orallowinterestonafloating
　　balance，likethejoint—stockbanks;theinterestgivenbeingof
　　courselowerthantherateatwhichindividualscanborrow，in
　　proportionandtothegreatersecurityofagovernment
　　investment;theexpensesoftheestablishmentbeingdefrayedby
　　thedifferencebetweentheinterestwhichthebankwouldpay，and
　　thatwhichitwouldobtain，bylendingitsdepositson
　　mercantile，landed，orothersecurity。Therearenoinsuperable
　　objectionsinprinciple，nor，Ishouldthink，inpractice，toan
　　institutionofthissort，asameansofsupplyingthesame
　　convenientmodeofinvestmentnowaffordedbythepublicfunds。
　　Itwouldconstitutethestateagreatinsurancecompany，to
　　insurethatpartofthecommunitywholiveontheinterestof
　　theirproperty，againsttheriskoflosingitbythebankruptcy
　　ofthosetowhomtheymightotherwisebeunderthenecessityof
　　confidingit。
　　ThePrinciplesofPoliticalEconomy
　　byJohnStuartMill
　　Book5
　　Chapter8
　　OftheOrdinaryFunctionsofGovernment，consideredastotheir
　　EconomicalEffects
　　1。Beforewediscussthelineofdemarcationbetweenthe
　　thingswithwhichgovernmentshould，andthosewithwhichthey
　　shouldnot，directlyinterfere，itisnecessarytoconsiderthe
　　economicaleffects，whetherofabadorofagoodcomplexion，
　　arisingfromthemannerinwhichtheyacquitthemselvesofthe
　　dutieswhichdevolveontheminallsocieties，andwhichnoone
　　deniestobeincumbentonthem。
　　Thefirstoftheseistheprotectionofpersonandproperty。
　　Thereisnoneedtoexpatiateontheinfluenceexercisedoverthe
　　economicalinterestsofsocietybythedegreeofcompleteness
　　withwhichthisdutyofgovernmentisperformed。Insecurityof
　　personandproperty，isasmuchastosay，uncertaintyofthe
　　connexionbetweenallhumanexertionorsacrifice，andthe
　　attainmentoftheendsforthesakeofwhichtheyareundergone。
　　Itmeans，uncertaintywhethertheywhosowshallreap，whether
　　theywhoproduceshallconsume，andtheywhospareto—dayshall
　　enjoyto。morrow。Itmeans，notonlythatlabourandfrugalityare
　　nottheroadtoacquisition，butthatviolenceis。Whenperson
　　andpropertyaretoacertaindegreeinsecure，allthe
　　possessionsoftheweakareatthemercyofthestrong。Noone
　　cankeepwhathehasproduced，unlessheismorecapableof
　　defendingit，thanotherswhogivenopartoftheirtimeand
　　exertionstousefulindustryareoftakingitfromhim。The
　　productiveclasses，therefore，whentheinsecuritysurpassesa
　　certainpoint，beingunequaltotheirownprotectionagainstthe
　　predatorypopulation，areobligedtoplacethemselves
　　individuallyinastateofdependenceonsomememberofthe
　　predatoryclass，thatitmaybehisinteresttoshieldthemfrom
　　alldepredationexcepthisown。Inthismanner，intheMiddle
　　Ages，allodialpropertygenerallybecamefeudal，andnumbersof
　　thepoorerfreemenvoluntarilymadethemselvesandtheir
　　posterityserfsofsomemilitarylord。
　　Nevertheless，inattachingtothisgreatrequisite，security
　　ofpersonandproperty，theimportancewhichisjustlyduetoit，
　　wemustnotforgetthatevenforeconomicalpurposesthereare
　　otherthingsquiteasindispensable，thepresenceofwhichwill
　　oftenmakeupforaveryconsiderabledegreeofimperfectionin
　　theprotectivearrangementsofgovernment。Aswasobservedina
　　previouschapter，thefreecitiesofItaly，Flanders，andthe
　　Hanseaticleague，werehabituallyinastateofsuchinternal
　　turbulence，variedbysuchdestructiveexternalwars，thatperson
　　andpropertyenjoyedveryimperfectprotection;yetduring
　　severalcenturiestheyincreasedrapidlyinwealthand
　　prosperity，broughtmanyoftheindustrialartstoahighdegree
　　ofadvancement，carriedondistantanddangerousvoyagesof
　　explorationandcommercewithextraordinarysuccess，becamean
　　overmatchinpowerforthegreatestfeudallords，andcould
　　defendthemselvesevenagainstthesovereignsofEurope:because
　　inthemidstofturmoilandviolence，thecitizensofthosetowns
　　enjoyedacertainrudefreedom，underconditionsofunionand
　　co—operation，which，takentogether，madethemabrave，
　　energetic，andhigh—spiritedpeople，andfosteredagreatamount
　　ofpublicspiritandpatriotism。Theprosperityoftheseand
　　otherfreestatesinalawlessage，showsthatacertaindegree
　　ofinsecurity，insomecombinationsofcircumstances，hasgoodas
