,,the ,,home ,,university ,,library ,,of
 ,,modern ,,knowledge  ,,xxi            
,,liberalism         99       99        
99       99       99  ,,editors ,,of    
,,the ,,home ,,university ,,library ,,of
 ,,modern ,,knowledge  ,,professor      
,,gilbert ,,murray1 ,o4,m41 ,,ll4,d41   
,f4,b4,a4  ,,professor ,g4 ,n4 ,,clark1 
,,ll4,d41 ,f4,b4,a4  ,,sir ,,henry      
,,tizard1 ,k4,c4,b41 ,f4,r4,s4          
99       99       99       99       99  
,,liberalism  ,by  ,l4 ,t4 ,,hobhouse   
,,oxford ,,university ,,press ,,london  
,,new ,,york ,,toronto   ,first         
published in #aiaa1 and reprinted in    
#aiai1 #aibc1 #aibg1 #aibi1 #aicd1 #aidb
 and #aidd  ,,printed ,,in ,,great      
,,britain     ,,contents  ,,chap4       
,,page     ,i ,,before ,,liberalism     
#g    ,,ii ,,the ,,elements ,,of        
,,liberalism        #a4 ,civil ,liberty4
 #b4 ,fiscal        ,liberty4 #c4       
,personal ,liberty4        #d4 ,social  
,liberty4 #e4 ,economic        ,liberty4
 #f4 ,domestic ,liberty4        #g4     

,local1 ,racial1 and ,national          
,liberty4 #h4 ,international            
,liberty4 #i4 ,political ,liberty       
and ,popular ,sovereignty            #ba
   ,,iii ,,the ,,movement ,,of ,,theory 
#ej    ,,iv ',,laissez-,,faire'         
#gh     ,v ,,gladstone ,,and ,,mill     
#ajb    ,,vi ,,the ,,heart ,,of         
,,liberalism             #aaf   ,,vii   
,,the ,,state ,,and ,,the ,,individual  
#ach  ,,viii ,,economic ,,liberalism    
#afg    ,,ix ,,the ,,future ,,of        
,,liberalism            #bad            
,,bibliography                          
#beb       ,,index                      
#bec     ,,liberalism     ,,chapter ,i  
,,before ,,liberalism   ,the modern     
,state is the distinctive product of a  
unique civilization4 ,but it is a       
product which is still in the making1   
and a part of the process is a struggle 
between new and old principles of social
 order4 ,to understand the new1 which is
 our main purpose1 we must first cast a 
glance at the old4 ,we must understand  

what the social structure was1          
which--mainly1 as ,i shall show1 under  
the inspiration of ,liberal ideas--is   
slowly but surely giving place to the   
new fabric of the civic ,state4 ,the    
older structure itself was by no means  
primitive4 ,what is truly primitive is  
very hard to say4 ,but one thing is     
pretty clear4 ,at all times men have    
lived in societies1 and ties of kinship 
and of simple neighbourhood underlie    
every form of social organization4 ,in  
the simplest societies it seems probable
 that these ties--reinforced and        
extended1 perhaps1 by religious or other
 beliefs--are the only ones that        
seriously count4 ,it is certain that of 
the warp of descent and the woof of     
intermarriage there is woven a tissue   
out of which small and rude but close   
and compact communities are formed4 ,but
 the ties of kinship and neighbourhood  
are effective only within narrow limits4
 ,while the local group1 the clan1 or   
the village community are often the     

centres of vigorous life1 the larger    
aggregate of the ,tribe seldom attains  
true social and political unity unless  
it rests upon a military organization4  
,but military organization may serve not
 only to hold one tribe together but    
also to hold other tribes in subjection1
 and thereby1 at the cost of much that  
is most valuable in primitive life1 to  
establish a larger and at the same time 
a more orderly society4 ,such an order  
once established does not1 indeed1 rest 
on naked force4 ,the rulers become      
invested with a sacrosanct authority4   
,it may be that they are gods or        
descendants of gods4 ,it may be that    
they are blessed and upheld by an       
independent priesthood4 ,in either case 
the powers that be extend their sway not
 merely over the bodies but over the    
minds of men4 ,they are ordained of ,god
 because they arrange the ordination4   
,such a government is not necessarily   
abhorrent to the people nor indifferent 
to them4 ,but it is essentially         

