Chapter5。
　　Applications。
　　THEPRINCIPLESassertedinthesepagesmustbemoregenerallyadmittedasthebasisfordiscussionofdetails，beforeaconsistentapplicationofthemtoallthevariousdepartmentsofgovernmentandmoralscanbeattemptedwithanyprospectofadvantage。ThefewobservationsIproposetomakeonquestionsofdetailaredesignedtoillustratetheprinciples，ratherthantofollowthemouttotheirconsequences。Ioffer，notsomuchapplications，asspecimensofapplication;whichmayservetobringintogreaterclearnessthemeaningandlimitsofthetwomaximswhichtogetherformtheentiredoctrineofthisEssay，andtoassistthejudgmentinholdingthebalancebetweenthem，inthecaseswhereitappearsdoubtfulwhichofthemisapplicabletothecase。
　　Themaximsare，first，thattheindividualisnotaccountabletosocietyforhisactions，insofarastheseconcerntheinterestsofnopersonbuthimself。Advice，instruction，persuasion，andavoidancebyotherpeopleifthoughtnecessarybythemfortheirowngood，aretheonlymeasuresbywhichsocietycanjustifiablyexpressitsdislikeordisapprobationofhisconduct。Secondly，thatforsuchactionsasareprejudicialtotheinterestsofothers，theindividualisaccountable，andmaybesubjectedeithertosocialortolegalpunishment，ifsocietyisofopinionthattheoneortheotherisrequisiteforitsprotection。
　　Inthefirstplace，itmustbynomeansbesupposed，becausedamage，orprobabilityofdamage，totheinterestsofothers，canalonejustifytheinterferenceofsociety，thatthereforeitalwaysdoesjustifysuchinterference。Inmanycases，anindividual，inpursuingalegitimateobject，necessarilyandthereforelegitimatelycausespainorlosstoothers，orinterceptsagoodwhichtheyhadareasonablehopeofobtaining。Suchoppositionsofinterestbetweenindividualsoftenarisefrombadsocialinstitutions，butareunavoidablewhilethoseinstitutionslast;andsomewouldbeunavoidableunderanyinstitutions。Whoeversucceedsinanovercrowdedprofession，orinacompetitiveexamination;whoeverispreferredtoanotherinanycontestforanobjectwhichbothdesire，reapsbenefitfromthelossofothers，fromtheirwastedexertionandtheirdisappointment。Butitis，bycommonadmission，betterforthegeneralinterestofmankind，thatpersonsshouldpursuetheirobjectsundeterredbythissortofconsequences。Inotherwords，societyadmitsnoright，eitherlegalormoral，inthedisappointedcompetitorstoimmunityfromthiskindofsuffering;andfeelscalledontointerfere，onlywhenmeansofsuccesshavebeenemployedwhichitiscontrarytothegeneralinteresttopermit—namely，fraudortreachery，andforce。
　　Again，tradeisasocialact。Whoeverundertakestosellanydescriptionofgoodstothepublic，doeswhataffectstheinterestofotherpersons，andofsocietyingeneral;andthushisconduct，inprinciple，comeswithinthejurisdictionofsociety：accordingly，itwasonceheldtobethedutyofgovernments，inallcaseswhichwereconsideredofimportance，tofixprices，andregulatetheprocessesofmanufacture。Butitisnowrecognised，thoughnottillafteralongstruggle，thatboththecheapnessandthegoodqualityofcommoditiesaremosteffectuallyprovidedforbyleavingtheproducersandsellersperfectlyfree，underthesolecheckofequalfreedomtothebuyersforsupplyingthemselveselsewhere。Thisistheso—calleddoctrineofFreeTrade，whichrestsongroundsdifferentfrom，thoughequallysolidwith，theprincipleofindividuallibertyassertedinthisEssay。Restrictionsontrade，oronproductionforpurposesoftrade，areindeedrestraints;andallrestraint，quarestraint，isanevil：buttherestraintsinquestionaffectonlythatpartofconductwhichsocietyiscompetenttorestrain，andarewrongsolelybecausetheydonotreallyproducetheresultswhichitisdesiredtoproducebythem。AstheprincipleofindividuallibertyisnotinvolvedinthedoctrineofFreeTrade，soneitherisitinmostofthequestionswhichariserespectingthelimitsofthatdoctrine;as，forexample，whatamountofpubliccontrolisadmissibleforthepreventionoffraudbyadulteration;howfarsanitaryprecautions，orarrangementstoprotectworkpeopleemployedindangerousoccupations，shouldbeenforcedonemployers。Suchquestionsinvolveconsiderationsofliberty，onlyinsofarasleavingpeopletothemselvesisalwaysbetter，caeterisparibus，thancontrollingthem：butthattheymaybelegitimatelycontrolledfortheseendsisinprincipleundeniable。Ontheotherhand，therearequestionsrelatingtointerferencewithtradewhichareessentiallyquestionsofliberty;suchastheMaineLaw，alreadytouchedupon;theprohibitionoftheimportationofopiumintoChina;therestrictionofthesaleofpoisons;allcases，inshort，wheretheobjectoftheinterferenceistomakeitimpossibleordifficulttoobtainaparticularcommodity。Theseinterferencesareobjectionable，notasinfringementsonthelibertyoftheproducerorseller，butonthatofthebuyer。
　　Oneoftheseexamples，thatofthesaleofpoisons，opensanewquestion;theproperlimitsofwhatmaybecalledthefunctionsofpolice;howfarlibertymaylegitimatelybeinvadedforthepreventionofcrime，orofaccident。Itisoneoftheundisputedfunctionsofgovernmenttotakeprecautionsagainstcrimebeforeithasbeencommitted，aswellastodetectandpunishitafterwards。Thepreventivefunctionofgovernment，however，isfarmoreliabletobeabused，totheprejudiceofliberty，thanthepunitoryfunction;—forthereishardlyanypartofthelegitimatefreedomofactionofahumanbeingwhichwouldnotadmitofbeingrepresented，andfairlytoo，asincreasingthefacilitiesforsomeformorotherofdelinquency。Nevertheless，ifapublicauthority，orevenaprivateperson，seesanyoneevidentlypreparingtocommitacrime，theyarenotboundtolookoninactiveuntilthecrimeiscommitted，butmayinterferetopreventit。Ifpoisonswereneverboughtorusedforanypurposeexceptthecommissionofmurderitwouldberighttoprohibittheirmanufactureandsale。Theymay，however，bewantednotonlyforinnocentbutforusefulpurposes，andrestrictionscannotbeimposedintheonecasewithoutoperatingintheother。Again，itisaproperofficeofpublicauthoritytoguardagainstaccidents。
