Butthepostulatethatmenarerationalbeings，continuallyleadsonetodrawinferenceswhichprovetobeextremelywideofthemark。（25*）
　　"Yestruly;yourprincipleisderivedfromthelivesofbrutes，andisabrutalprinciple。Youwillnotpersuademethatmenaretobeunderthedisciplinewhichanimalsareunder。I
　　carenothingforyournatural—historyarguments。Myconscienceshowsmethatthefeebleandthesufferingmustbehelped;andifselfishpeoplewon’thelpthem，theymustbeforcedbylawtohelpthem。Don’ttellmethatthemilkofhumankindnessistobereservedfortherelationsbetweenindividuals，andthatGovernmentsmustbetheadministratorsofnothingbuthardjustice。Everymanwithsympathyinhimmustfeelthathungerandpainandsqualormustbeprevented;andthatifprivateagenciesdonotsuffice，thenpublicagenciesmustbeestablished。"
　　SuchisthekindofresponsewhichIexpecttobemadebynineoutoften。Insomeofthemitwilldoubtlessresultfromafellow—feelingsoacutethattheycannotcontemplatehumanmiserywithoutanimpatiencewhichexcludesallthoughtsofremoteresults。Concerningthesusceptibilitiesoftherest，wemay，however，besomewhatsceptical。Personswho，nowinthiscaseandnowinthat，areangryif，tomaintainoursupposednational"interests"ornational"prestige，"thoseinauthoritydonotpromptlysendoutsomethousandsofmentobepartiallydestroyedwhiledestroyingotherthousandsofmenwhoseintentionswesuspect，orwhoseinstitutionswethinkdangeroustous，orwhoseterritoryourcolonistswant，cannotafterallbesotenderinfeelingthatcontemplatingthehardshipsofthepoorisintolerabletothem。Littleadmirationneedbefeltfortheprofessedsympathiesofpeoplewhourgeonapolicywhichbreaksupprogressingsocieties;andwhothenlookonwithCynicalindifferenceatthewelteringconfusionleftbehind，withallitsentailedsufferinganddeath。Thosewho，whenBoersassertingtheirindependencesuccessfullyresistedus，wereangrybecauseBritish"honour"wasnotmaintainedbyfightingtoavengeadefeat，atthecostofmoremortalityandmiserytoourownsoldiersandtheirantagonists，cannothavesomuch"enthusiasmofhumanity"asprotestslikethatindicatedabovewouldleadonetoexpect。Indeed，alongwiththissensitivenesswhichtheyprofesswillnotletthemlookwithpatienceonthepainsof"thebattleoflife"asitquietlygoesonaround，theyappeartohaveacallousnesswhichnotonlytoleratesbutenjoyscontemplatingthepainsofbattlesoftheliteralkind;asoneseesinthedemandforfrustratedpaperscontainingscenesofcarnage，andinthegreedinesswithwhichdetailedaccountsofbloodyengagementsareread。Wemayreasonablyhaveourdoubtsaboutmenwhosefeelingsaresuchthattheycannotbearthethoughtofhardshipsborne，mostlybytheidleandtheimprovident，andwho，nevertheless，havedemandedthirty—oneeditionsofTheFifteenDecisiveBattlesoftheWorld，inwhichtheymayrevelinaccountsofslaughter。Nay，evenstillmoreremarkableisthecontrastbetweentheprofessedtender—heartednessandtheactualhard—heartednessofthosewhowouldreversethenormalcourseofthingsthatmediatemiseriesmaybeprevented，evenatthecostofgreatermiserieshereafterproduced。Foronotheroccasionsyoumayhearthem，withutterdisregardofbloodshedanddeath，contendthatintheinterestsofhumanityatlargeitiswellthattheinferiorracesshouldbeexterminatedandtheirplacesoccupiedbythesuperiorraces。Sothat，marvelloustorelate，thoughtheycannotthinkwithcalmnessoftheevilsaccompanyingthestruggleforexistenceasitiscarriedonwithoutviolenceamongindividualsintheirownsociety，theycontemplatewithcontentedequanimitysuchevilsintheirintenseandwholesaleforms，wheninflictedbyfireandswordonentirecommunities。
　　Notworthyofmuchrespectthen，asitseemstome，isthisgenerousconsiderationoftheinferiorathomewhichisaccompaniedbyunscrupuloussacrificeoftheinferiorabroad。
　　Stilllessrespectableappearsthisextremeconcernforthoseofourownbloodwhichgoesalongwithutterunconcernforthoseofotherblood，whenweobserveitsmethods。Diditpromptpersonalefforttorelievethesuffering，itwouldrightlyreceiveapprovingrecognition。Werethemanywhoexpressthischeappitylikethefewwhopatiently，weekafterweekandyearafteryear，devotelargepartsoftheirtimetohelpingandencouraging，andoccasionallyamusing，thosewho，insomecasesbyill—fortuneandinothercasesbyincapacityormisconduct，arebroughttolivesofhardship，theywouldbeworthyofunqualifiedadmiration。Themorethereareofmenandwomenwhohelpthepoortohelpthemselves——themorethereareofthosewhosesympathyisexhibiteddirectlyandnotbyproxy，themorewemayrejoice。Butthemensemajorityofthepersonswhowishtomitigatebylawthemiseriesoftheunsuccessfulandthereckless，proposetodothisinsmallmeasureattheirowncostandmainlyatthecostofothers——sometimeswiththeirassentbutmostlywithout。Morethanthisistrue;forthosewhoaretobeforcedtodosomuchforthedistressed，oftenequallyormorerequiresomethingdoingforthem。Thedeservingpoorareamongthosewhoareburdenedtopaythecostsofcaringfortheundeservingpoor。As，undertheoldPoorLaw，thediligentandprovidentlabourerhadtopaythatthegood—for—nothingsmightnotsuffer，untilfrequentlyunderthisextraburdenhebrokedownandhimselftookrefugeintheworkhouse——as，atpresent，itisadmittedthatthetotalratesleviedinlargetownsforallpublicpurposes，havenowreachedsuchaheightthatthey"cannotbeexceededwithoutinflictinggreathardshiponthesmallshopkeepersandartisans，whoalreadyfinditdifficultenoughtokeepthemselvesfreefromthepaupertaint;"（26*）soinallcases，thepolicyisonewhichintensifiesthepainsofthosemostdeservingofpity，thatthepainsofthoseleastdeservingofpitymaybemitigated。Inshort，menwhoaresosympatheticthattheycannotallowthestruggleforexistencetobringontheunworthythesufferingsconsequentontheirincapacityormisconduct，aresounsympatheticthattheycan，withouthesitation，makethestruggleforexistenceharderfortheworthy，andinflictonthemandtheirchildrenartificialevilsinadditiontothenaturalevilstheyhavetobear！