　　wellasbadeffects，bymakingenergyandpracticalabilitythe
　　conditionsofsafety。Insecurityparalyses，onlywhenitissuch
　　innatureandindegree，thatnoenergyofwhichmankindin
　　generalarecapable，affordsanytolerablemeansof
　　self—protection。Andthisisamainreasonwhyoppressionbythe
　　government，whosepowerisgenerallyirresistiblebyanyefforts
　　thatcanbemadebyindividuals，hassomuchmorebanefulan
　　effectonthespringsofnationalprosperity，thanalmostany
　　degreeoflawlessnessandturbulenceunderfreeinstitutions。
　　Nationshaveacquiredsomewealth，andmadesomeprogressin
　　improvement，instatesofsocialunionsoimperfectastoborder
　　onanarchy:butnocountriesinwhichthepeoplewereexposed
　　withoutlimittoarbitraryexactionsfromtheofficersof
　　government，everyetcontinuedtohaveindustryorwealth。Afew
　　generationsofsuchagovernmentneverfailtoextinguishboth。
　　Someofthefairest，andoncethemostprosperous，regionsofthe
　　earth，have，undertheRomanandafterwardsundertheTurkish
　　dominion，beenreducedtoadesert，solelybythatcause。Isay
　　solely，becausetheywouldhaverecoveredwiththeutmost
　　rapidity，ascountriesalwaysdo，fromthedevastationsofwar，
　　oranyothertemporarycalamities。Difficultiesandhardshipsare
　　oftenbutanincentivetoexertion:whatisfataltoit，isthe
　　beliefthatitwillnotbesufferedtoproduceitsfruits。
　　2。Simpleover。taxationbygovernment，thoughagreatevil，
　　isnotcomparableintheeconomicalpartofitsmischiefsto
　　exactionsmuchmoremoderateinamount，whicheithersubjectthe
　　contributortothearbitrarymandateofgovernmentofficers，or
　　aresolaidonastoplaceskill，industry，andfrugalityata
　　disadvantage。Theburthenoftaxationinourowncountryisvery
　　great，yetaseveryoneknowsitslimit，andisseldommadeto
　　paymorethanheexpectsandcalculateson，andasthemodesof
　　taxationarenotofsuchakindasmuchtoimpairthemotivesto
　　industryandeconomy，thesourcesofprosperityarelittle
　　diminishedbythepressureoftaxation;theymayeven，assome
　　think，beincreased，bytheextraexertionsmadetocompensate
　　forthepressureofthetaxes。Butinthebarbarousdespotismsof
　　manycountriesoftheEast，wheretaxationconsistsinfastening
　　uponthosewhohavesucceededinacquiringsomething，inorderto
　　confiscateit，unlessthepossessorbuysitsreleaseby
　　submittingtogivesomelargesumasacompromise，wecannot
　　expecttofindvoluntaryindustry，orwealthderivedfromany
　　sourcebutplunder。Andevenincomparativelycivilized
　　countries，badmodesofraisingarevenuehavehadeffects
　　similarinkind，thoughinaninferiordegree。Frenchwriters
　　beforetheRevolutionrepresentedthetailleasamaincauseof
　　thebackwardstateofagriculture，andofthewretchedcondition
　　oftheruralpopulation;notfromitsamount，butbecause，being
　　proportionedtothevisiblecapitalofthecultivator，itgave
　　himamotiveforappearingpoor，whichsufficedtoturnthescale
　　infavourofindolence。Thearbitrarypowersalsooffiscal
　　officers，ofintendantsandsubdelegues，weremoredestructiveof
　　prosperitythanafarlargeramountofexactions，becausethey
　　destroyedsecurity:therewasamarkedsuperiorityinthe
　　conditionofthepaysd’etats，whichwereexemptfromthis
　　scourge。TheuniversalvenalityascribedtoRussian
　　functionaries，mustbeanimmensedragonthecapabilitiesof
　　economicalimprovementpossessedsoabundantlybytheRussian
　　empire:sincetheemolumentsofpublicofficersmustdependon
　　thesuccesswithwhichtheycanmultiplyvexations，forthe
　　purposeofbeingboughtoffbybribes。
　　Yetmereexcessoftaxation，evenwhennotaggravatedby
　　uncertainty，is，independentlyofitsinjustice，aserious
　　economicalevil。Itmaybecarriedsofarastodiscourage
　　industrybyinsufficiencyofreward。Verylongbeforeitreaches
　　thispoint，itpreventsorgreatlychecksaccumulation，orcauses
　　thecapitalaccumulatedtobesentforinvestmenttoforeign
　　countries。Taxeswhichfallonprofits，eventhoughthatkindof
　　incomemaynotpaymorethanitsjustshare，necessarilydiminish
　　themotivetoanysaving，exceptforinvestmentinforeign
　　countrieswhereprofitsarehigher。Holland，forexample，seems
　　tohavelongagoreachedthepracticalminimumofprofits:
　　alreadyinthelastcenturyherwealthycapitalistshadagreat
　　partoftheirfortunesinvestedintheloansandjoint。stock
　　speculationsofothercountries:andthislowrateofprofitis
　　ascribedtotheheavytaxation，whichhadbeeninsomemeasure
　　forcedonherbythecircumstancesofherpositionandhistory。
　　Thetaxesindeed，besidestheirgreatamount，weremanyofthem
　　onnecessaries，akindoftaxpeculiarlyinjurioustoindustry
　　andaccumulation。Butwhentheaggregateamountoftaxationis
　　verygreat，itisinevitablethatrecoursemustbehadforpart
　　ofittotaxesofanobjectionablecharacter。Andanytaxeson
　　consumption，whenheavy，evenifnotoperatingonprofits，have
　　somethingofthesameeffect，bydrivingpersonsofmoderate
　　meanstoliveabroad，oftentakingtheircapitalwiththem。
　　AlthoughIbynomeansjoinwiththosepoliticaleconomistswho
　　thinknostateofnationalexistencedesirableinwhichthereis
　　notarapidincreaseofwealth，Icannotoverlookthemany
　　disadvantagestoanindependentnationfrombeingbroughtpre。
　　maturelytoastationarystate，whiletheneighbouringcountries
　　continueadvancing。
　　3。Thesubjectofprotectiontopersonandproperty，
　　consideredasaffordedbygovernment，ramifieswidely，intoa
　　numberofindirectchannels。Itembraces，forexample，thewhole
　　subjectoftheperfectionorinefficiencyofthemeansprovided
　　fortheascertainmentofrightsandtheredressofinjuries。
　　Personandpropertycannotbeconsideredsecurewherethe
　　administrationofjusticeisimperfect，eitherfromdefectof
　　integrityorcapacityinthetribunals，orbecausethedelays，
　　vexation，andexpenseaccompanyingtheiroperationimposeaheavy
　　taxonthosewhoappealtothem，andmakeitpreferabletosubmit
　　toanyendurableamountoftheevilswhichtheyaredesignedto
　　remedy。InEnglandthereisnofaulttobefoundwiththe
　　administrationofjustice，inpointofpecuniaryintegrity;a
　　resultwhichtheprogressofsocialimprovementmayalsobe
　　supposedtohavebroughtaboutinseveralothernationsof
　　Europe。Butlegalandjudicialimperfectionsofotherkindsare
　　abundant;and，inEnglandespecially，arealargeabatementfrom
　　thevalueoftheserviceswhichthegovernmentrendersbackto
　　thepeopleinreturnforourenormoustaxation。Inthefirst
　　place，theincognoscibility（asBenthamtermedit）ofthelaw，
　　anditsextremeuncertainty，eventothosewhobestknowit，
　　renderaresorttothetribunalsoftennecessaryforobtaining
　　justice，when，therebeingnodisputeastofacts，nolitigation
　　oughttoberequired。Inthenextplace，theprocedureofthe
　　tribunalsissorepletewithdelay，vexation，andexpense，that
　　thepriceatwhichjusticeisatlastobtainedisanevil
　　outweighingaveryconsiderableamountofinjustice;andthe
　　wrongside，eventhatwhichthelawconsiderssuch，hasmany
　　chancesofgainingitspoint，throughtheabandonmentof
　　litigationbytheotherpartyforwantoffunds，orthrougha
　　compromiseinwhichasacrificeismadeofjustrightsto
　　terminatethesuit，orthroughsometechnicalquirk，wherebya
　　decisionisobtainedonsomeothergroundthanthemerits。This
　　lastdetestableincidentoftenhappenswithoutblametothe
　　judge，underasystemoflaw，ofwhichagreatpartrestsonno
　　rationalprinciplesadaptedtothepresentstateofsociety，but
　　wasoriginallyfoundedpartlyonakindofwhimsandconceits，
　　andpartlyontheprinciplesandincidentsoffeudaltenure，
　　（whichnowsurviveonlyaslegalfictions;）andhasonlybeen
　　veryimperfectlyadapted，ascasesarose，tothechangeswhich
　　hadtakenplaceinsociety。OfallpartsoftheEnglishlegal
　　system，theCourtofChancery，whichhasthebestsubstantive
　　law，hasbeenincomparablytheworstastodelay，vexation，and
　　expense;andthisistheonlytribunalformostoftheclassesof
　　caseswhichareintheirnaturethemostcomplicated，suchas
　　casesofpartnership，andthegreatrangeandvarietyofcases
　　whichcomeunderthedenominationoftrust。Therecentreformsin
　　thisCourthaveabatedthemischief，butarestillfarfrom
　　havingremovedit。
　　FortunatelyfortheprosperityofEngland，thegreaterpart
　　ofthemercantilelawiscomparativelymodern，andwasmadeby
　　thetribunals，bythesimpleprocessofrecognizingandgiving
　　forceoflawtotheusageswhich，frommotivesofconvenience，
　　hadgrownupamongmerchantsthemselves:sothatthispartofthe