　　Ifeitherapublicofficeroranyoneelsesawapersonattemptingtocrossabridgewhichhadbeenascertainedtobeunsafe，andtherewerenotimetowarnhimofhisdanger，theymightseizehimandturnhimback，withoutanyrealinfringementofhisliberty;forlibertyconsistsindoingwhatonedesires，andhedoesnotdesiretofallintotheriver。Nevertheless，whenthereisnotacertainty，butonlyadangerofmischief，noonebutthepersonhimselfcanjudgeofthesufficiencyofthemotivewhichmayprompthimtoincurtherisk：inthiscase，therefore（unlessheisachild，ordelirious，orinsomestateofexcitementorabsorptionincompatiblewiththefulluseofthereflectingfaculty），heought，Iconceive，tobeonlywarnedofthedanger;notforciblypreventedfromexposinghimselftoit。Similarconsiderations，appliedtosuchaquestionasthesaleofpoisons，mayenableustodecidewhichamongthepossiblemodesofregulationareorarenotcontrarytoprinciple。
　　Suchaprecaution，forexample，asthatoflabellingthedrugwithsomewordexpressiveofitsdangerouscharacter，maybeenforcedwithoutviolationofliberty：thebuyercannotwishnottoknowthatthethinghepossesseshaspoisonousqualities。Buttorequireinallcasesthecertificateofamedicalpractitionerwouldmakeitsometimesimpossible，alwaysexpensive，toobtainthearticleforlegitimateuses。
　　Theonlymodeapparenttome，inwhichdifficultiesmaybethrowninthewayofcrimecommittedthroughthismeans，withoutanyinfringementworthtakingintoaccountuponthelibertyofthosewhodesirethepoisonoussubstanceforotherpurposes，consistsinprovidingwhat，intheaptlanguageofBentham，iscalled"preappointedevidence。"Thisprovisionisfamiliartoeveryoneinthecaseofcontracts。Itisusualandrightthatthelaw，whenacontractisenteredinto，shouldrequireastheconditionofitsenforcingperformance，thatcertainformalitiesshouldbeobserved，suchassignatures，attestationofwitnesses，andthelike，inorderthatincaseofsubsequentdisputetheremaybeevidencetoprovethatthecontractwasreallyenteredinto，andthattherewasnothinginthecircumstancestorenderitlegallyinvalid：theeffectbeingtothrowgreatobstaclesinthewayoffictitiouscontracts，orcontractsmadeincircumstanceswhich，ifknown，woulddestroytheirvalidity。
　　Precautionsofasimilarnaturemightbeenforcedinthesaleofarticlesadaptedtobeinstrumentsofcrime。Theseller，forexample，mightberequiredtoenterinaregistertheexacttimeofthetransaction，thenameandaddressofthebuyer，theprecisequalityandquantitysold;toaskthepurposeforwhichitwaswanted，andrecordtheanswerhereceived。Whentherewasnomedicalprescription，thepresenceofsomethirdpersonmightberequired，tobringhomethefacttothepurchaser，incasethereshouldafterwardsbereasontobelievethatthearticlehadbeenappliedtocriminalpurposes。Suchregulationswouldingeneralbenomaterialimpedimenttoobtainingthearticle，butaveryconsiderableonetomakinganimproperuseofitwithoutdetection。
　　Therightinherentinsociety，towardoffcrimesagainstitselfbyantecedentprecautions，suggeststheobviouslimitationstothemaxim，thatpurelyself—regardingmisconductcannotproperlybemeddledwithinthewayofpreventionorpunishment。Drunkenness，forexample，inordinarycases，isnotafitsubjectforlegislativeinterference;butIshoulddeemitperfectlylegitimatethataperson，whohadoncebeenconvictedofanyactofviolencetoothersundertheinfluenceofdrink，shouldbeplacedunderaspeciallegalrestriction，personaltohimself;thatifhewereafterwardsfounddrunk，heshouldbeliabletoapenalty，andthatifwheninthatstatehecommittedanotheroffence，thepunishmenttowhichhewouldbeliableforthatotheroffenceshouldbeincreasedinseverity。
　　Themakinghimselfdrunk，inapersonwhomdrunkennessexcitestodoharmtoothers，isacrimeagainstothers。So，again，idleness，exceptinapersonreceivingsupportfromthepublic，orexceptwhenitconstitutesabreachofcontract，cannotwithouttyrannybemadeasubjectoflegalpunishment;butif，eitherfromidlenessorfromanyotheravoidablecause，amanfailstoperformhislegaldutiestoothers，asforinstancetosupporthischildren，itisnotyrannytoforcehimtofulfilthatobligation，bycompulsorylabour，ifnoothermeansareavailable。
　　Again，therearemanyactswhich，beingdirectlyinjuriousonlytotheagentsthemselves，oughtnottobelegallyinterdicted，butwhich，ifdonepublicly，areaviolationofgoodmanners，andcomingthuswithinthecategoryofoffencesagainstothers，mayrightlybeprohibited。Ofthiskindareoffencesagainstdecency;onwhichitisunnecessarytodwell，theratherastheyareonlyconnectedindirectlywithoursubject，theobjectiontopublicitybeingequallystronginthecaseofmanyactionsnotinthemselvescondemnable，norsupposedtobeso。
　　Thereisanotherquestiontowhichananswermustbefound，consistentwiththeprincipleswhichhavebeenlaiddown。Incasesofpersonalconductsupposedtobeblamable，butwhichrespectforlibertyprecludessocietyfrompreventingorpunishing，becausetheevildirectlyresultingfallswhollyontheagent;whattheagentisfreetodo，oughtotherpersonstobeequallyfreetocounselorinstigate？Thisquestionisnotfreefromdifficulty。Thecaseofapersonwhosolicitsanothertodoanactisnotstrictlyacaseofself—regardingconduct。Togiveadviceorofferinducementstoanyoneisasocialact，andmay，therefore，likeactionsingeneralwhichaffectothers，besupposedamenabletosocialcontrol。Butalittlereflectioncorrectsthefirstimpression，byshowingthatifthecaseisnotstrictlywithinthedefinitionofindividualliberty，yetthereasonsonwhichtheprincipleofindividuallibertyisgroundedareapplicabletoit。Ifpeoplemustbeallowed，inwhateverconcernsonlythemselves，toactasseemsbesttothemselves，attheirownperil，theymustequallybefreetoconsultwithoneanotheraboutwhatisfittobesodone;toexchangeopinions，andgiveandreceivesuggestions。Whateveritispermittedtodo，itmustbepermittedtoadvisetodo。Thequestionisdoubtfulonlywhentheinstigatorderivesapersonalbenefitfromhisadvice;whenhemakesithisoccupation，forsubsistenceorpecuniarygain，topromotewhatsocietyandtheStateconsidertobeanevil。Then，indeed，anewelementofcomplicationisintroduced;namely，theexistenceofclassesofpersonswithaninterestopposedtowhatisconsideredasthepublicweal，andwhosemodeoflivingisgroundedonthecounteractionofit。Oughtthistobeinterferedwith，ornot？
　　Fornication，forexample，mustbetolerated，andsomustgambling;butshouldapersonbefreetobeapimp，ortokeepagambling—house？Thecaseisoneofthosewhichlieontheexactboundarylinebetweentwoprinciples，anditisnotatonceapparenttowhichofthetwoitproperlybelongs。