government from above4 ,so far as it    
affects the life of the people at all1  
it does so by imposing on them duties1  
as of military service1 tribute1        
ordinances1 and even new laws1 in such  
wise and on such principles as seem good
 to itself4 ,it is not true1 as a       
certain school of jurisprudence held1   
that law is1 as such1 a command imposed 
by a superior upon an inferior1 and     
backed by the sanctions of punishment4  
,but though this is not true of law in  
general it is a roughly true description
 of law in that particular stage of     
society which we may conveniently       
describe as the ,authoritarian4  ,now1  
in the greater part of the world and    
throughout the greater part of history  
the two forms of social organization    
that have been distinguished are the    
only forms to be found4 ,of course1 they
 themselves admit of every possible     
variation of detail1 but looking below  
these variations we find the two        
recurrent types4 ,on the one hand1 there

 are the small kinship groups1 often    
vigorous enough in themselves1 but      
feeble for purposes of united action4   
,on the other hand1 there are larger    
societies varying in extent and in      
degree of civilization from a petty     
negro kingdom to the ,chinese ,empire1  
resting on a certain union of military  
force and religious or quasi-religious  
belief which1 to select a neutral name1 
we have called the principle of         
,authority4 ,in the lower stages of     
civilization there appears1 as a rule1  
to be only one method of suppressing the
 strife of hostile clans1 maintaining   
the frontier against a common enemy1 or 
establishing the elements of outward    
order4 ,the alternative to authoritarian
 rule is relapse into the comparative   
anarchy of savage life4  ,but another   
method made its appearance in classical 
antiquity4 ,the city state of ancient   
,greece and ,italy was a new type of    
social organization4 ,it differed from  
the clan and the commune in several     

ways4 ,in the first place it contained  
many clans and villages1 and perhaps    
owed its origin to the coming together  
of separate clans on the basis not of   
conquest but of comparatively equal     
alliance4 ,though very small as compared
 with an ancient empire or a modern     
state it was much larger than a         
primitive kindred4 ,its life was more   
varied and complex4 ,it allowed more    
free play to the individual1 and1       
indeed1 as it developed1 it suppressed  
the old clan organization and           
substituted new divisions1 geographical 
or other4 ,it was based1 in fact1 not on
 kinship as such1 but on civic right1   
and this it was which distinguished it  
not only from the commune1 but from the 
,oriental monarchy4 ,the law which it   
recognized and by which it lived was not
 a command imposed by a superior        
government on a subject mass4 ,on the   
contrary1 government was itself subject 
to law1 and law was the life of the     
state1 willingly supported by the entire

 body of free citizens4 ,in this sense  
the city state was a community of free  
men4 ,considered collectively its       
citizens owned no master4 ,they governed
 themselves1 subject only to principles 
and rules of life descending from       
antiquity and owing their force to the  
spontaneous allegiance of successive    
generations4 ,in such a community some  
of the problems that vex us most        
presented themselves in a very simple   
form4 ,in particular the relation of the
 individual to the community was close1 
direct1 and natural4 ,their interests   
were obviously bound up together4       
,unless each man did his duty the ,state
 might easily be destroyed and the      
population enslaved4 ,unless the ,state 
took thought for its citizens it might  
easily decay4 ,what was still more      
important1 there was no opposition of   
church and state1 no fissure between    
political and religious life1 between   
the claims of the secular and the       
spiritual1 to distract the allegiance of

 the citizens1 and to set the authority 
of conscience against the duties of     
patriotism4 ,it was no feat of the      
philosophical imagination1 but a quite  
simple and natural expression of the    
facts to describe such a community as an
 association of men for the purpose of  
living well4 ,ideals to which we win our
 way back with difficulty and doubt     
arose naturally out of the conditions of
 life in ancient ,greece4  ,on the other
 hand1 this simple harmony had very     
serious limitations1 which in the end   
involved the downfall of the city       
system4 ,the responsibilities and       
privileges of the associated life were  
based not on the rights of human        
personality but on the rights of        
citizenship1 and citizenship was never  
co-extensive with the community4 ,the   
population included slaves or serfs1 and
 in many cities there were large classes
 descended from the original conquered  
population1 personally free but excluded
 from the governing circle4             