　　law，atleast，wassubstantiallymadebythosewhoweremost
　　interestedinitsgoodness:whilethedefectsofthetribunals
　　havebeenthelesspracticallyperniciousinreferenceto
　　commercialtransactions，becausetheimportanceofcredit，which
　　dependsoncharacter，renderstherestraintsofopinion（though，
　　asdailyexperienceproves，aninsufficient）yetaverypowerful，
　　protectionagainstthoseformsofmercantiledishonestywhichare
　　generallyrecognizedassuch。
　　Theimperfectionsofthelaw，bothinitssubstanceandin
　　itsprocedure，fallheaviestupontheinterestsconnectedwith
　　whatistechnicallycalledrealproperty;inthegenerallanguage
　　ofEuropeanjurisprudence，immoveableproperty。Withrespectto
　　allthisportionofthewealthofthecommunity，thelawfails
　　egregiouslyintheprotectionwhichitundertakestoprovide。It
　　fails，first，bytheuncertainty，andthemazeoftechnicalities，
　　whichmakeitimpossibleforanyone，athowevergreatan
　　expense，topossessatitletolandwhichhecanpositivelyknow
　　tobeunassailable。Itfails，secondly，inomittingtoprovide
　　dueevidenceoftransactions，byaproperregistrationoflegal
　　documents。Itfails，thirdly，bycreatinganecessityforoperose
　　andexpensiveinstrumentsandformalities（independentlyof
　　fiscalburthens）onoccasionofthepurchaseandsale，oreven
　　theleaseormortgage，ofimmoveableproperty。And，fourthly，it
　　failsbytheintolerableexpenseanddelayoflawproceedings，in
　　almostallcasesinwhichrealpropertyisconcerned。Thereisno
　　doubtthatthegreatestsufferersbythedefectsofthehigher
　　courtsofcivillawarethelandowners。Legalexpenses，either
　　thoseofactuallitigation，orofthepreparationoflegal
　　instruments，form，Iapprehend，noinconsiderableiteminthe
　　annualexpenditureofmostpersonsoflargelandedproperty，and
　　thesaleablevalueoftheirlandisgreatlyimpaired，bythe
　　difficultyofgivingtothebuyercompleteconfidenceinthe
　　title;independentlyofthelegalexpenseswhichaccompanythe
　　transfer。Yetthelandowners，thoughtheyhavebeenmastersof
　　thelegislationofEngland，tosaytheleastsince1688，have
　　nevermadeasinglemoveinthedirectionoflawreform，andhave
　　beenstrenuousopponentsofsomeoftheimprovementsofwhich
　　theywouldmoreparticularlyreapthebenefit;especiallythat
　　greatoneofaregistrationofcontractsaffectingland，which
　　whenproposedbyaCommissionofeminentrealpropertylawyers，
　　andintroducedintotheHouseofCommonsbyLordCampbell，wasso
　　offensivetothegeneralbodyoflandlords，andwasrejectedby
　　solargeamajority，astohavelongdiscouragedanyrepetition
　　oftheattempt。（1*）Thisirrationalhostilitytoimprovement，in
　　acaseinwhichtheirowninterestwouldbethemostbenefitedby
　　it，mustbeascribedtoanintensetimidityonthesubjectof
　　theirtitles，generatedbythedefectsoftheverylawwhichthey
　　refusetoalter;andtoaconsciousignorance，andincapacityof
　　judgment，onalllegalsubjects，whichmakesthemhelplessly
　　defertotheopinionoftheirprofessionaladvisers，heedlessof
　　thefactthateveryimperfectionofthelaw，inproportionasit
　　isburthensometothem，bringsgaintothelawyer。
　　Insofarasthedefectsoflegalarrangementsareamere
　　burthenonthelandowner，theydonotmuchaffectthesourcesof
　　production;buttheuncertaintyofthetitleunderwhichlandis
　　held，mustoftenactasagreatdiscouragementtotheexpenditure
　　ofcapitalinitsimprovement;andtheexpenseofmaking
　　transfers，operatestopreventlandfromcomingintothehandsof
　　thosewhowoulduseittomostadvantage;oftenamounting，inthe
　　caseofsmallpurchases，tomorethanthepriceoftheland，and
　　tantamount，therefore，toaprohibitionofthepurchaseandsale
　　oflandinsmallportions，unlessinexceptionalcircumstances。
　　Suchpurchases，however，arealmosteverywhereextremely
　　desirable，therebeinghardlyanycountryinwhichlanded
　　propertyisnoteithertoomuchortoolittlesubdivided，
　　requiringeitherthatgreatestatesshouldbebrokendown，or
　　thatsmallonesshouldbeboughtupandconsolidated。Tomake
　　landaseasilytransferableasstock，wouldbeoneofthe
　　greatesteconomicalimprovementswhichcouldbebestowedona
　　country;andhasbeenshown，againandagain，tohaveno
　　insuperabledifficultyattendingit。