　　Thereareargumentsonbothsides。Onthesideoftolerationitmaybesaidthatthefactoffollowinganythingasanoccupation，andlivingorprofitingbythepracticeofit，cannotmakethatcriminalwhichwouldotherwisebeadmissible;thattheactshouldeitherbeconsistentlypermittedorconsistentlyprohibited;thatiftheprincipleswhichwehavehithertodefendedaretrue，societyhasnobusiness，associety，todecideanythingtobewrongwhichconcernsonlytheindividual;thatitcannotgobeyonddissuasion，andthatonepersonshouldbeasfreetopersuadeasanothertodissuade。Inoppositiontothisitmaybecontended，thatalthoughthepublic，ortheState，arenotwarrantedinauthoritativelydeciding，forpurposesofrepressionorpunishment，thatsuchorsuchconductaffectingonlytheinterestsoftheindividualisgoodorbad，theyarefullyjustifiedinassuming，iftheyregarditasbad，thatitsbeingsoornotisatleastadisputablequestion：That，thisbeingsupposed，theycannotbeactingwronglyinendeavouringtoexcludetheinfluenceofsolicitationswhicharenotdisinterested，ofinstigatorswhocannotpossiblybeimpartial—whohaveadirectpersonalinterestononeside，andthatsidetheonewhichtheStatebelievestobewrong，andwhoconfessedlypromoteitforpersonalobjectsonly。Therecansurely，itmaybeurged，benothinglost，nosacrificeofgood，bysoorderingmattersthatpersonsshallmaketheirelection，eitherwiselyorfoolishly，ontheirownprompting，asfreeaspossiblefromtheartsofpersonswhostimulatetheirinclinationsforinterestedpurposesoftheirown。Thus（itmaybesaid）thoughthestatutesrespectingunlawfulgamesareutterlyindefensible—thoughallpersonsshouldbefreetogambleintheirownoreachother’shouses，orinanyplaceofmeetingestablishedbytheirownsubscriptions，andopenonlytothemembersandtheirvisitors—yetpublicgambling—housesshouldnotbepermitted。Itistruethattheprohibitionisnevereffectual，andthat，whateveramountoftyrannicalpowermaybegiventothepolice，gambling—housescanalwaysbemaintainedunderotherpretences;buttheymaybecompelledtoconducttheiroperationswithacertaindegreeofsecrecyandmystery，sothatnobodyknowsanythingaboutthembutthosewhoseekthem;andmorethanthissocietyoughtnottoaimat。
　　Thereisconsiderableforceinthesearguments。Iwillnotventuretodecidewhethertheyaresufficienttojustifythemoralanomalyofpunishingtheaccessary，whentheprincipalis（andmustbe）
　　allowedtogofree;offiningorimprisoningtheprocurer，butnotthefornicator—thegambling—housekeeper，butnotthegambler。Stilllessoughtthecommonoperationsofbuyingandsellingtobeinterferedwithonanalogousgrounds。Almosteveryarticlewhichisboughtandsoldmaybeusedinexcess，andthesellershaveapecuniaryinterestinencouragingthatexcess;butnoargumentcanbefoundedonthis，infavour，forinstance，oftheMaineLaw;becausetheclassofdealersinstrongdrinks，thoughinterestedintheirabuse，areindispensablyrequiredforthesakeoftheirlegitimateuse。Theinterest，however，ofthesedealersinpromotingintemperanceisarealevil，andjustifiestheStateinimposingrestrictionsandrequiringguaranteeswhich，butforthatjustification，wouldbeinfringementsoflegitimateliberty。
　　Afurtherquestionis，whethertheState，whileitpermits，shouldneverthelessindirectlydiscourageconductwhichitdeemscontrarytothebestinterestsoftheagent;whether，forexample，itshouldtakemeasurestorenderthemeansofdrunkennessmorecostly，oraddtothedifficultyofprocuringthembylimitingthenumberoftheplacesofsale。Onthisasonmostotherpracticalquestions，manydistinctionsrequiretobemade。Totaxstimulantsforthesolepurposeofmakingthemmoredifficulttobeobtained，isameasuredifferingonlyindegreefromtheirentireprohibition;andwouldbejustifiableonlyifthatwerejustifiable。Everyincreaseofcostisaprohibition，tothosewhosemeansdonotcomeuptotheaugmentedprice;andtothosewhodo，itisapenaltylaidonthemforgratifyingaparticulartaste。Theirchoiceofpleasures，andtheirmodeofexpendingtheirincome，aftersatisfyingtheirlegalandmoralobligationstotheStateandtoindividuals，aretheirownconcern，andmustrestwiththeirownjudgment。Theseconsiderationsmayseematfirstsighttocondemntheselectionofstimulantsasspecialsubjectsoftaxationforpurposesofrevenue。Butitmustberememberedthattaxationforfiscalpurposesisabsolutelyinevitable;
　　thatinmostcountriesitisnecessarythataconsiderablepartofthattaxationshouldbeindirect;thattheState，therefore，cannothelpimposingpenalties，whichtosomepersonsmaybeprohibitory，ontheuseofsomearticlesofconsumption。ItishencethedutyoftheStatetoconsider，intheimpositionoftaxes，whatcommoditiestheconsumerscanbestspare;andafortiori，toselectinpreferencethoseofwhichitdeemstheuse，beyondaverymoderatequantity，tobepositivelyinjurious。Taxation，therefore，ofstimulants，uptothepointwhichproducesthelargestamountofrevenue（supposingthattheStateneedsalltherevenuewhichityields）isnotonlyadmissible，buttobeapprovedof。
　　Thequestionofmakingthesaleofthesecommoditiesamoreorlessexclusiveprivilege，mustbeanswereddifferently，accordingtothepurposestowhichtherestrictionisintendedtobesubservient。
　　Allplacesofpublicresortrequiretherestraintofapolice，andplacesofthiskindpeculiarly，becauseoffencesagainstsocietyareespeciallyapttooriginatethere。Itis，therefore，fittoconfinethepowerofsellingthesecommodities（atleastforconsumptiononthespot）topersonsofknownorvouched—forrespectabilityofconduct;tomakesuchregulationsrespectinghoursofopeningandclosingasmayberequisiteforpublicsurveillance，andtowithdrawthelicenceifbreachesofthepeacerepeatedlytakeplacethroughtheconnivanceorincapacityofthekeeperofthehouse，orifitbecomesarendezvousforconcoctingandpreparingoffencesagainstthelaw。AnyfurtherrestrictionIdonotconceivetobe，inprinciple，justifiable。Thelimitationinnumber，forinstance，ofbeerandspirithouses，fortheexpresspurposeofrenderingthemmoredifficultofaccess，anddiminishingtheoccasionsoftemptation，notonlyexposesalltoaninconveniencebecausetherearesomebywhomthefacilitywouldbeabused，butissuitedonlytoastateofsocietyinwhichthelabouringclassesareavowedlytreatedaschildrenorsavages，andplacedunderaneducationofrestraint，tofitthemforfutureadmissiontotheprivilegesoffreedom。Thisisnottheprincipleonwhichthelabouringclassesareprofessedlygovernedinanyfreecountry;andnopersonwhosetsduevalueonfreedomwillgivehisadhesiontotheirbeingsogoverned，unlessafteralleffortshavebeenexhaustedtoeducatethemforfreedomandgovernthemasfreemen，andithasbeendefinitivelyprovedthattheycanonlybegovernedaschildren。Thebarestatementofthealternativeshowstheabsurdityofsupposingthatsucheffortshavebeenmadeinanycasewhichneedsbeconsideredhere。Itisonlybecausetheinstitutionsofthiscountryareamassofinconsistencies，thatthingsfindadmittanceintoourpracticewhichbelongtothesystemofdespotic，orwhatiscalledpaternal，government，whilethegeneralfreedomofourinstitutionsprecludestheexerciseoftheamountofcontrolnecessarytorendertherestraintofanyrealefficacyasamoraleducation。