,notwithstanding the relative simplicity
 of social conditions the city was      
constantly torn by the disputes of      
faction--in part probably a legacy from 
the old clan organization1 in part a    
consequence of the growth of wealth and 
the newer distinction of classes4 ,the  
evil of faction was aggravated by the   
ill-success of the city organization in 
dealing with the problem of inter-state 
relations4 ,the ,greek city clung to its
 autonomy1 and though the principle of  
federalism which might have solved the  
problem was ultimately brought into     
play1 it came too late in ,greek history
 to save the nation4  ,the constructive 
genius of ,rome devised a different     
method of dealing with the political    
problems involved in expanding          
relations4 ,roman citizenship was       
extended till it included all ,italy    
and1 later on1 till it comprised the    
whole free population of the            
,mediterranean basin4 ,but this         
extension was even more fatal to the    

free self-government of a city state4   
,the population of ,italy could not meet
 in the ,forum of ,rome or the ,plain of
 ,mars to elect consuls and pass laws1  
and the more wisely it was extended the 
less valuable for any political purpose 
did citizenship become4 ,the history of 
,rome1 in fact1 might be taken as a vast
 illustration of the difficulty of      
building up an extended empire on any   
basis but that of personal despotism    
resting on military force and           
maintaining peace and order through the 
efficiency of the bureaucratic machine4 
,in this vast mechanism it was the army 
that was the seat of power1 or rather it
 was each army at its post on some      
distant frontier that was a potential   
seat of power4 ,the secret of the empire
 that was early divulged was that an    
emperor could be made elsewhere than at 
,rome1 and though a certain sanctity    
remained to the person of the emperor1  
and legists cherished a dim remembrance 
of the theory that he embodied the      

popular will1 the fact was that he was  
the choice of a powerful army1 ratified 
by the ,god of ,battles1 and maintaining
 his power as long as he could suppress 
any rival pretender4 ,the break-up of   
the ,empire through the continual       
repetition of military strife was       
accelerated1 not caused1 by the presence
 of barbarism both within and without   
the frontiers4 ,to restore the elements 
of order a compromise between central   
and local jurisdictions was necessary1  
and the vassal became a local prince    
owning an allegiance1 more or less real 
as the case might be1 to a distant      
sovereign4 ,meanwhile1 with the         
prevailing disorder the mass of the     
population in ,western ,europe lost its 
freedom1 partly through conquest1 partly
 through the necessity of finding a     
protector in troublous times4 ,the      
social structure of the ,middle ,ages   
accordingly assumed the hierarchical    
form which we speak of as the ,feudal   
system4 ,in this thorough-going         

application of the principle of         
authority every man1 in theory1 had his 
master4 ,the serf held of his lord1 who 
held of a great seigneur1 who held of   
the king4 ,the king in the completer    
theory held of the emperor who was      
crowned by the ,pope1 who held of ,st4  
,peter4 ,the chain of descent was       
complete from the ,ruler of the universe
 to the humblest of the serfs4#a ,but   
within this order the growth of industry
 and commerce raised up new centres of  
freedom4 ,the towns in which men were   
learning anew the lessons of association
 for united defence and the regulation  
of common interests1 obtained charters  
of rights from seigneur or king1 and on 
the ,continent even succeeded in        
establishing complete independence4     
,even in ,england1 where from the       
,conquest the central power was at its  
strongest1 the corporate towns became   
for many purposes self-governing        
communities4 ,the city state was born   
again1 and with it came an outburst of  