　　Besidestheexcellencesordefectsthatbelongtothelawand
　　judicatureofacountryasasystemofarrangementsforattaining
　　directpracticalends，muchalsodepends，eveninaneconomical
　　pointofview，uponthemoralinfluencesofthelaw。Enoughhas
　　beensaidinaformerplace，onthedegreeinwhichboththe
　　industrialandallothercombinedoperationsofmankinddepend
　　forefficiencyontheirbeingabletorelyononeanotherfor
　　probityandfidelitytoengagements;fromwhichweseehow
　　greatlyeventheeconomicalprosperityofacountryisliableto
　　beaffected，byanythinginitsinstitutionsbywhicheither
　　integrityandtrustworthiness，orthecontraryqualities，are
　　encouraged。Thelaweverywhereostensiblyfavoursatleast
　　pecuniaryhonestyandthefaithofcontracts;butifitaffords
　　facilitiesforevadingthoseobligations，bytrickandchicanery，
　　orbytheunscrupuloususeofrichesininstitutingunjustor
　　resistingjustlitigation;iftherearewaysandmeansbywhich
　　personsmayattaintheendsofroguery，undertheapparent
　　sanctionofthelaw;tothatextentthelawisdemoralizing，even
　　inregardtopecuniaryintegrity。Andsuchcasesare，
　　unfortunately，frequentundertheEnglishsystem。If，again，the
　　law，byamisplacedindulgence，protectsidlenessorprodigality
　　againsttheirnaturalconsequences，ordismissescrimewith
　　inadequatepenalties，theeffect，bothontheprudentialandon
　　thesocialvirtues，isunfavourable。Whenthelaw，byitsown
　　dispensationsandinjunctions，establishesinjusticebetween
　　individualandindividual;asalllawsdowhichrecognizeany
　　formofslavery;asthelawsofallcountriesdo，thoughnotall
　　inthesamedegree，inrespecttothefamilyrelations;andas
　　thelawsofmanycountriesdo，thoughinstillmoreunequal
　　degrees，asbetweenrichandpoor;theeffectonthemoral
　　sentimentsofthepeopleisstillmoredisastrous。Butthese
　　subjectsintroduceconsiderationssomuchlargeranddeeperthan
　　thoseofpoliticaleconomy，thatIonlyadverttotheminorder
　　nottopasswhollyunnoticed，thingssuperiorinimportanceto
　　thoseofwhichItreat。
　　NOTES:
　　1。LordWestbury’srecentActisamaterialmitigationofthis
　　grievousdefectinEnglishlaw，andwillprobablyleadtofurther
　　improvements。
　　ThePrinciplesofPoliticalEconomybyJohnStuartMillBook5
　　Chapter9
　　TheSameSubjectContinued1。Havingspokenthusfaroftheeffectsproducedbytheexcellencesordefectsofthegeneralsystemofthelaw，Ishallnowtouchuponthoseresultingfromthespecialcharacterofpartsofit。Asaselectionmustbemade，Ishallconfinemyselftoafewleadingtopics。Theportionsofthecivillawofacountrywhichareofmostimportanceeconomically（nexttothosewhichdeterminethestatusofthelabourer，asslave，serf，orfree），arethoserelatingtothetwosubjectsofInheritanceandContract。Ofthelawsrelatingtocontract，nonearemoreimportanteconomically，thanthelawsofpartnership，andthoseofinsolvency。Ithappensthatonallthesethreepoints，thereisjustgroundforcondemningsomeoftheprovisionsoftheEnglishlaw。
　　WithregardtoInheritance，Ihave，inanearlychapter，consideredthegeneralprinciplesofthesubject，andsuggestedwhatappeartometobe，puttingallprejudicesapart，thebestdispositionswhichthelawcouldadopt。Freedomofbequestasthegeneralrule，butlimitedbytwothings:first，thatiftherearedescendants，who，beingunabletoprovideforthemselves，wouldbecomeburthensometothestate，theequivalentofwhateverthestatewouldaccordtothemshouldbereservedfromthepropertyfortheirbenefit:andsecondly，thatnoonepersonshouldbepermittedtoacquire，byinheritance，morethantheamountofamoderateindependence。Incaseofintestacy，thewholepropertytoescheattothestate:whichshouldbeboundtomakeajustandreasonableprovisionfordescendants，thatis，suchaprovisionastheparentorancestoroughttohavemade，theircircumstances，capacities，andmodeofbringingupbeingconsidered。
　　Thelawsofinheritance，however，haveprobablyseveralphasesofimprovementtogothrough，beforeideassofarremovedfrompresentmodesofthinkingwillbetakenintoseriousconsideration:andas，amongtherecognizedmodesofdeterminingthesuccessiontoproperty，somemustbebetterandothersworse，itisnecessarytoconsiderwhichofthemdeservesthepreference。Asanintermediatecourse，therefore，Iwouldrecommendtheextensiontoallproperty，ofthepresentEnglishlawofinheritanceaffectingpersonalproperty（freedomofbequest，andincaseofintestacy，equaldivision）:exceptthatnorightsshouldbeacknowledgedincollaterals，andthatthepropertyofthosewhohaveneitherdescendantsnorascendants，andmakenowill，shouldescheattothestate。