　　ItwaspointedoutinanearlypartofthisEssay，thatthelibertyoftheindividual，inthingswhereintheindividualisaloneconcerned，impliesacorrespondinglibertyinanynumberofindividualstoregulatebymutualagreementsuchthingsasregardthemjointly，andregardnopersonsbutthemselves。Thisquestionpresentsnodifficulty，solongasthewillofallthepersonsimplicatedremainsunaltered;butsincethatwillmaychange，itisoftennecessary，eveninthingsinwhichtheyaloneareconcerned，thattheyshouldenterintoengagementswithoneanother;andwhentheydo，itisfit，asageneralrule，thatthoseengagementsshouldbekept。Yet，inthelaws，probably，ofeverycountry，thisgeneralrulehassomeexceptions。Notonlypersonsarenotheldtoengagementswhichviolatetherightsofthirdparties，butitissometimesconsideredasufficientreasonforreleasingthemfromanengagement，thatitisinjurioustothemselves。Inthisandmostothercivilisedcountries，forexample，anengagementbywhichapersonshouldsellhimself，orallowhimselftobesold，asaslave，wouldbenullandvoid;neitherenforcedbylawnorbyopinion。Thegroundforthuslimitinghispowerofvoluntarilydisposingofhisownlotinlife，isapparent，andisveryclearlyseeninthisextremecase。
　　Thereasonfornotinterfering，unlessforthesakeofothers，withaperson’svoluntaryacts，isconsiderationforhisliberty。Hisvoluntarychoiceisevidencethatwhathesochoosesisdesirable，oratleastendurable，tohim，andhisgoodisonthewholebestprovidedforbyallowinghimtotakehisownmeansofpursuingit。Butbysellinghimselfforaslave，beabdicateshisliberty;heforegoesanyfutureuseofitbeyondthatsingleact。Hethereforedefeats，inhisowncase，theverypurposewhichisthejustificationofallowinghimtodisposeofhimself。Heisnolongerfree;butisthenceforthinapositionwhichhasnolongerthepresumptioninitsfavour，thatwouldbeaffordedbyhisvoluntarilyremaininginit。Theprincipleoffreedomcannotrequirethatheshouldbefreenottobefree。Itisnotfreedomtobeallowedtoalienatehisfreedom。Thesereasons，theforceofwhichissoconspicuousinthispeculiarcase，areevidentlyoffarwiderapplication;yetalimitiseverywheresettothembythenecessitiesoflife，whichcontinuallyrequire，notindeedthatweshouldresignourfreedom，butthatweshouldconsenttothisandtheotherlimitationofit。Theprinciple，however，whichdemandsuncontrolledfreedomofactioninallthatconcernsonlytheagentsthemselves，requiresthatthosewhohavebecomeboundtooneanother，inthingswhichconcernnothirdparty，shouldbeabletoreleaseoneanotherfromtheengagement：andevenwithoutsuchvoluntaryreleasethereareperhapsnocontractsorengagements，exceptthosethatrelatetomoneyormoney’sworth，ofwhichonecanventuretosaythatthereoughttobenolibertywhateverofretractation。
　　BaronWilhelmvonHumboldt，intheexcellentessayfromwhichIhavealreadyquoted，statesitashisconviction，thatengagementswhichinvolvepersonalrelationsorservicesshouldneverbelegallybindingbeyondalimiteddurationoftime;andthatthemostimportantoftheseengagements，marriage，havingthepeculiaritythatitsobjectsarefrustratedunlessthefeelingsofboththepartiesareinharmonywithit，shouldrequirenothingmorethanthedeclaredwillofeitherpartytodissolveit。Thissubjectistooimportant，andtoocomplicated，tobediscussedinaparenthesis，andItouchonitonlysofarasisnecessaryforpurposesofillustration。IftheconcisenessandgeneralityofBaronHumboldt’sdissertationhadnotobligedhiminthisinstancetocontenthimselfwithenunciatinghisconclusionwithoutdiscussingthepremises，hewoulddoubtlesshaverecognisedthatthequestioncannotbedecidedongroundssosimpleasthosetowhichheconfineshimself。Whenaperson，eitherbyexpresspromiseorbyconduct，hasencouragedanothertorelyuponhiscontinuingtoactinacertainway—tobuildexpectationsandcalculations，andstakeanypartofhisplanoflifeuponthatsupposition—anewseriesofmoralobligationsarisesonhisparttowardsthatperson，whichmaypossiblybeoverruled，butcannotbeignored。Andagain，iftherelationbetweentwocontractingpartieshasbeenfollowedbyconsequencestoothers;ifithasplacedthirdpartiesinanypeculiarposition，or，asinthecaseofmarriage，hasevencalledthirdpartiesintoexistence，obligationsariseonthepartofboththecontractingpartiestowardsthosethirdpersons，thefulfilmentofwhich，oratalleventsthemodeoffulfilment，mustbegreatlyaffectedbythecontinuanceordisruptionoftherelationbetweentheoriginalpartiestothecontract。Itdoesnotfollow，norcanIadmit，thattheseobligationsextendtorequiringthefulfilmentofthecontractatallcoststothehappinessofthereluctantparty;buttheyareanecessaryelementinthequestion;andevenif，asVonHumboldtmaintains，theyoughttomakenodifferenceinthelegalfreedomofthepartiestoreleasethemselvesfromtheengagement（andIalsoholdthattheyoughtnottomakemuchdifference），theynecessarilymakeagreatdifferenceinthemoralfreedom。Apersonisboundtotakeallthesecircumstancesintoaccountbeforeresolvingonastepwhichmayaffectsuchimportantinterestsofothers;andifhedoesnotallowproperweighttothoseinterests，heismorallyresponsibleforthewrong。Ihavemadetheseobviousremarksforthebetterillustrationofthegeneralprincipleofliberty，andnotbecausetheyareatallneededontheparticularquestion，which，onthecontrary，isusuallydiscussedasiftheinterestofchildrenwaseverything，andthatofgrownpersonsnothing。