activity1 the revival of literature and 
the arts1 the rediscovery of ancient    
learning1 the rebirth of philosophy and 
science4  ,the medival city state was   
superior to the ancient in that slavery 
was no essential element in its         
existence4 ,on the contrary1 by         
welcoming the fugitive serf and         
vindicating his freedom it contributed  
powerfully to the decline of the milder 
form of servitude4 ,but like the ancient
 state it was seriously and permanently 
weakened by internal faction1 and like  
the ancient state it rested the         
privileges of its members not on the    
rights of human personality1 but on the 
responsibilities of citizenship4 ,it    
knew not so much liberty as liberties1  
rights of corporations secured by       
charter1 its own rights as a whole      
secured against king or feudatory and   
the rest of the world1 rights of gilds  
and crafts within it1 and to men or     
women only as they were members of such 
bodies4 ,but the real weakness of the   

city state was once more its isolation4 
,it was but an islet of relative freedom
 on1 or actually within1 the borders of 
a feudal society which grew more        
powerful with the generations4 ,with the
 improvement of communications and of   
the arts of life1 the central power1    
particularly in ,france and ,england1   
began to gain upon its vassals4 ,feudal 
disobedience and disorder were          
suppressed1 and by the end of the       
fifteenth century great unified states1 
the foundation of modern nations1 were  
already in being4 ,their emergence      
involved the widening and in some       
respects the improvement of the social  
order2 and in its earlier stages it     
favoured civic autonomy by suppressing  
local anarchy and feudal privilege4 ,but
 the growth of centralization was in the
 end incompatible with the genius of    
civic independence1 and perilous to such
 elements of political right as had been
 gained for the population in general as
 the result of earlier conflicts between

 the crown and its vassals4  ,we enter  
on the modern period1 accordingly1 with 
society constituted on a thoroughly     
authoritarian basis1 the kingly power   
supreme and tending towards arbitrary   
despotism1 and below the king the social
 hierarchy extending from the great     
territorial lord to the day-labourer4   
,there is one point gained as compared  
to earlier forms of society4 ,the base  
of the pyramid is a class which at least
 enjoys personal freedom4 ,serfdom has  
virtually disappeared in ,england1 and  
in the greater part of ,france has      
either vanished or become attenuated to 
certain obnoxious incidents of the      
tenure of land4 ,on the other hand1 the 
divorce of the ,english peasant from the
 soil has begun1 and has laid the       
foundation of the future social problem 
as it is to appear in this country4     
,the modern ,state accordingly starts   
from the basis of an authoritarian      
order1 and the protest against that     
order1 a protest religious1 political1  

economic1 social1 and ethical1 is the   
historic beginning of ,liberalism4 ,thus
 ,liberalism appears at first as a      
criticism1 sometimes even as a          
destructive and revolutionary criticism4
 ,its negative aspect is for centuries  
foremost4 ,its business seems to be not 
so much to build up as to pull down1 to 
remove obstacles which block human      
progress1 rather than to point the      
positive goal of endeavour or fashion   
the fabric of civilization4 ,it finds   
humanity oppressed1 and would set it    
free4 ,it finds a people groaning under 
arbitrary rule1 a nation in bondage to a
 conquering race1 industrial enterprise 
obstructed by social privileges or      
crippled by taxation1 and it offers     
relief4 ,everywhere it is removing      
superincumbent weights1 knocking off    
fetters1 clearing away obstructions4 ,is
 it doing as much for the reconstruction
 that will be necessary when the        
demolition is complete8 ,is ,liberalism 
at bottom a constructive or only a      

destructive principle8 ,is it of        
permanent significance8 ,does it express
 some vital truth of social life as     
such1 or is it a temporary phenomenon   
called forth by the special             
circumstances of ,western ,europe1 and  
is its work already so far complete that
 it can be content to hand on the torch 
to a newer and more constructive        
principle1 retiring for its own part    
from the race1 or perchance seeking more
 backward lands for missionary work8    
,these are among the questions that we  
shall have to answer4 ,we note1 for the 
moment1 that the circumstances of its   
origin suffice to explain the           
predominance of critical and destructive
 work without therefrom inferring the   
lack of ultimate reconstructive power4  
,in point of fact1 whether by the aid of
 ,liberalism or through the conservative
 instincts of the race1 the work of     
reconstruction has gone on side by side 
with that of demolition1 and becomes    
more important generation by generation4