　　Andherewearebroughtroundtoouroriginaltopic——thesinsoflegislators。Heretherecomesclearlybeforeusthecommonestofthetransgressionswhichrulerscommit——atransgressionsocommon，andsosanctifiedbycustom，thatnooneimaginesittobeatransgression。Hereweseethat，asindicatedattheoutset，Government，begottenofaggressionandbyaggression，evercontinuestobetrayitsoriginalnaturebyitsaggressiveness;
　　andthatevenwhatonitsnearerfaceseemsbeneficenceonly，shows，onitsremoterface，notalittlemaleficence——kindnessatthecostofcruelty。Forisitnotcrueltoincreasethesufferingsofthebetterthatthesufferingsoftheworsemaybedecreased？
　　Itis，indeed，marvelloushowreadilyweletourselvesbedeceivedbywordsandphraseswhichsuggestoneaspectofthefactswhileleavingtheoppositeaspectunsuggested。Agoodfrustrationofthis，andonegermanetothemediatequestion，isseenintheuseofthewords"protection"and"protectionist"bytheantagonistsoffreetrade，andinthetacitadmissionofitsproprietybyfree—traders。Whiletheonepartyhashabituallyignored，theotherpartyhashabituallyfailedtoemphasize，thetruththatthisso—calledprotectionalwaysinvolvesaggression;
　　andthatthenameaggressionistoughttobesubstitutedforthenameprotectionist。Fornothingcanbemorecertainthanthatif，tomaintainA’sprofit，BisforbiddentobuyofC，orisfinedtotheextentofthedutyifhebuysofC，BisaggresseduponthatAmaybe"protected。"Nay，"aggressionists"isatitledoublymoreapplicabletotheanti—free—tradersthanistheeuphemistictitle"protectionists;"since，thatoneproducermaygain，tenconsumersarefleeced。
　　Nowjustthelikeconfusionofideas，causedbylookingatonefaceonlyofthetransaction，maybetracedthroughoutallthelegislationwhichforciblytakesthepropertyofthismanforthepurposeofgivinggratisbenefitstothatman。Habituallywhenoneofthenumerousmeasuresthuscharacterizedisdiscussed，thedominantthoughtisconcerningthepitiableJoneswhoistobeprotectedagainstsomeevil;whilenothoughtisgiventothehard—workingBrownwhoisaggressedupon，oftenmuchmoretobepitied。Moneyisexacted（eitherdirectlyorthroughraisedrent）fromthehucksterwhoonlybyextremepinchingcanpayherway，fromthemasonthrownoutofworkbyastrike，fromthemechanicwhosesavingsaremeltingawayduringanillness，fromthewidowwhowashesorsewsfromdawntodarktofeedherfatherlesslittleones;andallthatthedissolutemaybesavedfromhunger，thatthechildrenoflessimpoverishedneighboursmayhavecheaplessons，andthatvariouspeople，mostlybetteroff，mayreadnewspapersandnovelsfornothing！Theerrorofnomenclatureis，inonerespect，moremisleadingthanthatwhichallowsaggressioniststobecalledprotectionists;for，asjustshown，protectionoftheviciouspoorinvolvesaggressiononthevirtuouspoor。Doubtlessitistruethatthegreaterpartofthemoneyexactedcomesfromthosewhoarerelativelywell—off。Butthisisnoconsolationtotheill—offfromwhomtherestisexacted。Nay，ifthecomparisonbemadebetweenthepressuresbornebythetwoclassesrespectively，itbecomesmanifestthatthecaseisevenworsethanatfirstappears;forwhiletothewell—offtheexactionmeanslossofluxuries，totheill—offitmeanslossofnecessaries。
　　AndnowseetheNemesiswhichisthreateningtofollowthischronicsinoflegislators。Theyandtheirclass，incommonwithallownersofproperty，areindangerofsufferingfromasweepingapplicationofthatgeneralprinciplepracticallyassertedbyeachoftheseconfiscatingActsofParliament。ForwhatisthetacitassumptiononwhichsuchActsproceed？Itistheassumptionthatnomanhasanyclaimtohisproperty，noteventothatwhichhehasearnedbythesweatofhisbrow，savebypermissionofthecommunity;andthatthecommunitymaycanceltheclaimtoanyextentitthinksfit。NodefencecanbemadeforthisappropriationofA’spossessionsforthebenefitofB，saveonewhichsetsoutwiththepostulatethatsocietyasawholehasanabsoluterightoverthepossessionsofeachmember。Andnowthisdoctrine，whichhasbeentacitlyassumed，isbeingopenlyproclaimed。MrGeorgeandhisfriends，MrHyndmanandhissupporters，arepushingthetheorytoitslogicalissue。Theyhavebeeninstructedbyexamples，yearlyincreasinginnumber，thattheindividualhasnorightsbutwhatthecommunitymayequitablyoverride;andtheyarenowsaying——"Itshallgohardbutwewillbettertheinstruction，"andover—rideindividualrightsaltogether。
　　Legislativemisdeedsoftheclassesaboveindicatedareinlargemeasureexplained，andreprobationofthemmitigated，whenwelookatthematterfromafaroff。Theyhavetheirrootintheerrorthatsocietyisamanufacture;whereasitisagrowth。
　　Neitherthecultureofpasttimesnorthecultureofthepresenttime，hasgiventoanyconsiderablenumberofpeopleascientificconceptionofasociety——aconceptionofitashavinganaturalstructureinwhichallitsinstitutions，governmental，religious，industrial，commercial，etc。，etc。，areinterdependentlybound——
　　astructurewhichisinasenseorganic。Orifsuchaconceptionisnominallyentertained，itisnotentertainedinsuchwayastobeoperativeonconduct。Contrariwise，incorporatedhumanityisverycommonlythoughtofasthoughitwerelikesomuchdoughwhichthecookcanmouldasshepleasesintopie—crust，orpuff，ortartlet。Thecommunistshowsusunmistakablythathethinksofthebodypoliticasadmittingofbeingshapedthusorthusatwill;andthetacitimplicationofmanyActsofParliamentisthataggregatedmen，twistedintothisorthatarrangement，willremainasintended。
　　Itmayindeedbesaidthatevenirrespectiveofthiserroneousconceptionofasocietyasaplasticmassinsteadofasanorganizedbody，factsforcedonhisattentionhourbyhourshouldmakeeveryonescepticalastothesuccessofthisorthatproposedwayofchangingapeople’sactions。Aliketothecitizenandtothelegislator，homeexperiencesdailysupplyproofsthattheconductofhumanbeingsbaulkscalculation。Hehasgivenupthethoughtofmanaginghiswifeandletshermanagehim。
　　Childrenonwhomhehastriednowreprimand，nowpunishment，nowsuasion，nowreward，donotrespondsatisfactorilytoanymethod;