　　Thelawsofexistingnationsdeviatefromthesemaimsintwooppositeways。InEngland，andinmostofthecountrieswheretheinfluenceoffeudalityisstillfeltinthelaws，oneoftheobjectsaimedatinrespecttolandandotherimmoveableproperty，istokeepittogetherinlargemasses:accordingly，incasesofintestacy，itpasses，generallyspeaking（forthelocalcustomofafewplacesisdifferent），exclusivelytotheeldestson。Andthoughtheruleofprimogenitureisnotbindingontestators，whoinEnglandhavenominallythepowerofbequeathingtheirpropertyastheyplease，anyproprietormaysoexercisethispowerastodeprivehisimmediatesuccessorofit，byentailingthepropertyononeparticularlineofhisdescendants:
　　which，besidespreventingitfrompassingbyinheritanceinanyotherthantheprescribedmanner，isattendedwiththeincidentalconsequenceofprecludingitfrombeingsold;sinceeachsuccessivepossessor，havingonlyalifeinterestintheproperty，cannotalienateitforalongerperiodthanhisownlife。Insomeothercountries，suchasFrance，thelaw，onthecontrary，compelsdivisionofinheritances;notonly，incaseofintestacy，sharingtheproperty，bothrealandpersonal，equallyamongallthechildren，or（iftherearenochildren）amongallrelativesinthesamedegreeofpropinquity;butalsonotrecognizinganypowerofbequest，orrecognizingitoveronlyalimitedportionoftheproperty，theremainderbeingsubjectedtocompulsoryequaldivision。
　　Neitherofthesesystems，Iapprehend，wasintroduced，orisperhapsmaintained，inthecountrieswhereitexists，fromanygeneralconsiderationsofjustice，oranyforesightofeconomicalconsequences，butchieflyfrompoliticalmotives;intheonecasetokeepuplargehereditaryfortunes，andalandedaristocracy;
　　intheother，tobreakthesedown，andpreventtheirresurrection。Thefirstobject，asanaimofnationalpolicy，I
　　conceivetobeeminentlyundesirable:withregardtothesecond，Ihavepointedoutwhatseemstomeabettermodeofattainingit。Themerit，ordemerit，however，ofeitherpurpose，belongstothegeneralscienceofpolitics，nottothelimiteddepartmentofthatsciencewhichisheretreatedof。Eachofthetwosystemsisarealandefficientinstrumentforthepurposeintendedbyit;
　　buteach，asitappearstome，achievesthatpurposeatthecostofmuchmischief。
　　2。Therearetwoargumentsofaneconomicalcharacter，whichareurgedinfavourofprimogeniture。Oneis，thestimulusappliedtotheindustryandambitionofyoungerchildren，byleavingthemtobethearchitectsoftheirownfortunes。ThisargumentwasputbyDrJohnsoninamannermoreforciblethancomplimentarytoanhereditaryaristocracy，whenhesaid，bywayofrecommendationofprimogeniture，thatit’makesbutonefoolinafamily’。Itiscuriousthatadefenderofaristocraticinstitutionsshouldbethepersontoassertthattoinheritsuchafortuneastakesawayanynecessityforexertion，isgenerallyfataltoactivityandstrengthofmind:inthepresentstateofeducation，however，theproposition，withsomeallowanceforexaggeration，maybeadmittedtobetrue。Butwhateverforcethereisintheargument，countsinfavouroflimitingtheeldest，aswellasalltheotherchildren，toamereprovision，anddispensingwitheventhe’onefool’whomDrJohnsonwaswillingtotolerate。Ifunearnedrichesaresopernicioustothecharacter，onedoesnotseewhy，inordertowithholdthepoisonfromthejuniormembersofafamily，thereshouldbenowaybuttounitealltheirseparatepotions，andadministertheminthelargestpossibledosetooneselectedvictim。Itcannotbenecessarytoinflictthisgreatevilontheeldestson，forwantofknowingwhatelsetodowithalargefortune。