　　Ihavealreadyobservedthat，owingtotheabsenceofanyrecognisedgeneralprinciples，libertyisoftengrantedwhereitshouldbewithheld，aswellaswithheldwhereitshouldbegranted;andoneofthecasesinwhich，inthemodernEuropeanworld，thesentimentoflibertyisthestrongest，isacasewhere，inmyview，itisaltogethermisplaced。Apersonshouldbefreetodoashelikesinhisownconcerns;butheoughtnottobefreetodoashelikesinactingforanother，underthepretextthattheaffairsoftheotherarehisownaffairs。TheState，whileitrespectsthelibertyofeachinwhatspeciallyregardshimself，isboundtomaintainavigilantcontroloverhisexerciseofanypowerwhichitallowshimtopossessoverothers。Thisobligationisalmostentirelydisregardedinthecaseofthefamilyrelations，acase，initsdirectinfluenceonhumanhappiness，moreimportantthanallotherstakentogether。Thealmostdespoticpowerofhusbandsoverwivesneedsnotbeenlargeduponhere，becausenothingmoreisneededforthecompleteremovaloftheevilthanthatwivesshouldhavethesamerights，andshouldreceivetheprotectionoflawinthesamemanner，asallotherpersons;andbecause，onthissubject，thedefendersofestablishedinjusticedonotavailthemselvesofthepleaofliberty，butstandforthopenlyasthechampionsofpower。ItisinthecaseofchildrenthatmisappliednotionsoflibertyarearealobstacletothefulfilmentbytheStateofitsduties。Onewouldalmostthinkthataman’schildrenweresupposedtobeliterally，andnotmetaphorically，apartofhimself，sojealousisopinionofthesmallestinterferenceoflawwithhisabsoluteandexclusivecontroloverthem;morejealousthanofalmostanyinterferencewithhisownfreedomofaction：somuchlessdothegeneralityofmankindvaluelibertythanpower。Consider，forexample，thecaseofeducation。Isitnotalmostaself—evidentaxiom，thattheStateshouldrequireandcompeltheeducation，uptoacertainstandard，ofeveryhumanbeingwhoisbornitscitizen？Yetwhoistherethatisnotafraidtorecogniseandassertthistruth？Hardlyanyoneindeedwilldenythatitisoneofthemostsacreddutiesoftheparents（or，aslawandusagenowstand，thefather），aftersummoningahumanbeingintotheworld，togivetothatbeinganeducationfittinghimtoperformhispartwellinlifetowardsothersandtowardshimself。Butwhilethisisunanimouslydeclaredtobethefather’sduty，scarcelyanybody，inthiscountry，willbeartohearofobliginghimtoperformit。Insteadofhisbeingrequiredtomakeanyexertionorsacrificeforsecuringeducationtohischild，itislefttohischoicetoacceptitornotwhenitisprovidedgratis！Itstillremainsunrecognised，thattobringachildintoexistencewithoutafairprospectofbeingable，notonlytoprovidefoodforitsbody，butinstructionandtrainingforitsmind，isamoralcrime，bothagainsttheunfortunateoffspringandagainstsociety;andthatiftheparentdoesnotfulfilthisobligation，theStateoughttoseeitfulfilled，atthecharge，asfaraspossible，oftheparent。
　　WerethedutyofenforcinguniversaleducationonceadmittedtherewouldbeanendtothedifficultiesaboutwhattheStateshouldteach，andhowitshouldteach，whichnowconvertthesubjectintoamerebattlefieldforsectsandparties，causingthetimeandlabourwhichshouldhavebeenspentineducatingtobewastedinquarrelingabouteducation。Ifthegovernmentwouldmakeupitsmindtorequireforeverychildagoodeducation，itmightsaveitselfthetroubleofprovidingone。Itmightleavetoparentstoobtaintheeducationwhereandhowtheypleased，andcontentitselfwithhelpingtopaytheschoolfeesofthepoorerclassesofchildren，anddefrayingtheentireschoolexpensesofthosewhohavenooneelsetopayforthem。TheobjectionswhichareurgedwithreasonagainstStateeducationdonotapplytotheenforcementofeducationbytheState，buttotheState’stakinguponitselftodirectthateducation;
　　whichisatotallydifferentthing。ThatthewholeoranylargepartoftheeducationofthepeopleshouldbeinStatehands，Igoasfarasanyoneindeprecating。Allthathasbeensaidoftheimportanceofindividualityofcharacter，anddiversityinopinionsandmodesofconduct，involves，asofthesameunspeakableimportance，diversityofeducation。AgeneralStateeducationisamerecontrivanceformouldingpeopletobeexactlylikeoneanother：andasthemouldinwhichitcaststhemisthatwhichpleasesthepredominantpowerinthegovernment，whetherthisbeamonarch，apriesthood，anaristocracy，orthemajorityoftheexistinggeneration;inproportionasitisefficientandsuccessful，itestablishesadespotismoverthemind，leadingbynaturaltendencytooneoverthebody。AneducationestablishedandcontrolledbytheStateshouldonlyexist，ifitexistatall，asoneamongmanycompetingexperiments，carriedonforthepurposeofexampleandstimulus，tokeeptheothersuptoacertainstandardofexcellence。Unless，indeed，whensocietyingeneralisinsobackwardastatethatitcouldnotorwouldnotprovideforitselfanyproperinstitutionsofeducationunlessthegovernmentundertookthetask：then，indeed，thegovernmentmay，asthelessoftwogreatevils，takeuponitselfthebusinessofschoolsanduniversities，asitmaythatofjointstockcompanies，whenprivateenterprise，inashapefittedforundertakinggreatworksofindustry，doesnotexistinthecountry。Butingeneral，ifthecountrycontainsasufficientnumberofpersonsqualifiedtoprovideeducationundergovernmentauspices，thesamepersonswouldbeableandwillingtogiveanequallygoodeducationonthevoluntaryprinciple，undertheassuranceofremunerationaffordedbyalawrenderingeducationcompulsory，combinedwithStateaidtothoseunabletodefraytheexpense。
　　Theinstrumentforenforcingthelawcouldbenootherthanpublicexaminations，extendingtoallchildren，andbeginningatanearlyage。Anagemightbefixedatwhicheverychildmustbeexamined，toascertainifhe（orshe）isabletoread。Ifachildprovesunable，thefather，unlesshehassomesufficientgroundofexcuse，mightbesubjectedtoamoderatefine，tobeworkedout，ifnecessary，byhislabour，andthechildmightbeputtoschoolathisexpense。Onceineveryyeartheexaminationshouldberenewed，withagraduallyextendingrangeofsubjects，soastomaketheuniversalacquisition，andwhatismore，retention，ofacertainminimumofgeneralknowledgevirtuallycompulsory。Beyondthatminimumthereshouldbevoluntaryexaminationsonallsubjects，atwhichallwhocomeuptoacertainstandardofproficiencymightclaimacertificate。TopreventtheStatefromexercising，throughthesearrangements，animproperinfluenceoveropinion，theknowledgerequiredforpassinganexamination（beyondthemerelyinstrumentalpartsofknowledge，suchaslanguagesandtheiruse）should，eveninthehigherclassesofexaminations，beconfinedtofactsandpositivescienceexclusively。Theexaminationsonreligion，politics，orotherdisputedtopics，shouldnotturnonthetruthorfalsehoodofopinions，butonthematteroffactthatsuchandsuchanopinionisheld，onsuchgrounds，bysuchauthors，orschools，orchurches。