　　andnoexpostulationpreventstheirmotherfromtreatingtheminwayshethinksmischievous。So，too，hisdealingswithhisservants，whetherbyreasoningorbyscolding，rarelysucceedforlong：thefallingshortofattention，orpunctuality，orcleanliness，orsobriety，leadstoconstantchanges。Yet，difficultashefindsittodealwithhumanityindetail，heisconfidentofhisabilitytodealwithembodiedhumanity。
　　Citizens，notone—thousandthofwhomheknows，notone—hundredthofwhomheeversaw，andthegreatmassofwhombelongtoclasseshavinghabitsandmodesofthoughtofwhichhehasbutdimnotions，hefeelssurewillactincertainwaysheforesees，andfulfilendshewishes。Istherenotamarvellousincongruitybetweenpremisesandconclusion？
　　Onemighthaveexpectedthatwhethertheyobservedtheimplicationsofthesedomesticfailures，orwhethertheycontemplatedineverynewspapertheindicationsofasociallifetoovast，toovaried，tooinvolved，tobeevenvaguelypicturedinthought，menwouldhaveenteredonthebusinessoflaw—makingwiththegreatesthesitation。Yetinthismorethaninanythingelsedotheyshowaconfidentreadiness。Nowhereistheresoastoundingacontrastbetweenthedifficultyofthetaskandtheunpreparednessofthosewhoundertakeit。Unquestionablyamongmonstrousbeliefsoneofthemostmonstrousisthatwhileforasimplehandicraft，suchasshoe—making，alongapprenticeshipisneedful，thesolethingwhichneedsnoapprenticeshipismakinganation’slaws！
　　Summinguptheresultsofthediscussion，maywenotreasonablysaythatthereliebeforethelegislatorseveralopensecrets，whichyetaresoopenthattheyoughtnottoremainsecretstoonewhoundertakesthevastandterribleresponsibilityofdealingwithmillionsuponmillionsofhumanbeingsbymeasureswhich，iftheydonotconducetotheirhappiness，willincreasetheirmiseriesandacceleratetheirdeaths？
　　Thereisfirstofalltheundeniabletruth，conspicuousandyetabsolutelyignored，thattherearenophenomenawhichasocietypresentsbutwhathavetheiroriginsinthephenomenaofindividualhumanlife，whichagainhavetheirrootsinvitalphenomenaatlarge。Andthereistheinevitableimplicationthatunlessthesevitalphenomena，bodilyandmental，arechaoticintheirrelations（asuppositionexcludedbytheverymaintenanceoflife）theresultingphenomenacannotbewhollychaotic：theremustbesomekindoforderinthephenomenawhichgrowoutofthemwhenassociatedhumanbeingshavetoco—operate。Evidently，then，whenonewhohasnotstudiedsuchresultingphenomenaofsocialorder，undertakestoregulatesociety，heisprettycertaintoworkmischiefs。
　　Inthesecondplace，apartfromapriorireasoning，thisconclusionshouldbeforcedonthelegislatorbycomparisonsofsocieties。Itoughttobesufficientlymanifestthatbeforemeddlingwiththedetailsofsocialorganization，inquiryshouldbemadewhethersocialorganizationhasanaturalhistory;andthattoanswerthisinquiry，itwouldbewell，settingoutwiththesimplestsocieties，toseeinwhatrespectssocialstructuresagree。Suchcomparativesociology，pursuedtoaverysmallextent，showsasubstantialuniformityofgenesis。Thehabitualexistenceofchieftainship，andtheestablishmentofchieflyauthoritybywar;theriseeverywhereofthemedicinemanandpriest;thepresenceofaculthavinginallplacesthesamefundamentaltraits;thetracesofdivisionoflabour，earlydisplayed，whichgraduallybecomemoremarked;andthevariouscomplications，political，ecclesiastical，industrial，whichariseasgroupsarecompoundedandrecompoundedbywar;quicklyprovetoanywhocomparesthemthat，apartfromalltheirspecialdifferences，societieshavegeneralresemblancesintheirmodesoforiginanddevelopment。Theypresenttraitsofstructureshowingthatsocialorganizationhaslawswhichover—rideindividualwills;andlawsthedisregardofwhichmustbefraughtwithdisaster。
　　Andthen，inthethirdplace，thereisthatmassofguidinginformationyieldedbytherecordsoflegislationinourowncountryandinothercountries，whichstillmoreobviouslydemandsattention。Hereandelsewhere，attemptsofmultitudinouskinds，madebykingsandstatesmen，havefailedtodothegoodintendedandhaveworkedunexpectedevils。Centuryaftercenturynewmeasuresliketheoldones，andothermeasuresakininprinciple，haveagaindisappointedhopesandagainbroughtdisaster。Andyetitisthoughtneitherbyelectorsnorbythosetheyelect，thatthereisanyneedforsystematicstudyofthatlaw—makingwhichinbygoneageswentonworkingtheill—beingofthepeoplewhenittriedtoachievetheirwell—being。Surelytherecanbenofitnessforlegislativefunctionswithoutthewideknowledgeofthoselegislativeexperienceswhichthepasthasbequeathed。
　　Reverting，then，totheanalogydrawnattheoutset，wemustsaythatthelegislatorismorallyblamelessormorallyblameworthy，accordingashehasorhasnotacquaintedhimselfwiththeseseveralclassesoffacts。Aphysicianwho，afteryearsofstudy，hasgainedacompetentknowledgeofphysiology，pathologyandtherapeutics，isnotheldcriminallyresponsibleifamandiesunderhistreatment：hehaspreparedhimselfaswellashecan，andhasactedtothebestofhisjudgment。Similarlythelegislatorwhosemeasuresproduceevilinsteadofgood，notwithstandingtheextensiveandmethodicinquirieswhichhelpedhimtodecide，cannotbeheldtohavecommittedmorethananerrorofreasoning。Contrariwise，thelegislatorwhoiswhollyoringreatpartuninformedconcerningthesemassesoffactswhichhemustexaminebeforehisopiniononaproposedlawcanbeofanyvalue，andwhoneverthelesshelpstopassthatlaw，cannomorebeabsolvedifmiseryandmortalityresult，thanthejourneymandruggistcanbeabsolvedwhendeathiscausedbythemedicineheignorantlyprescribes。
　　NOTES：
　　1。PoliticalInstitution，sections437，573。
　　2。Ibid。，sections471—3。
　　3。Lanfrey。SeealsoStudyofSociology，p。42，andAppendix。
　　4。ConstitutionalHistoryofEngland，ii。p。617。
　　5。Lecky，Rationalism，ii。293—4。
　　6。DeTocqueville，TheStateofSocietyinFrancebeforetheRevolution，p。421。
　　7。Young’sTravels，i。128—9。
　　8。Craik’sHistoryofBritishCommerce，i。134。
　　9。Ibid。，136—7。
　　10。Ibid。，137。
　　11。Mensch，iii，p。225。
　　12。TheNineteenthCentury，February，1883。
　　13。"TheStatisticsofLegislation"ByF。H。Jansen，Esq。，F。L。S。，Vice—PresidentoftheIncorporatedLawSociety。