 ,the modern ,state1 as ,i shall show1  
goes far towards incorporating the      
elements of ,liberal principle1 and when
 we have seen what these are1 and to    
what extent they are actually realized1 
we shall be in a better position to     
understand the essentials of            
,liberalism1 and to determine the       
question of its permanent value4        
,,footnote3  #a ,this is1 of course1    
only one side of medival theory1 but it 
is the side which lay nearest to the    
facts4 ,the reverse view1 which derives 
the authority of government from the    
governed1 made its appearance in the    
,middle ,ages partly under the influence
 of classical tradition4 ,but its main  
interest and importance is that it      
served as a starting-point for the      
thought of a later time4 ,on the whole  
subject the reader may consult ,gierke1 
,political ,theories of the ,middle     
,age1 translated by ,maitland           
7,cambridge ,university ,press74        
,,chapter ,,ii  ,,the ,,elements ,,of   

,,liberalism   ,i cannot here attempt so
 much as a sketch of the historical     
progress of the ,liberalizing movement4 
,i would call attention only to the main
 points at which it assailed the old    
order1 and to the fundamental ideas     
directing its advance4   #a4 ,civil     
,liberty4  ,both logically and          
historically the first point of attack  
is arbitrary government1 and the first  
liberty to be secured is the right to be
 dealt with in accordance with law4 ,a  
man who has no legal rights against     
another1 but stands entirely at his     
disposal1 to be treated according to his
 caprice1 is a slave to that other4 ,he 
is rightless1 devoid of rights4 ,now1 in
 some barbaric monarchies the system of 
rightlessness has at times been         
consistently carried through in the     
relations of subjects to the king4 ,here
 men and women1 though enjoying         
customary rights of person and property 
as against one another1 have no rights  
at all as against the king's pleasure4  

,no ,european monarch or seignior has   
ever admittedly enjoyed power of this   
kind1 but ,european governments have at 
various times and in various directions 
exercised or claimed powers no less     
arbitrary in principle4 ,thus1 by the   
side of the regular courts of law which 
prescribe specific penalties for defined
 offences proved against a man by a     
regular form of trial1 arbitrary        
governments resort to various           
extrajudicial forms of arrest1          
detention1 and punishment1 depending on 
their own will and pleasure4 ,of such a 
character is punishment by              
administrative process in ,russia at the
 present day2 imprisonment by lettre de 
cachet in ,france under the ancien      
rgime2 all executions by so-called      
martial law in times of rebellion1 and  
the suspension of various ordinary      
guarantees of immediate and fair trial  
in ,ireland4 ,arbitrary government in   
this form was one of the first objects  
of attack by the ,english ,parliament in

 the seventeenth century1 and this first
 liberty of the subject was vindicated  
by the ,petition of ,right1 and again by
 the ,habeas ,corpus ,act4 ,it is       
significant of much that this first step
 in liberty should be in reality nothing
 more nor less than a demand for law4   
,freedom of men under government1 says  
,locke1 summing up one whole chapter of 
seventeenth-century controversy1 is to  
have a standing rule to live by1 common 
to every one of that society and made by
 the legislative power erected in it4   
,the first condition of universal       
freedom1 that is to say1 is a measure of
 universal restraint4 ,without such     
restraint some men may be free but      
others will be unfree4 ,one man may be  
able to do all his will1 but the rest   
will have no will except that which he  
sees fit to allow them4 ,to put the same
 point from another side1 the first     
condition of free government is         
government not by the arbitrary         
determination of the ruler1 but by fixed

 rules of law1 to which the ruler       
himself is subject4 ,we draw the        
important inference that there is no    
essential antithesis between liberty and
 law4 ,on the contrary1 law is essential
 to liberty4 ,law1 of course1 restrains 
the individual2 it is therefore opposed 
to his liberty at a given moment and in 
a given direction4 ,but1 equally1 law   
restrains others from doing with him as 
they will4 ,it liberates him from the   
fear of arbitrary aggression or         
coercion1 and this is the only way1     
indeed1 the only sense1 in which liberty
 for an entire community is attainable4 
,there is one point tacitly postulated  
in this argument which should not be    
overlooked4 ,in assuming that the reign 
of law guarantees liberty to the whole  
community1 we are assuming that it is   
impartial4 ,if there is one law for the 
,government and another for its         
subjects1 one for noble and another for 
commoner1 one for rich and another for  
poor1 the law does not guarantee liberty