　　Underthissystem，therisinggenerationwouldbenoworseoffinregardtoalldisputedtruthsthantheyareatpresent;theywouldbebroughtupeitherchurchmenordissentersastheynoware，theStatemerelytakingcarethattheyshouldbeinstructedchurchmen，orinstructeddissenters。Therewouldbenothingtohinderthemfrombeingtaughtreligion，iftheirparentschose，atthesameschoolswheretheyweretaughtotherthings。AllattemptsbytheStatetobiastheconclusionsofitscitizensondisputedsubjectsareevil;butitmayveryproperlyoffertoascertainandcertifythatapersonpossessestheknowledgerequisitetomakehisconclusions，onanygivensubject，worthattendingto。AstudentofphilosophywouldbethebetterforbeingabletostandanexaminationbothinLockeandinKant，whicheverofthetwohetakesupwith，orevenifwithneither：andthereisnoreasonableobjectiontoexamininganatheistintheevidencesofChristianity，providedheisnotrequiredtoprofessabeliefinthem。Theexaminations，however，inthehigherbranchesofknowledgeshould，Iconceive，beentirelyvoluntary。Itwouldbegivingtoodangerousapowertogovernmentsweretheyallowedtoexcludeanyonefromprofessions，evenfromtheprofessionofteacher，forallegeddeficiencyofqualifications：andI
　　think，withWilhelmvonHumboldt，thatdegrees，orotherpubliccertificatesofscientificorprofessionalacquirements，shouldbegiventoallwhopresentthemselvesforexamination，andstandthetest;butthatsuchcertificatesshouldconfernoadvantageovercompetitorsotherthantheweightwhichmaybeattachedtotheirtestimonybypublicopinion。
　　Itisnotinthematterofeducationonlythatmisplacednotionsoflibertypreventmoralobligationsonthepartofparentsfrombeingrecognised，andlegalobligationsfrombeingimposed，wheretherearethestrongestgroundsfortheformeralways，andinmanycasesforthelatteralso。Thefactitself，ofcausingtheexistenceofahumanbeing，isoneofthemostresponsibleactionsintherangeofhumanlife。Toundertakethisresponsibility—tobestowalifewhichmaybeeitheracurseorablessing—unlessthebeingonwhomitistobebestowedwillhaveatleasttheordinarychancesofadesirableexistence，isacrimeagainstthatbeing。Andinacountryeitherover—peopled，orthreatenedwithbeingso，toproducechildren，beyondaverysmallnumber，withtheeffectofreducingtherewardoflabourbytheircompetition，isaseriousoffenceagainstallwholivebytheremunerationoftheirlabour。Thelawswhich，inmanycountriesontheContinent，forbidmarriageunlessthepartiescanshowthattheyhavethemeansofsupportingafamily，donotexceedthelegitimatepowersoftheState：andwhethersuchlawsbeexpedientornot（aquestionmainlydependentonlocalcircumstancesandfeelings），theyarenotobjectionableasviolationsofliberty。SuchlawsareinterferencesoftheStatetoprohibitamischievousact—anactinjurioustoothers，whichoughttobeasubjectofreprobation，andsocialstigma，evenwhenitisnotdeemedexpedienttosuperaddlegalpunishment。Yetthecurrentideasofliberty，whichbendsoeasilytorealinfringementsofthefreedomoftheindividualinthingswhichconcernonlyhimself，wouldrepeltheattempttoputanyrestraintuponhisinclinationswhentheconsequenceoftheirindulgenceisalifeorlivesofwretchednessanddepravitytotheoffspring，withmanifoldevilstothosesufficientlywithinreachtobeinanywayaffectedbytheiractions。Whenwecomparethestrangerespectofmankindforliberty，withtheirstrangewantofrespectforit，wemightimaginethatamanhadanindispensablerighttodoharmtoothers，andnorightatalltopleasehimselfwithoutgivingpaintoanyone。
　　Ihavereservedforthelastplacealargeclassofquestionsrespectingthelimitsofgovernmentinterference，which，thoughcloselyconnectedwiththesubjectofthisEssay，donot，instrictness，belongtoit。Thesearecasesinwhichthereasonsagainstinterferencedonotturnupontheprincipleofliberty：thequestionisnotaboutrestrainingtheactionsofindividuals，butabouthelpingthem;itisaskedwhetherthegovernmentshoulddo，orcausetobedone，somethingfortheirbenefit，insteadofleavingittobedonebythemselves，individuallyorinvoluntarycombination。
　　Theobjectionstogovernmentinterference，whenitisnotsuchastoinvolveinfringementofliberty，maybeofthreekinds。
　　Thefirstis，whenthethingtobedoneislikelytobebetterdonebyindividualsthanbythegovernment。Speakinggenerally，thereisnoonesofittoconductanybusiness，ortodeterminehoworbywhomitshallbeconducted，asthosewhoarepersonallyinterestedinit。Thisprinciplecondemnstheinterferences，oncesocommon，ofthelegislature，ortheofficersofgovernment，withtheordinaryprocessesofindustry。Butthispartofthesubjecthasbeensufficientlyenlargeduponbypoliticaleconomists，andisnotparticularlyrelatedtotheprinciplesofthisEssay。
　　Thesecondobjectionismorenearlyalliedtooursubject。Inmanycases，thoughindividualsmaynotdotheparticularthingsowell，ontheaverage，astheofficersofgovernment，itisneverthelessdesirablethatitshouldbedonebythem，ratherthanbythegovernment，asameanstotheirownmentaleducation—amodeofstrengtheningtheiractivefaculties，exercisingtheirjudgment，andgivingthemafamiliarknowledgeofthesubjectswithwhichtheyarethuslefttodeal。Thisisaprincipal，thoughnotthesole，recommendationofjurytrial（incasesnotpolitical）;offreeandpopularlocalandmunicipalinstitutions;oftheconductofindustrialandphilanthropicenterprisesbyvoluntaryassociations。Thesearenotquestionsofliberty，andareconnectedwiththatsubjectonlybyremotetendencies;buttheyarequestionsofdevelopment。Itbelongstoadifferentoccasionfromthepresenttodwellonthesethingsaspartsofnationaleducation;asbeing，intruth，thepeculiartrainingofacitizen，thepracticalpartofthepoliticaleducationofafreepeople，takingthemoutofthenarrowcircleofpersonalandfamilyselfishness，andaccustomingthemtothecomprehensionofjointinterests，themanagementofjointconcerns—habituatingthemtoactfrompublicorsemi—publicmotives，andguidetheirconductbyaimswhichuniteinsteadofisolatingthemfromoneanother。Withoutthesehabitsandpowers，afreeconstitutioncanneitherbeworkednorpreserved;asisexemplifiedbythetoo—oftentransitorynatureofpoliticalfreedomincountrieswhereitdoesnotrestuponasufficientbasisoflocalliberties。Themanagementofpurelylocalbusinessbythelocalities，andofthegreatenterprisesofindustrybytheunionofthosewhovoluntarilysupplythepecuniarymeans，isfurtherrecommendedbyalltheadvantageswhichhavebeensetforthinthisEssayasbelongingtoindividualityofdevelopment，anddiversityofmodesofaction。Governmentoperationstendtobeeverywherealike。