　　14。FireSurveys;or，aSummaryofthePrinciplestobeobservedinEstimatingtheRiskofBuildings。
　　15。SeeTimes，October6，1874，whereotherinstancesaregiven。
　　16。TheStateinitsRelationtoTrade，bySirThomasFarrer，p。
　　147。
　　17。Ibid。，p。149。
　　18。Hansard，vol。clvi。，p。718，andvol。clvii。，p。4464。
　　19。LetterofanEdiburghM。D。inTimesof17thJanuary，1876，verifyingothertestimonies;oneofwhichIhadpreviouslycitedconcerningWindsor，where，asinEdinburgh，therewasabsolutelynotyphoidintheundrainedparts，whileitwasveryfatalinthedrainedparts。StudyinSociology，chap。i。，notes。
　　20。Isaythispartlyfrompersonalknowledge;havingnowbeforemememoranadamade25yearsago，concerningsuchresultsproducedundermyownobservation。VerifyingfactshaverecentlybeengivenbySirRichardCrossintheNineteenthCenturyforJanuary，1884，p。155。
　　21。Nicholl’sHistoryofEnglishPoorLaw，ii。p。252。
　　22。SeeTimes，March31，1863。
　　23。Intheseparagraphsarecontainedjustafewadditionalexamples。NumberswhichIhavebeforegiveninbooksandessays，willbefoundinSocialStatics（1851）："Over—Legislation"
　　（1853）;"RepresentativeGovernment"（1857）;"SpecializedAdministration"（1871）;StudyofSociology（1873），andPostscripttoditto（1880）;besidescasesinsmalleressays。
　　24。OntheValueofPoliticalEconomytoMankind。byA。N。
　　Cummings;pp。47，48。
　　25。ThesayingofEmersonthatmostpeoplecanunderstandaprincipleonlywhenitslightfallsonafact，inducesmeheretociteafactwhichmaycarryhometheaboveprincipletothoseonwhom，initsabstractform，itwillproducenoeffect。Itrarelyhappensthattheamountofevilcausedbyfosteringtheviciousandgood—for—nothingcanbeestimated。ButinAmerica，atameetingoftheStatesCharitiesAidAssociation，heldonDecember18，1874，astartlinginstancewasgivenindetailbyDrHarris。
　　ItwasfurnishedbyacountyontheUpperHudson，remarkablefortheratioofcrimeandpovertytopopulation。Generationsagotherehadexistedacertain"gutter—child，"asshewouldbeherecalled，knownas"Margaret，"whoprovedtobetheprolificmotherofaprolificrace。Besidesgreatnumbersofidiots，imbeciles，drunkards，lunatics，paupers，andprostitutes，"thecountyrecordsshowtwohundredofherdescendantswhohavebeencriminals。"Wasitkindnessorcrueltywhich，generationaftergeneration，enabledthesetomultiplyandbecomeanincreasingcursetothesocietyaroundthem？（ForparticularsseetheJukes：
　　aStudyinCrime，Pauperism，DiseaseandHeredity，byR。L。
　　Dugdale，NewYork;Putnams。）
　　26。MrChamberlaininFortnightlyReview，December，1883，p。772。
　　THEGREATPOLITICALSUPERSTITION
　　Thegreatpoliticalsuperstitionofthepastwasthedivinerightofkings。Thegreatpoliticalsuperstitionofthepresentisthedivinerightofparliaments。Theoilofanointingseemsunawarestohavedrippedfromtheheadoftheoneontotheheadsofthemany，andgivensacrednesstothemalsoandtotheirdecrees。
　　Howeverirrationalwemaythinktheearlierofthesebeliefs，wemustadmitthatitwasmoreconsistentthanisthelatter。
　　Whetherwegobacktotimeswhenthekingwasagod，ortotimeswhenhewasadescendantofagod，ortotimeswhenhewasgod—appointed，weseegoodreasonforpassiveobediencetohiswill。When，asunderLouisXIV，theologianslikeBossuettaughtthatkings"aregods，andshareinamannertheDivineindependence，"orwhenitwasthought，asbyourownTorypartyinolddays，that"themonarchwasthedelegateofheaven;"itisclearthat，giventhepremise，theinevitableconclusionwasthatnoboundscouldbesettogovernmentalcommands。Butforthemodernbeliefsuchawarrantdoesnotexist。Makingnopretensiontodivinedescentordivineappointment，alegislativebodycanshownosupernaturaljustificationforitsclaimtounlimitedauthority;andnonaturaljustificationhaseverbeenattempted。
　　Hence，beliefinitsunlimitedauthorityiswithoutthatconsistencywhichofoldcharacterizedbeliefinaking’sunlimitedauthority。
　　Itiscurioushowcommonlymencontinuetoholdinfact，doctrineswhichtheyhaverejectedinname——retainingthesubstanceaftertheyhaveabandonedtheform。InTheologyanillustrationissuppliedbyCarlyle，who，inhisstudentdays，givingup，ashethought，thecreedofhisfathers，rejecteditsshellonly，keepingthecontents;andwasprovedbyhisconceptionsoftheworld，andman，andconduct，tobestillamongthesternestofScotchCalvinists。Similarly，SciencefurnishesaninstanceinonewhounitednaturalisminGeologywithsupernaturalisminBiology——SirCharlesLyell。While，astheleadingexpositoroftheuniformitariantheoryinGeology，heignoredwhollytheMosaiccosmogony，helongdefendedthatbeliefinspecialcreationsoforganictypes，forwhichnoothersourcethantheMosaiccosmogonycouldbeassigned;andonlyinthelatterpartofhislifesurrenderedtotheargumentsofMrDarwin。InPolitics，asaboveimplied，wehaveananalogouscase。
　　Thetacitly—asserteddoctrine，commontoTories，Whigs，andRadicals，thatgovernmentalauthorityisunlimited，datesbacktotimeswhenthelaw—giverwassupposedtohaveawarrantfromGod;
　　anditsurvivesstill，thoughthebeliefthatthelaw—giverhasGod’swarranthasdiedout。"Oh，anActofParliamentcandoanything，"isthereplymadetoacitizenwhoquestionsthelegitimacyofsomearbitraryState—interference;andthecitizenstandsparalysed。Itdoesnotoccurtohimtoaskthehow，andthewhen，andthewhence，ofthisassertedomnipotenceboundedonlybyphysicalimpossibilities。
　　Herewewilltakeleavetoquestionit。Indefaultofthejustification，oncelogicallyvalid，thattheruleronEarthbeingadeputyoftherulerinHeaven，submissiontohiminallthingsisaduty，letusaskwhatreasonthereisforassertingthedutyofsubmissioninallthingstoarulingpower，constitutionalorrepublican，whichhasnoHeaven—derivedsupremacy。Evidentlythisinquirycommitsustoacriticismofpastandpresenttheoriesconcerningpoliticalauthority。Torevivequestionssupposedtobelongsincesettled，maybethoughttoneedsomeapology。butthereisasufficientapologyintheimplicationabovemadeclear，thatthetheorycommonlyacceptedisill—basedorunbased。
　　Thenotionofsovereigntyisthatwhichfirstpresentsitself;
　　andacriticalexaminationofthisnotion，asentertainedbythosewhodonotpostulatethesupernaturaloriginofsovereignty，carriesusbacktotheargumentsofHobbes。