 for all4 ,liberty in this respect      
implies equality4 ,hence the demand of  
,liberalism for such a procedure as will
 ensure the impartial application of    
law4 ,hence the demand for the          
independence of the judiciary to secure 
equality as between the ,government and 
its subjects4 ,hence the demand for     
cheap procedure and accessible courts4  
,hence the abolition of privileges of   
class4#b ,hence will come in time the   
demand for the abolition of the power of
 money to purchase skilled advocacy4    
#b4 ,fiscal ,liberty4  ,closely         
connected with juristic liberty1 and    
more widely felt in everyday life1 is   
the question of fiscal liberty4 ,the    
,stuarts brought things to a head in    
this country by arbitrary taxation4     
,george ,,iii brought things to a head  
in ,america by the same infallible      
method4 ,the immediate cause of the     
,french ,revolution was the refusal of  
the nobles and the clergy to bear their 
share of the financial burden4 ,but     

fiscal liberty raises more searching    
questions than juristic liberty4 ,it is 
not enough that taxes should be fixed by
 a law applying universally and         
impartially1 for taxes vary from year to
 year in accordance with public needs1  
and while other laws may remain stable  
and unchanged for an indefinite period1 
taxation must1 in the nature of the     
case1 be adjustable4 ,it is a matter1   
properly considered1 for the ,executive 
rather than the ,legislature4 ,hence the
 liberty of the subject in fiscal       
matters means the restraint of the      
,executive1 not merely by established   
and written laws1 but by a more direct  
and constant supervision4 ,it means1 in 
a word1 responsible government1 and that
 is why we have more often heard the    
cry1 ,no taxation without               
representation1 than the cry1 ,no       
legislation without representation4     
,hence1 from the seventeenth century    
onwards1 fiscal liberty was seen to     
involve what is called political        

liberty4   #c4 ,personal ,liberty4  ,of 
political liberty it will be more       
convenient to speak later4 ,but let us  
here observe that there is another      
avenue by which it can be1 and1 in fact1
 was1 approached4 ,we have seen that the
 reign of law is the first step to      
liberty4 ,a man is not free when he is  
controlled by other men1 but only when  
he is controlled by principles and rules
 which all society must obey1 for the   
community is the true master of the free
 man4 ,but here we are only at the      
beginning of the matter4 ,there may be  
law1 and there may be no attempt1 such  
as the ,stuarts made1 to set law aside1 
yet 7#a7 the making and maintenance of  
law may depend on the will of the       
sovereign or of an oligarchy1 and 7#b7  
the content of the law may be unjust and
 oppressive to some1 to many1 or to all 
except those who make it4 ,the first    
point brings us back to the problem of  
political liberty1 which we defer4 ,the 
second opens questions which have       

occupied a great part of the history of 
,liberalism1 and to deal with them we   
have to ask what types of law have been 
felt as peculiarly oppressive1 and in   
what respects it has been necessary to  
claim liberty not merely through law1   
but by the abolition of bad law and     
tyrannical administration4  ,in the     
first place1 there is the sphere of what
 is called personal liberty--a sphere   
most difficult to define1 but the arena 
of the fiercest strife of passion and   
the deepest feelings of mankind4 ,at the
 basis lies liberty of thought--freedom 
from inquisition into opinions that a   
man forms in his own mind#c--the inner  
citadel where1 if anywhere1 the         
individual must rule4 ,but liberty of   
thought is of very little avail without 
liberty to exchange thoughts--since     
thought is mainly a social product2 and 
so with liberty of thought goes liberty 
of speech and liberty of writing1       
printing1 and peaceable discussion4     
,these rights are not free from         