　　Withindividualsandvoluntaryassociations，onthecontrary，therearevariedexperiments，andendlessdiversityofexperience。WhattheStatecanusefullydoistomakeitselfacentraldepository，andactivecirculatoranddiffuser，oftheexperienceresultingfrommanytrials。Itsbusinessistoenableeachexperimentalisttobenefitbytheexperimentsofothers;insteadoftoleratingnoexperimentsbutitsown。
　　Thethirdandmostcogentreasonforrestrictingtheinterferenceofgovernmentisthegreatevilofaddingunnecessarilytoitspower。
　　Everyfunctionsuperaddedtothosealreadyexercisedbythegovernmentcausesitsinfluenceoverhopesandfearstobemorewidelydiffused，andconverts，moreandmore，theactiveandambitiouspartofthepublicintohangers—onofthegovernment，orofsomepartywhichaimsatbecomingthegovernment。Iftheroads，therailways，thebanks，theinsuranceoffices，thegreatjoint—stockcompanies，theuniversities，andthepubliccharities，wereallofthembranchesofthegovernment;if，inaddition，themunicipalcorporationsandlocalboards，withallthatnowdevolvesonthem，becamedepartmentsofthecentraladministration;iftheemployesofallthesedifferententerpriseswereappointedandpaidbythegovernment，andlookedtothegovernmentforeveryriseinlife;notallthefreedomofthepressandpopularconstitutionofthelegislaturewouldmakethisoranyothercountryfreeotherwisethaninname。Andtheevilwouldbegreater，themoreefficientlyandscientificallytheadministrativemachinerywasconstructed—themoreskilfulthearrangementsforobtainingthebestqualifiedhandsandheadswithwhichtoworkit。InEnglandithasoflatebeenproposedthatallthemembersofthecivilserviceofgovernmentshouldbeselectedbycompetitiveexamination，toobtainfortheseemploymentsthemostintelligentandinstructedpersonsprocurable;andmuchhasbeensaidandwrittenforandagainstthisproposal。OneoftheargumentsmostinsistedonbyitsopponentsisthattheoccupationofapermanentofficialservantoftheStatedoesnotholdoutsufficientprospectsofemolumentandimportancetoattractthehighesttalents，whichwillalwaysbeabletofindamoreinvitingcareerintheprofessions，orintheserviceofcompaniesandotherpublicbodies。Onewouldnothavebeensurprisedifthisargumenthadbeenusedbythefriendsoftheproposition，asananswertoitsprincipaldifficulty。Comingfromtheopponentsitisstrangeenough。Whatisurgedasanobjectionisthesafety—valveoftheproposedsystem。Ifindeedallthehightalentofthecountrycouldbedrawnintotheserviceofthegovernment，aproposaltendingtobringaboutthatresultmightwellinspireuneasiness。Ifeverypartofthebusinessofsocietywhichrequiredorganisedconcert，orlargeandcomprehensiveviews，wereinthehandsofthegovernment，andifgovernmentofficeswereuniversallyfilledbytheablestmen，alltheenlargedcultureandpractisedintelligenceinthecountry，exceptthepurelyspeculative，wouldbeconcentratedinanumerousbureaucracy，towhomalonetherestofthecommunitywouldlookforallthings：themultitudefordirectionanddictationinalltheyhadtodo;theableandaspiringforpersonaladvancement。Tobeadmittedintotheranksofthisbureaucracy，andwhenadmitted，torisetherein，wouldbethesoleobjectsofambition。Underthisregime，notonlyistheoutsidepublicill—qualified，forwantofpracticalexperience，tocriticiseorcheckthemodeofoperationofthebureaucracy，buteveniftheaccidentsofdespoticorthenaturalworkingofpopularinstitutionsoccasionallyraisetothesummitarulerorrulersofreforminginclinations，noreformcanbeeffectedwhichiscontrarytotheinterestofthebureaucracy。
　　SuchisthemelancholyconditionoftheRussianempire，asshownintheaccountsofthosewhohavehadsufficientopportunityofobservation。TheCzarhimselfispowerlessagainstthebureaucraticbody;hecansendanyoneofthemtoSiberia，buthecannotgovernwithoutthem，oragainsttheirwill。Oneverydecreeofhistheyhaveatacitveto，bymerelyrefrainingfromcarryingitintoeffect。Incountriesofmoreadvancedcivilisationandofamoreinsurrectionaryspirit，thepublic，accustomedtoexpecteverythingtobedoneforthembytheState，oratleasttodonothingforthemselveswithoutaskingfromtheStatenotonlyleavetodoit，butevenhowitistobedone，naturallyholdtheStateresponsibleforallevilwhichbefallsthem，andwhentheevilexceedstheiramountofpatience，theyriseagainstthegovernment，andmakewhatiscalledarevolution;whereuponsomebodyelse，withorwithoutlegitimateauthorityfromthenation，vaultsintotheseat，issueshisorderstothebureaucracy，andeverythinggoesonmuchasitdidbefore;thebureaucracybeingunchanged，andnobodyelsebeingcapableoftakingtheirplace。
　　Averydifferentspectacleisexhibitedamongapeopleaccustomedtotransacttheirownbusiness。InFrance，alargepartofthepeople，havingbeenengagedinmilitaryservice，manyofwhomhaveheldatleasttherankofnoncommissionedofficers，thereareineverypopularinsurrectionseveralpersonscompetenttotakethelead，andimprovisesometolerableplanofaction。WhattheFrenchareinmilitaryaffairs，theAmericansareineverykindofcivilbusiness;
　　letthembeleftwithoutagovernment，everybodyofAmericansisabletoimproviseone，andtocarryonthatoranyotherpublicbusinesswithasufficientamountofintelligence，order，anddecision。Thisiswhateveryfreepeopleoughttobe：andapeoplecapableofthisiscertaintobefree;itwillneverletitselfbeenslavedbyanymanorbodyofmenbecausetheseareabletoseizeandpullthereinsofthecentraladministration。Nobureaucracycanhopetomakesuchapeopleasthisdoorundergoanythingthattheydonotlike。Butwhereeverythingisdonethroughthebureaucracy，nothingtowhichthebureaucracyisreallyadversecanbedoneatall。Theconstitutionofsuchcountriesisanorganisationoftheexperienceandpracticalabilityofthenationintoadisciplinedbodyforthepurposeofgoverningtherest;andthemoreperfectthatorganisationisinitself，themoresuccessfulindrawingtoitselfandeducatingforitselfthepersonsofgreatestcapacityfromallranksofthecommunity，themorecompleteisthebondageofall，themembersofthebureaucracyincluded。Forthegovernorsareasmuchtheslavesoftheirorganisationanddisciplineasthegovernedareofthegovernors。AChinesemandarinisasmuchthetoolandcreatureofadespotismasthehumblestcultivator。AnindividualJesuitistotheutmostdegreeofabasementtheslaveofhisorder，thoughtheorderitselfexistsforthecollectivepowerandimportanceofitsmembers。