　　LetusgrantHobbes’spostulatethat，"duringthetimemenlivewithoutacommonpowertokeepthemallinawe，theyareinthatconditionwhichiscalledwar……ofeverymanagainsteveryman;"（1*）thoughthisisnottrue，sincetherearesomesmalluncivilizedsocietiesinwhich，withoutany"commonpowertokeepthemallinawe，"menmaintainpeaceandharmonybetterthanitismaintainedinsocietieswheresuchapowerexists。Letussupposehimtoberight，too，inassumingthattheriseofarulingpoweroverassociatedmen，resultsfromtheirdesirestopreserveorderamongthemselves;though，infact，ithabituallyarisesfromtheneedforsubordinationtoaleaderinwar，defensiveoroffensive，andhasoriginallynonecessary，andoftennoactual，relationtothepreservationoforderamongthecombinedindividuals。Oncemore，letusadmittheindefensibleassumptionthattoescapetheevilsofchronicconflicts，whichmustotherwisecontinueamongthem，themembersofacommunityenterintoa"pactorcovenant，"bywhichtheyallbindthemselvestosurrendertheirprimitivefreedomofaction，andsubordinatethemselvestothewillofarulingpoweragreedupon：（2*）accepting，also，theimplicationthattheirdescendantsforeverareboundbythecovenantwhichremoteancestorsmadeforthem。Letus，Isay，notobjecttothesedata，butpasstotheconclusionsHobbesdraws。Hesays：——
　　"Forwherenocovenanthathpreceded，therehathnorightbeentransferred，andeverymanhasrighttoeverything;andconsequently，noactioncanbeunjust。Butwhenacovenantismade，thentobreakitisunjust：andthedefinitionofINJUSTICE，isnootherthanthenotperformanceofcovenant……
　　Thereforebeforethenamesofjustandunjustcanhaveplace，theremustbesomecoercivepower，tocompelmenequallytotheperformanceoftheircovenants，bytheterrorofsomepunishment，greaterthanthebenefittheyexpectbythebreachoftheircovenant。"（3*）
　　Werepeople’scharactersinHobbes’sdayreallysobadastowarranthisassumptionthatnonewouldperformtheircovenantsintheabsenceofacoercivepowerandthreatenedpenalties？Inourday"thenamesofjustandunjustcanhaveplace"quiteapartfromrecognitionofanycoercivepower。AmongmyfriendsIcouldnamehalfadozenwhomIwouldimplicitlytrusttoperformtheircovenantswithoutany"terrorofsomepunishment"andoverwhomtherequirementsofjusticewouldbeasimperativeintheabsenceofacoercivepowerasinitspresence。Merelynoting，however，thatthisunwarrantedassumptionvitiatesHobbes’sargumentforState—authority，andacceptingbothhispremisesandconclusion，wehavetoobservetwosignificantimplications。OneisthatState—authorityasthusderived，isameanstoanend，andhasnovaliditysaveassubservingthatend：iftheendisnotsubserved，theauthority，bythehypothesis，doesnotexist。Theotheristhattheendforwhichtheauthorityexists，asthusspecified，istheenforcementofjustice——themaintenanceofequitablerelations。Thereasoningyieldsnowarrantforothercoercionovercitizensthanthatwhichisrequiredforpreventingdirectaggressions，andthoseindirectaggressionsconstitutedbybreachesofcontract;towhich，ifweaddprotectionagainsteternalenemies，theentirefunctionimpliedbyHobbes’sderivationofsovereignauthorityiscomprehended。
　　Hobbesarguedintheinterestsofabsolutemonarchy。Hismodernadmirer，Austin，hadforhisaimtoderivetheauthorityoflawfromtheunlimitedsovereigntyofoneman，orofanumberofmen，smallorlargecomparedwiththewholecommunity。Austinwasoriginallyinthearmy;andithasbeentrulyremarkedthat"thepermanenttracesleft"maybeseeninhisProvinceofJurisprudence。When，undeterredbytheexasperatingpedantries——
　　theendlessdistinctionsanddefinitionsandrepetitions——whichservebuttohidehisessentialdoctrines，weascertainwhattheseare，itbecomesmanifestthatheassimilatescivilauthoritytomilitaryauthority：takingforgrantedthattheone，astheother，isabovequestioninrespectofbothoriginandrange。Togetjustificationforpositivelaw，hetakesusbacktotheabsolutesovereigntyofthepowerimposingit——amonarch，anaristocracy，orthatlargerbodyofmenwhohavevotesinademocracy;forsuchabodyalso，hestylesthesovereign，incontrastwiththeremainingportionofthecommunitywhich，fromincapacityorothercause，remainssubject。Andhavingaffirmed，or，rather，takenforgranted，theunlimitedauthorityofthebody，simpleorcompound，smallorlarge，whichhestylessovereign，he，ofcourse，hasnodifficultyindeducingthelegalvalidityofitsedicts，whichhecallspositivelaw。Buttheproblemissimplymovedastepfurtherbackandthereleftunsolved。Thetruequestionis——Whencethesovereignty？Whatistheassignablewarrantforthisunqualifiedsupremacyassumedbyone，orbyasmallnumber，orbyalargenumber，overtherest？A
　　criticmightfitlysay——"Wewilldispensewithyourprocessofderivingpositivelawfromunlimitedsovereignty：thesequenceisobviousenough。Butfirstproveyourunlimitedsovereignty。"
　　Tothisdemandthereisnoresponse。Analysehisassumption，andthedoctrineofAustinprovestohavenobetterbasisthanthatofHobbes。Intheabsenceofadmitteddivinedescentorappointment，neithersingle—headedrulernormany—headedrulercanproducesuchcredentialsastheclaimtounlimitedsovereigntyimplies。
　　"Butsurely，"willcomeindeafeningchorusthereply，"thereistheunquestionablerightofthemajority，whichgivesunquestionablerightstotheparliamentitelects。"
　　Yes，nowwearecomingdowntotherootofthematter。Thedivinerightofparliamentsmeansthedivinerightofmajorities。
　　Thefundamentalassumptionmadebylegislatorsandpeoplealike，isthatamajorityhaspowerstowhichnolimitscanbeput。Thisisthecurrenttheorywhichallacceptwithoutproofasaself—evidenttruth。Nevertheless，criticismwill，Ithink，showthatthiscurrenttheoryrequiresaradicalmodification。
　　Inanessayon"RailwayMoralsandRailwayPolicy，"publishedintheEdinburghReviewforOctober，1854，Ihadoccasiontodealwiththequestionofamajority’spowersasexemplifiedintheconductofpubliccompanies;andIcannotbetterpreparethewayforconclusionspresentlytobedrawn，thanbyquotingapassagefromit：——