difficulty and dubiety4 ,there is a     
point at which speech becomes           
indistinguishable from action1 and free 
speech may mean the right to create     
disorder4 ,the limits of just liberty   
here are easy to draw neither in theory 
nor in practice4 ,they lead us          
immediately to one of the points at     
which liberty and order may be in       
conflict1 and it is with conflicts of   
this kind that we shall have to deal4   
,the possibilities of conflict are not  
less in relation to the connected right 
of liberty in religion4 ,that this      
liberty is absolute cannot be contended4
 ,no modern state would tolerate a form 
of religious worship which should       
include cannibalism1 human sacrifice1 or
 the burning of witches4 ,in point of   
fact1 practices of this kind--which     
follow quite naturally from various     
forms of primitive belief that are most 
sincerely held--are habitually put down 
by civilized peoples that are           
responsible for the government of less  

developed races4 ,the ,british law      
recognizes polygamy in ,india1 but ,i   
imagine it would not be open either to a
 ,mahommedan or a ,hindu to contract two
 marriages in ,england4 ,nor is it for  
liberty of this kind that the battle has
 been fought4  ,what1 then1 is the      
primary meaning of religious liberty8   
,externally1 ,i take it to include the  
liberties of thought and expression1 and
 to add to these the right of worship in
 any form which does not inflict injury 
on others or involve a breach of public 
order4 ,this limitation appears to carry
 with it a certain decency and restraint
 in expression which avoids unnecessary 
insult to the feelings of others2 and ,i
 think this implication must be allowed1
 though it makes some room for strained 
and unfair applications4 ,externally1   
again1 we must note that the demand for 
religious liberty soon goes beyond mere 
toleration4 ,religious liberty is       
incomplete as long as any belief is     
penalized1 as1 for example1 by carrying 

with it exclusion from office or from   
educational advantages4 ,on this side1  
again1 full liberty implies full        
equality4 ,turning to the internal side1
 the spirit of religious liberty rests  
on the conception that a man's religion 
ranks with his own innermost thought and
 feelings4 ,it is the most concrete     
expression of his personal attitude to  
life1 to his kind1 to the world1 to his 
own origin and destiny4 ,there is no    
real religion that is not thus drenched 
in personality2 and the more religion is
 recognized for spiritual the starker   
the contradiction is felt to be that any
 one should seek to impose a religion on
 another4 ,properly regarded1 the       
attempt is not wicked1 but impossible4  
,yet those sin most against true        
religion who try to convert men from the
 outside by mechanical means4 ,they have
 the lie in the soul1 being most        
ignorant of the nature of that for which
 they feel most deeply4  ,yet here again
 we stumble on difficulties4 ,religion  

is personal4 ,yet is not religion also  
eminently social8 ,what is more vital to
 the social order than its beliefs8 ,if 
we send a man to gaol for stealing      
trash1 what shall we do to him whom1 in 
our conscience and on our honour1 we    
believe to be corrupting the hearts of  
mankind1 and perhaps leading them to    
eternal perdition8 ,again1 what in the  
name of liberty are we to do to men     
whose preaching1 if followed out in act1
 would bring back the rack and the      
stake8 ,once more there is a difficulty 
of delimitation which will have to be   
fully sifted4 ,i will only remark here  
that our practice has arrived at a      
solution which1 upon the whole1 appears 
to have worked well hitherto1 and which 
has its roots in principle4 ,it is open 
to a man to preach the principles of    
,torquemada or the religion of ,mahomet4
 ,it is not open to men to practise such
 of their precepts as would violate the 
rights of others or cause a breach of   
the peace4 ,expression is free1 and     

worship is free as far as it is the     
expression of personal devotion4 ,so far
 as they infringe the freedom1 or1 more 
generally1 the rights of others1 the    
practices inculcated by a religion      
cannot enjoy unqualified freedom4   #d4 
,social ,liberty4  ,from the spiritual  
we turn to the practical side of life4  
,on this side we may observe1 first1    
that ,liberalism has had to deal with   
those restraints on the individual which
 flow from the hierarchic organization  
of society1 and reserve certain offices1
 certain forms of occupation1 and       
perhaps the right or at least the       
opportunity of education generally1 to  
people of a certain rank or class4 ,in  
its more extreme form this is a caste   
system1 and its restrictions are        
religious or legal as well as social4   
,in ,europe it has taken more than one  
form4 ,there is the monopoly of certain 
occupations by corporations1 prominent  
in the minds of eighteenth-century      
,french reformers4 ,there is the        