　　Somewriters，however，lookupontheeffectofprimogenitureinstimulatingindustry，asdepending，notsomuchonthepovertyoftheyoungerchildren，asonthecontrastbetweenthatpovertyandtherichesoftheelder;thinkingitindispensabletotheactivityandenergyofthehive，thatthereshouldbeahugedronehereandthere，toimpresstheworkingbeeswithaduesenseoftheadvantagesofhoney。’Theirinferiorityinpointofwealth’，saysMrM’Culloch，speakingoftheyoungerchildren，’andtheirdesiretoescapefromthislowerstation，andtoattaintothesamelevelwiththeirelderbrothers，inspiresthemwithanenergyandvigourtheycouldnototherwisefeel。Buttheadvantageofpreservinglargeestatesfrombeingfrittereddownbyaschemeofequaldivision，isnotlimitedtoitsinfluenceovertheyoungerchildrenoftheirowners。Itraisesuniversallythestandardofcompetence，andgivesnewforcetothespringswhichsetindustryinmotion。Themanneroflivingamongthegreatlandlordsisthatinwhicheveryoneisambitiousofbeingabletoindulge;andtheirhabitsofexpense，thoughsometimesinjurioustothemselves，actaspowerfulincentivestotheingenuityandenterpriseoftheotherclasses，whoneverthinktheirfortunessufficientlyample，unlesstheywillenablethemtoemulatethesplendouroftherichestlandlords;sothatthecustomofprimogenitureseemstorenderallclassesmoreindustrious，andtoaugmentatthesametime，themassofwealthandthescaleofenjoyment。（1*）
　　Theportionoftruth，Icanhardlysaycontainedintheseobservations，butrecalledbythem，Iapprehendtobe，thatastateofcompleteequalityoffortuneswouldnotbefavourabletoactiveexertionfortheincreaseofwealth。Speakingofthemass，itisastrueofwealthasofmostotherdistinctions——oftalent，knowledge，virtue——thatthosewhoalreadyhave，orthinktheyhave，asmuchofitastheirneighbours，willseldomexertthemselvestoacquiremore。Butitisnotthereforenecessarythatsocietyshouldprovideasetofpersonswithlargefortunes，tofulfilthesocialdutyofstandingtobelookedat，withenvyandadmiration，bytheaspiringpoor。Thefortuneswhichpeoplehaveacquiredforthemselves，answerthepurposequiteaswell，indeedmuchbetter;sinceapersonismorepowerfullystimulatedbytheexampleofsomebodywhohasearnedafortune，thanbythemeresightofsomebodywhopossessesone;
　　andtheformerisnecessarilyanexampleofprudenceandfrugalityaswellasindustry，whilethelattermuchoftenersetsanexampleofprofuseexpense，whichspreads，withperniciouseffect，totheveryclassonwhomthesightofrichesissupposedtohavesobeneficialaninfluence，namely，thosewhoseweaknessofmind，andtasteforostentation，makes’thesplendouroftherichestlandlords’at。tractthemwiththemostpotentspell。InAmericatherearefewornohereditaryfortunes;yetindustrialenergy，andtheardourofaccumulation，arenotsupposedtobeparticularlybackwardinthatpartoftheworld。Whenacountryhasoncefairlyenteredintotheindustrialcareer，whichistheprincipaloccupationofthemodern，aswarwasthatoftheancientandmedievalworld，thedesireofacquisitionbyindustryneedsnofactitiousstimulus:theadvantagesnaturallyinherentinriches，andthecharactertheyassumeofatestbywhichtalentandsuccessinlifearehabituallymeasured，areanamplesecurityfortheirbeingpursuedwithsufficientintensityandzeal。Astothedeeperconsideration，thatthediffusionofwealth，andnotitsconcentration，isdesirable，andthatthemorewholesomestateofsocietyisnotthatinwhichimmensefortunesarepossessedbyafewandcovetedbyall，butthatinwhichthegreatestpossiblenumberspossessandarecontentedwithamoderatecompetency，whichallmayhopetoacquire;I
　　refertoitinthisplace，onlytoshow，howwidelyseparated，onsocialquestions，istheentiremodeofthoughtofthedefendersofprimogeniture，fromthatwhichispartiallypromulgatedinthepresenttreatise。
　　Theothereconomicalargumentinfavourofprimogeniture，hasspecialreferencetolandedproperty。Itiscontendedthatthehabitofdividinginheritancesequally，orwithanapproachtoequality，amongchildren，promotesthesubdivisionoflandintoportionstoosmalltoadmitofbeingcultivatedinanadvantageousmanner。Thisargument，eternallyreproduced，hasagainandagainbeenrefutedbyEnglishandContinentalwriters。