　　"Underwhatevercircumstances，orforwhateverends，anumberofmenco—operate，itisheldthatifdifferenceofopinionarisesamongthem，justicerequiresthatthewilloftheseaternumbershallbeexecutedratherthanthatofthesmallernumber;andthisruleissupposedtobeuniformlyapplicable，bethequestionatissuewhatitmay。Soconfirmedisthisconvictionandsolittlehavetheethicsofthematterbeenconsidered，thattomostthismeresuggestionofadoubtwillcausesomeastonishment。Yetitneedsbutabriefanalysistoshowthattheopinionislittlebetterthanapoliticalsuperstition。Instancesmayreadilybeselectedwhichprove，byreductioadabsurdum，thattherightofamajorityisapurelyconditionalright，validonlywithinspecificlimits。Letustakeafew。Supposethatatthegeneralmeetingofsomephilanthropicassociation，itwasresolvedthatinadditiontorelievingdistresstheassociationshouldemployhome—missionariestopreachdownpopery。MightthesubscriptionsofCatholics，whohadjoinedthebodywithcharitableviews，berightfullyusedforthisend？Supposethatofthemembersofabookclub，theseaternumber，thinkingthatunderexistingcircumstancesrifle—practicewasmoreimportantthanreading，shoulddecidetochangethepurposeoftheirunion，andtoapplythefundsinhandforthepurchaseofpowder，ball，andtargets。Wouldtherestbeboundbythisdecision？SupposethatundertheexcitementofnewsfromAustralia，themajorityofaFreeholdLandSocietyshoulddetermine，notsimplytostartinabodyforthegold—diggings，buttousetheiraccumulatedcapitaltoprovideoutfits。Wouldthisappropriationofpropertybejusttotheminority？andmustthesejointheexpedition？
　　Scarcelyanyonewouldventureanaffirmativeanswereventothefirstofthesequestions;muchlesstotheothers。Andwhy？
　　Becauseeveryonemustperceivethatbyunitinghimselfwithothers，nomancanequitablybebetrayedintoactsutterlyforeigntothepurposeforwhichhejoinedthem。Eachofthesesupposedminoritieswouldproperlyreplytothoseseekingtocoercethem：——’Wecombinedwithyouforadefinedobject;wegavemoneyandtimeforthefurtheranceofthatobject;onallquestionsthencearisingwetacitlyagreedtoconformtothewillofthegreaternumber;butwedidnotagreetoconformonanyotherquestions。Ifyouinduceustojoinyoubyprofessingacertainend，andthenundertakesomeotherendofwhichwewerenotapprised，youobtainoursupportunderfalsepretences;youexceedtheexpressedorunderstoodcompacttowhichwecommittedourselves;andwearenolongerboundbyyourdecisions。’Clearlythisistheonlyrationalinterpretationofthematter。Thegeneralprincipleunderlyingtherightgovernmentofeveryincorporatedbody，is，thatitsmemberscontactwitheachotherseverallytosubmittothewillofthemajorityinallmattersconcerningthefulfilmentoftheobjectsforwhichtheyareincorporated;butinnoothers。Tothisextentonlycanthecontacthold。Forasitisimpliedintheverynatureofacontact，thatthoseenteringintoitmustknowwhattheycontacttodo;andasthosewhounitewithothersforaspecifiedobject，cannotcontemplatealltheunspecifiedobjectswhichitishypotheticallypossiblefortheuniontoundertake;itfollowsthatthecontactenteredintocannotextendtosuchunspecifiedobjects。Andifthereexistsnoexpressedorunderstoodcontactbetweentheunionanditsmembersrespectingunspecifiedobjects，thenforthemajoritytocoercetheminorityintoundertakingthem，isnothinglessthangrosstyranny。"
　　Naturally，ifsuchaconfusionofideasexistsinrespectofthepowersofamajoritywherethedeedofincorporationtacitlylimitsthesepowers，stillmoremustthereexistsuchaconfusionwheretherehasbeennodeedofincorporation。Neverthelessthesameprincipleholds。Iagainemphasizethepropositionthatthemembersofanincorporatedbodyarebound"severallytosubmittothewillofthemajorityinallmattersconcerningthefulfilmentoftheobjectsforwhichtheyareincorporated;butinnoothers。"AndIcontendthatthisholdsofanincorporatednationasmuchasofanincorporatedcompany。
　　"Yes，but，"comestheobviousrejoinder，"asthereisnodeedbywhichthemembersofanationareincorporated——asthereneitheris，noreverwas，aspecificationofpurposesforwhichtheunionwasformed，thereexistnolimits;and，consequently，thepowerofthemajorityisunlimited。"
　　Evidentlyitmustbeadmittedthatthehypothesisofasocialcontract，eitherundertheshapeassumedbyHobbesorundertheshapeassumedbyRousseau，isbaseless。Naymore，itmustbeadmittedthatevenhadsuchacontractoncebeenformed，itcouldnotbebindingontheposterityofthosewhoformedit。Moreover，ifanysaythatintheabsenceofthoseStationstoitspowerswhichadeedofincorporationmightimply，thereisnothingtopreventamajorityfromimposingitswillonaminoritybyforce，assentmustbegivenanassent，however，joinedwiththecommentthatifthesuperiorforceofthemajorityisitsjustification，thenthesuperiorforceofadespotbackedbyanadequatearmy，isalsojustified：theproblemlapses。Whatwehereseekissomehigherwarrantforthesubordinationofminoritytomajoritythanthatarisingfrominabilitytoresistphysicalcoercion。EvenAustin，anxiousasheistoestablishtheunquestionableauthorityofpositivelaw，andassuming，ashedoes，anabsolutesovereigntyofsomekind，monarchic，aristocratic，constitutional，orpopular，asthesourceofitsunquestionableauthority，isobliged，inthelastresort，toadmitamorallimittoitsactionoverthecommunity。Whileinsisting，inpursuanceofhisrigidtheoryofsovereignty，thatasovereignbodyoriginatingfromthepeople"islegallyfreetoabridgetheirpoliticalliberty，atitsownpleasureordiscretion，"heallowsthat"agovernmentmaybehinderedbypositivemoralityfromabridgingthepoliticallibertywhichitleavesorgrantstoitssubjects。"（4*）Hence，wehavetofind，notaphysicaljustification，butamoraljustification，forthesupposedabsolutepowerofthemajority。