　　Itisnot，also，tobeforgotten，thattheabsorptionofalltheprincipalabilityofthecountryintothegoverningbodyisfatal，soonerorlater，tothementalactivityandprogressivenessofthebodyitself。Bandedtogetherastheyare—workingasystemwhich，likeallsystems，necessarilyproceedsinagreatmeasurebyfixedrules—theofficialbodyareundertheconstanttemptationofsinkingintoindolentroutine，or，iftheynowandthendesertthatmill—horseround，ofrushingintosomehalf—examinedcruditywhichhasstruckthefancyofsomeleadingmemberofthecorps;andthesolechecktothesecloselyallied，thoughseeminglyopposite，tendencies，theonlystimuluswhichcankeeptheabilityofthebodyitselfuptoahighstandard，isliabilitytothewatchfulcriticismofequalabilityoutsidethebody。Itisindispensable，therefore，thatthemeansshouldexist，independentlyofthegovernment，offormingsuchability，andfurnishingitwiththeopportunitiesandexperiencenecessaryforacorrectjudgmentofgreatpracticalaffairs。Ifwewouldpossesspermanentlyaskilfulandefficientbodyoffunctionaries—aboveall，abodyabletooriginateandwillingtoadoptimprovements;ifwewouldnothaveourbureaucracydegenerateintoapedantocracy，thisbodymustnotengrossalltheoccupationswhichformandcultivatethefacultiesrequiredforthegovernmentofmankind。
　　Todeterminethepointatwhichevils，soformidabletohumanfreedomandadvancement，begin，orratheratwhichtheybegintopredominateoverthebenefitsattendingthecollectiveapplicationoftheforceofsociety，underitsrecognisedchiefs，fortheremovaloftheobstacleswhichstandinthewayofitswell—being;
　　tosecureasmuchoftheadvantagesofcentralisedpowerandintelligenceascanbehadwithoutturningintogovernmentalchannelstoogreataproportionofthegeneralactivity—isoneofthemostdifficultandcomplicatedquestionsintheartofgovernment。
　　Itis，inagreatmeasure，aquestionofdetail，inwhichmanyandvariousconsiderationsmustbekeptinview，andnoabsoluterulecanbelaiddown。ButIbelievethatthepracticalprincipleinwhichsafetyresides，theidealtobekeptinview，thestandardbywhichtotestallarrangementsintendedforovercomingthedifficulty，maybeconveyedinthesewords：thegreatestdisseminationofpowerconsistentwithefficiency;butthegreatestpossiblecentralisationofinformation，anddiffusionofitfromthecentre。Thus，inmunicipaladministration，therewouldbe，asintheNewEnglandStates，averyminutedivisionamongseparateofficers，chosenbythelocalities，ofallbusinesswhichisnotbetterlefttothepersonsdirectlyinterested;butbesidesthis，therewouldbe，ineachdepartmentoflocalaffairs，acentralsuperintendence，formingabranchofthegeneralgovernment。Theorganofthissuperintendencewouldconcentrate，asinafocus，thevarietyofinformationandexperiencederivedfromtheconductofthatbranchofpublicbusinessinallthelocalities，fromeverythinganalogouswhichisdoneinforeigncountries，andfromthegeneralprinciplesofpoliticalscience。Thiscentralorganshouldhavearighttoknowallthatisdone，anditsspecialdutyshouldbethatofmakingtheknowledgeacquiredinoneplaceavailableforothers。Emancipatedfromthepettyprejudicesandnarrowviewsofalocalitybyitselevatedpositionandcomprehensivesphereofobservation，itsadvicewouldnaturallycarrymuchauthority;butitsactualpower，asapermanentinstitution，should，Iconceive，belimitedtocompellingthelocalofficerstoobeythelawslaiddownfortheirguidance。Inallthingsnotprovidedforbygeneralrules，thoseofficersshouldbelefttotheirownjudgment，underresponsibilitytotheirconstituents。Fortheviolationofrules，theyshouldberesponsibletolaw，andtherulesthemselvesshouldbelaiddownbythelegislature;thecentraladministrativeauthorityonlywatchingovertheirexecution，andiftheywerenotproperlycarriedintoeffect，appealing，accordingtothenatureofthecase，tothetribunalstoenforcethelaw，ortotheconstituenciestodismissthefunctionarieswhohadnotexecuteditaccordingtoitsspirit。
　　Such，initsgeneralconception，isthecentralsuperintendencewhichthePoorLawBoardisintendedtoexerciseovertheadministratorsofthePoorRatethroughoutthecountry。WhateverpowerstheBoardexercisesbeyondthislimitwererightandnecessaryinthatpeculiarcase，forthecureofrootedhabitsofmaladministrationinmattersdeeplyaffectingnotthelocalitiesmerely，butthewholecommunity;sincenolocalityhasamoralrighttomakeitselfbymismanagementanestofpauperism，necessarilyoverflowingintootherlocalities，andimpairingthemoralandphysicalconditionofthewholelabouringcommunity。ThepowersofadministrativecoercionandsubordinatelegislationpossessedbythePoorLawBoard（butwhich，owingtothestateofopiniononthesubject，areveryscantilyexercisedbythem），thoughperfectlyjustifiableinacaseoffirst—ratenationalinterest，wouldbewhollyoutofplaceinthesuperintendenceofinterestspurelylocal。Butacentralorganofinformationandinstructionforallthelocalitieswouldbeequallyvaluableinalldepartmentsofadministration。A
　　governmentcannothavetoomuchofthekindofactivitywhichdoesnotimpede，butaidsandstimulates，individualexertionanddevelopment。Themischiefbeginswhen，insteadofcallingforththeactivityandpowersofindividualsandbodies，itsubstitutesitsownactivityfortheirs;when，insteadofinforming，advising，and，uponoccasion，denouncing，itmakesthemworkinfetters，orbidsthemstandasideanddoestheirworkinsteadofthem。TheworthofaState，inthelongrun，istheworthoftheindividualscomposingit;andaStatewhichpostponestheinterestsoftheirmentalexpansionandelevationtoalittlemoreofadministrativeskill，orofthatsemblanceofitwhichpracticegives，inthedetailsofbusiness;aStatewhichdwarfsitsmen，inorderthattheymaybemoredocileinstrumentsinitshandsevenforbeneficialpurposes—willfindthatwithsmallmennogreatthingcanreallybeaccomplished;andthattheperfectionofmachinerytowhichithassacrificedeverythingwillintheendavailitnothing，forwantofthevitalpowerwhich，inorderthatthemachinemightworkmoresmoothly，ithaspreferredtobanish。