　　Itproceedsonasuppositionentirelyatvariancewiththatonwhichallthetheoremsofpoliticaleconomyaregrounded。Itassumesthatmankindingeneralwillhabituallyactinamanneropposedtotheirimmediateandobviouspecuniaryinterest。Forthedivisionoftheinheritancedoesnotnecessarilyimplydivisionoftheland;whichmaybeheldincommon，asisnotunfrequentlythecaseinFranceandBelgium;ormaybecomethepropertyofoneofthecoheirs，beingchargedwiththesharesoftheothersbywayofmortgage;ortheymaysellitoutright，anddividetheproceeds。Whenthedivisionofthelandwoulddiminishitsproductivepower，itisthedirectinterestoftheheirstoadoptsomeoneofthesearrangements。Supposing，however，whattheargumentassumes，thateitherfromlegaldifficultiesorfromtheirownstupidityandbarbarism，theywouldnot，iflefttothemselves，obeythedictatesofthisobviousinterest，butwouldinsistuponcuttingupthelandbodilyintoequalparcels，withtheeffectofimpoverishingthemselves;thiswouldbeanobjectiontoalawsuchasexistsinFrance，ofcompulsorydivision，butcanbenoreasonwhytestatorsshouldbediscouragedfromexercisingtherightofbequestingeneralconformitytotheruleofequality，sinceitwouldalwaysbeintheirpowertoprovidethatthedivisionoftheinheritanceshouldtakeplacewithoutdividingthelanditself。Thattheattemptsoftheadvocatesofprimogenituretomakeoutacasebyfactsagainstthecustomofequaldivision，areequallyabortive，hasbeenshowninaformerplace。Inallcountries，orpartsofcountries，inwhichthedivisionofinheritancesisaccompaniedbysmallholdings，itisbecausesmallholdingsarethegeneralsystemofthecountry，evenontheestatesofthegreatproprietors。
　　Unlessastrongcaseofsocialutilitycanbemadeoutforprimogeniture，itstandssufficientlycondemnedbythegeneralprinciplesofjustice;beingabroaddistinctioninthetreatmentofonepersonandofanother，groundedsolelyonanaccident。
　　Thereisnoneed，therefore，tomakeoutanycaseofeconomicalevilagainstprimogeniture。Suchacase，however，andaverystrongone，maybemade。Itisanaturaleffectofprimogenituretomakethelandlordsaneedyclass。Theobjectoftheinstitution，orcustom，istokeepthelandtogetherinlargemasses，andthisitcommonlyaccomplishes;butthelegalproprietorofalargedomainisnotnecessarilybonafideownerofthewholeincomewhichityields。Itisusuallycharged，ineachgeneration，withprovisionsfortheotherchildren。Itisoftenchargedstillmoreheavilybytheimprudentexpenditureoftheproprietor。Greatlandownersaregenerallyimprovidentintheirexpenses;theyliveuptotheirincomeswhenatthehighest，andifanychangeofcircumstancesdiminishestheirresources，sometimeelapsesbeforetheymakeuptheirmindstoretrench。Spendthriftsinotherclassesareruined，anddisappearfromsociety;butthespendthriftlandlordusuallyholdsfasttohisland，evenwhenhehasbecomeamerereceiverofitsrentsforthebenefitofcreditors。Thesamedesiretokeepupthe’splendour’ofthefamily，whichgivesrisetothecustomofprimogeniture，indisposestheownertosellapartinordertosetfreetheremainder;theirapparentarethereforehabituallygreaterthantheirrealmeans，andtheyareunderaperpetualtemptationtoproportiontheirexpendituretotheformerratherthantothelatter。Fromsuchcausesasthese，inalmostallcountriesofgreatlandowners，themajorityoflandedestatesaredeeplymortgaged;andinsteadofhavingcapitaltospareforimprovements，itrequiresalltheincreasedvalueofland，causedbytherapidincreaseofthewealthandpopulationofthecountry，topreservetheclassfrombeingimpoverished。
　　3。Toavertthisimpoverishment，recoursewashadtothecontrivanceofentails，wherebytheorderofsuccessionwasirrevocablyfixed，andeachholder，havingonlyalifeinterest，wasunabletoburthenhissuccessor。Thelandthuspassing，freefromdebt，intothepossessionoftheheir，thefamilycouldnotberuinedbytheimprovidenceofitsexistingrepresentative。Theeconomicalevilsarisingfromthisdispositionofpropertywerepartlyofthesamekind，partlydifferent，butonthewholegreater，thanthosearisingfromprimogeniturealone。Thepossessorcouldnotnowruinhissuccessors，buthecouldstillruinhimself:hewasnotatallmorelikelythanintheformercasetohavethemeansnecessaryforimprovingtheproperty:
　　while，evenifhehad，hewasstilllesslikelytoemploythemforthatpurpose，whenthebenefitwastoaccruetoapersonwhomtheentailmadeindependentofhim，whilehehadprobablyyoungerchildrentoprovidefor，inwhosefavourhecouldnotnowchargetheestate。Whilethusdisabledfrombeinghimselfanimprover，neithercouldheselltheestatetosomebodywhowould;sinceentailprecludesalienation。Ingeneralhehasevenbeenunabletograntleasesbeyondthetermofhisownlife;’for’，saysBlackstone，’ifsuchleaseshadbeenvalid，then，undercoveroflongleases，theissuemighthavebeenvirtuallydisinherited’;