　　Thiswillatoncedrawforththerejoinder——"Ofcourse，intheabsenceofanyagreement，withitsimpliedlimitations，theruleofthemajorityisunlimited;becauseitismorejustthatthemajorityshouldhaveitswaythanthattheminorityshouldhaveitsway。"Averyreasonablerejoinderthisseemsuntiltherecomesthere—rejoinder。Wemayopposetoittheequallytenablepropositionthat，intheabsenceofanagreement，thesupremacyofamajorityoveraminoritydoesnotexistatall。Itisco—operationofsomekind，fromwhichtherearisethesepowersandobligationsofmajorityandminority;andintheabsenceofanyagreementtoco—operate，suchpowersandobligationsarealsoabsent。
　　Heretheargumentapparentlyendsinadeadlock。Undertheexistingconditionofthings，nomoraloriginseemsassignableeitherforthesovereigntyofthemajorityorforthelimitationofitssovereignty。Butfurtherconsiderationrevealsasolutionofthedifficulty。Forif，dismissingallthoughtofanyhypotheticalagreementtocooperateheretoforemade，weaskwhatwouldbetheagreementintowhichcitizenswouldnowenterwithpracticalunanimity，wegetasufficientlyclearanswer;andwithitasufficientlyclearjustificationfortheruleofthemajorityinsideacertainsphere，butnotoutsidethatsphere。
　　Letusfirstobserveafewofthelimitationswhichatoncebecomeapparent。
　　WereallEnglishmennowaskediftheywouldagreetoco—operatefortheteachingofreligion，andwouldgivethemajoritypowertofixthecreedandtheformsofworship，therewouldcomeaveryemphatic"No"fromalargepartofthem。If，inpursuanceofaproposaltorevivesumptuarylaws，theinquiryweremadewhethertheywouldbindthemselvestoabidebythewillofthemajorityinrespectofthefashionsandqualitiesoftheirclothes，nearlyallofthemwouldrefuse。Inlikemannerif（totakeanactualquestionoftheday）peoplewerepolledtoascertainwhether，inrespectofthebeveragestheydrank，theywouldacceptthedecisionofthegreaternumber，certainlyhalf，andprobablymorethanhalf，wouldbeunwilling。Similarlywithrespecttomanyotheractionswhichmostmennow—a—daysregardasofpurelyprivateconcern。Whateverdesiretheremightbetoco—operateforcarryingon，orregulating，suchactions，wouldbefarfromaunanimousdesire。Manifestly，then，hadsocialco—operationtobecommencedbyourselves，andhaditspurposestobespecifiedbeforeconsenttoco—operatecouldbeobtained，therewouldbelargepartsofhumanconductinrespectofwhichco—operationwouldbedeclined;andinrespectofwhich，consequently，noauthoritybythemajorityovertheminoritycouldberightfullyexercised。
　　Turnnowtotheconversequestion——Forwhatendswouldallmenagreetoco—operate？Nonewilldenythatforresistinginvasiontheagreementwouldbepracticallyunanimous。ExceptingonlytheQuakers，who，havingdonehighlyusefulworkintheirtime，arenowdyingout，allwouldunitefordefensivewar（not，however，foroffensivewar）;andtheywould，bysodoing，tacitlybindthemselvestoconformtothewillofthemajorityinrespectofmeasuresdirectedtothatend。Therewouldbepracticalunanimity，also，intheagreementtoco—operatefordefenceagainstinternalenemiesasagainsteternalenemies。Omittingcriminals，allmustwishtohavepersonandpropertyadequatelyprotected。Inshort，eachcitizendesirestopreservehislife，topreservethosethingswhichconducetomaintenanceofhislifeandenjoymentofit，andtopreserveintacthislibertiesbothofusingthesethingsandgettingfurthersuch。Itisobvioustohimthathecannotdoallthisifheactsalone。Againstforeigninvadersheispowerlessunlesshecombineswithhisfellows;andthebusinessofprotectinghimselfagainstdomesticinvaders，ifhedidnotsimilarlycombine，wouldbealikeonerous，dangerous，andinefficient。Inoneotherco—operationallareinterested——
　　useoftheterritorytheyinhabit。Didtheprimitivecommunalownershipsurvive，therewouldsurvivetheprimitivecommunalcontroloftheusestobemadeoflandbyindividualsorbygroupsofthem;anddecisionsofthemajoritywouldrightlyprevailrespectingthetermsonwhichportionsofitmightbeemployedforraisingfood，formakingmeansofcommunication，andforotherpurposes。Evenatpresent，thoughthematterhasbeencomplicatedbythegrowthofprivatelandownership，yet，sincetheStateisstillsupremeowner（everylandownerbeinginlawatenantoftheCrown）abletoresumepossession，orauthorizecompulsorypurchase，atafairprice;theimplicationisthatthewillofthemajorityisvalidrespectingthemodesinwhich，andconditionsunderwhich，partsofthesurfaceorsub—surface，maybeutilized：involvingcertainagreementsmadeonbehalfofthepublicwithprivatepersonsandcompanies。
　　Detailsarenotneedfulhere;norisitneedfultodiscussthatborderregionlyingbetweentheseclassesofcases，andtosayhowmuchisincludedinthelastandhowmuchisexcludedwiththefirst。Forpresentpurposes，itissufficienttorecognizetheundeniabletruththattherearenumerouskindsofactionsinrespectofwhichmenwouldnot，iftheywereasked，agreewithanythinglikeunanimitytobeboundbythewillofthemajority;whiletherearesomekindsofactionsinrespectofwhichtheywouldalmostunanimouslyagreetobethusbound。Here，then，wefindadefinitewarrantforenforcingthewillofthemajoritywithincertainlimits，andadefinitewarrantfordenyingtheauthorityofitswillbeyondthoselimits。
　　Butevidently，whenanalysed，thequestionresolvesitselfintothefurtherquestion——Whataretherelativeclaimsoftheaggregateandofitsunits？Aretherightsofthecommunityuniversallyvalidagainsttheindividual？orhastheindividualsomerightswhicharevalidagainstthecommunity？Thejudgmentgivenonthispointunderliestheentirefabricofpoliticalconvictionsformed，andmoreespeciallythoseconvictionswhichconcernthepropersphereofgovernment。Here，then，Iproposetoreviveadormantcontroversy，withtheexpectationofreachingadifferentconclusionfromthatwhichisfashionable。
　　SaysProfessorJevons，inhiswork，TheStateinRelationtoLabour"Thefirststepmustbetoridourmindsoftheideathatthereareanysuchthingsinsocialmattersasabstractrights。"
　　OflikecharacteristhebeliefexpressedbyMrMatthewArnold，inhisarticleoncopyright：——"Anauthorhasnonaturalrighttoapropertyinhisproduction。Butthenneitherhasheanaturalrighttoanythingwhateverwhichhemayproduceoracquire。"（5*）So，too，Irecentlyreadinaweeklyjournalofhighrepute，that"toexplainoncemorethatthereisnosuchthingas’naturalright’wouldbeawasteofphilosophy。"Andtheviewexpressedintheseextractsiscommonlyutteredbystatesmenandlawyersinawayimplyingthatonlytheunthinkingmassesholdanyother。
　　OnemighthaveexpectedthatutterancestothiseffectwouldhavebeenrenderedlessdogmaticbytheknowledgethatawholeschooloflegalistsontheContinent，maintainsabeliefdiametricallyopposedtothatmaintainedbytheEnglishschool。
　　TheideaofNatur—rechtistheroot—ideaofGermanjurisprudence。
　　NowwhatevermaybetheopinionheldrespectingGermanphilosophyatlarge，itcannotbecharacterizedasshallow。Adoctrinecurrentamongapeopledistinguishedaboveallothersaslaboriousinquirers，andcertainlynottobeclassedwithsuperficialthinkers，shouldnotbedismissedasthoughitwerenothingmorethanapopulardelusion。This，however，bytheway。
　　Alongwiththepropositiondeniedintheabovequotations，theregoesacounter—propositionaffirmed。Letusseewhatitis;andwhatresultswhenwegobehinditandseekitswarrant。
　　OnrevertingtoBentham，wefindthiscounter—propositionovertlyexpressed。Hetellsusthatgovernmentfulfilsitsoffice"bycreatingrightswhichitconfersuponindividuals：rightsofpersonalsecurity;rightsofprotectionforhonour;rightsofproperty;"etc。（6*）Werethisdoctrineassertedasfollowingfromthedivinerightofkings，therewouldbenothinginitmanifestlyincongruous。DiditcometousfromancientPeru，wheretheYnca"wasthesourcefromwhicheveningflowed";（7*）orfromShoa（Abyssinia），where"oftheirpersonsandworldlysubstancehe[theking]isabsolutemaster";（8*）orfromDahome，where"allmenareslavestotheking";（9*）itwouldbeconsistentenough。ButBentham，farfrombeinganabsolutistlikeHobbes，wroteintheinterestsofpopularrule。InhisConstitutionalCode（10*）hefixesthesovereigntyinthewholepeople;arguingthatitisbest"togivethesovereignpowertothelargestpossibleportionofthosewhosegreatesthappinessistheproperandchosenobject，"because"thisproportionismoreaptthananyotherthatcanbeproposed"forachievementofthatobject。
　　Mark，now，whathappenswhenweputthesetwodoctrinestogether。Thesovereignpeoplejointlyappointrepresentatives，andsocreateagovernment;thegovernmentthuscreated，createsrights;andthen，havingcreatedrights，itconfersthemontheseparatemembersofthesovereignpeoplebywhichitwasitselfcreated。Hereisamarvellouspieceofpoliticallegerdemain！MrMatthewArnold，contending，inthearticleabovequoted，that"propertyisthecreationoflaw，"tellsustobewareofthe"metaphysicalphantomofpropertyinitself。"Surely，amongmetaphysicalphantomsthemostshadowyisthiswhichsupposesathingtobeobtainedbycreatinganagent，whichcreatesthething，andthenconfersthethingonitsowncreator。！
　　Fromwhateverpointofviewweconsiderit，Bentham’spropositionprovestobeunthinkable。Government，hesays，fulfilsitsoffice"bycreatingrights。"Twomeaningsmaybegiventotheword"creating。"Itmaybesupposedtomeantheproductionofsomethingoutofnothing;oritmaybesupposedtomeanthegivingformandstructuretosomethingwhichalreadyexists。Therearemanywhothinkthattheproductionofsomethingoutofnothingcannotbeconceivedaseffectedevenbyomnipotence;andprobablynonewillassertthattheproductionofsomethingoutofnothingiswithinthecompetenceofahumangovernment。Thealternativeconceptionisthatahumangovernmentcreatesonlyinthesensethatitshapessomethingpre—existing。
　　Inthatcase，thequestionarises——"Whatisthesomethingpre—existingwhichitshapes？"Clearlytheword"creating"begsthewholequestion——passesoffanillusionontheunwaryreader。Benthamwasasticklerfordefinitenessofexpression，andinhisBookofFallacieshasachapteron"Impostor—terms。"
　　Itiscuriousthatheshouldhavefurnishedsostrikinganillustrationofthepervertedbeliefwhichanimpostor—termmaygenerate。
　　Butnowletusoverlookthesevariousimpossibilitiesofthought，andseekthemostdefensibleinterpretationofBentham’sview。
　　Itmaybesaidthatthetotalityofallpowersandrights，originallyexistedasanundividedwholeinthesovereignpeople;
　　andthatthisundividedwholeisgivenintrust（asAustinwouldsay）toarulingpower，appointedbythesovereignpeople，forthepurposeofdistribution。If，aswehaveseen，thepropositionthatrightsarecreatedissimplyafigureofspeech;thentheonlyintelligibleconstructionofBentham’sviewisthatamultitudeofindividuals，whoseverallywishtosatisfytheirdesires，andhave，asanaggregate，possessionofallthesourcesofsatisfaction，aswellaspoweroverallindividualactions，appointagovernment，whichdeclaresthewaysinwhich，andtheconditionsunderwhich，individualactionsmaybecarriedonandthesatisfactionsobtained。Letusobservetheimplications。Eachmanexistsintwocapacities。Inhisprivatecapacityheissubjecttothegovernment。Inhispubliccapacityheisoneofthesovereignpeoplewhoappointthegovernment。Thatistosay，inhisprivatecapacityheisoneofthosetowhomrightsaregiven;andinhispubliccapacityheisoneofthosewho，throughthegovernmenttheyappoint，givetherights。Turnthisabstractstatementintoaconcretestatement，andseewhatitmeans。Letthecommunityconsistofamillionmen，who，bythehypothesis，arenotonlyjointpossessorsoftheinhabitedregion，butjointpossessorsofalllibertiesofactionandappropriation：theonlyrightrecognizedbeingthatoftheaggregatetoeverything。Whatfollows？Eachperson，whilenotowninganyproductofhisownlabour，has，asaunitinthesovereignbody，amillionthpartoftheownershipoftheproductsofallothers’labour。Thisisanunavoidableimplication。Asthegovernment，inBentham’sview，isbutanagent;therightsitconfersarerightsgiventoitintrustbythesovereignpeople。Ifso，suchrightsmustbepossessedenblocbythesovereignpeoplebeforethegovernment，infulfilmentofitstrust，confersthemonindividuals;and，ifso，eachindividualhasamillionthportionoftheserightsinhispubliccapacity，whilehehasnorightsinhisprivatecapacity。Thesehegetsonlywhenalltherestofthemillionjointoendowhimwiththem;whilehejoinstoendowwiththemeveryothermemberofthemillion！
　　Thus，inwhateverwayweinterpretit，Bentham’spropositionleavesusinaplexusofabsurdities。