reservation of public appointments and  
ecclesiastical patronage for those who  
are born1 and there is a more subtly    
pervading spirit of class which produces
 a hostile attitude to those who could  
and would rise2 and this spirit finds a 
more material ally in the educational   
difficulties that beset brains unendowed
 with wealth4 ,i need not labour points 
which will be apparent to all1 but have 
again to remark two things4 7#a7 ,once  
more the struggle for liberty is also1  
when pushed through1 a struggle for     
equality4 ,freedom to choose and follow 
an occupation1 if it is to become fully 
effective1 means equality with others in
 the opportunities for following such   
occupation4 ,this is1 in fact1 one among
 the various considerations which lead  
,liberalism to support a national system
 of free education1 and will lead it    
further yet on the same lines4 7#b7     
,once again1 though we may insist on the
 rights of the individual1 the social   
value of the corporation or             

quasi-corporation1 like the ,trade      
,union1 cannot be ignored4 ,experience  
shows the necessity of some measure of  
collective regulation in industrial     
matters1 and in the adjustment of such  
regulation to individual liberty serious
 difficulties of principle emerge4 ,we  
shall have to refer to these in the next
 section4 ,but one point is relevant at 
this stage4 ,it is clearly a matter of  
,liberal principle that membership of a 
corporation should not depend on any    
hereditary qualification1 nor be set    
about with any artificial difficulty of 
entry1 where by the term artificial is  
meant any difficulty not involved in the
 nature of the occupation concerned1 but
 designed for purposes of exclusiveness4
 ,as against all such methods of        
restriction1 the ,liberal case is clear4
  ,it has only to be added here that    
restrictions of sex are in every respect
 parallel to restrictions of class4     
,there are1 doubtless1 occupations for  
which women are unfit4 ,but1 if so1 the 

test of fitness is sufficient to exclude
 them4 ,the open road for women is one  
application1 and a very big one1 of the 
open road for talent1 and to secure them
 both is of the essence of ,liberalism4 
#e4 ,economic ,liberty  ,apart from     
monopolies1 industry was shackled in the
 earlier part of the modern period by   
restrictive legislation in various      
forms1 by navigation laws1 and by       
tariffs4 ,in particular1 the tariff was 
not merely an obstruction to free       
enterprise1 but a source of inequality  
as between trade and trade4 ,its        
fundamental effect is to transfer       
capital and labour from the objects on  
which they can be most profitably       
employed in a given locality1 to objects
 on which they are less profitably      
employed1 by endowing certain industries
 to the disadvantage of the general     
consumer4 ,here1 again1 the ,liberal    
movement is at once an attack on an     
obstruction and on an inequality4 ,in   
most countries the attack has succeeded 

in breaking down local tariffs and      
establishing relatively large ,free     
,trade units4 ,it is only in ,england1  
and only owing to our early             
manufacturing supremacy1 that it has    
fully succeeded in overcoming the       
,protective principle1 and even in      
,england the ,protectionist reaction    
would undoubtedly have gained at least a
 temporary victory but for our          
dependence on foreign countries for food
 and the materials of industry4 ,the    
most striking victory of ,liberal ideas 
is one of the most precarious4 ,at the  
same time1 the battle is one which      
,liberalism is always prepared to fight 
over again4 ,it has led to no back      
stroke1 no counter-movement within the  
,liberal ranks themselves4  ,it is      
otherwise with organized restrictions   
upon industry4 ,the old regulations1    
which were quite unsuited to the        
conditions of the time1 either fell into
 desuetude during the eighteenth        
century1 or were formally abolished     

during the earlier years of the         
industrial revolution4 ,for a while it  
seemed as though wholly unrestricted    
industrial enterprise was to be the     
progressive watchword1 and the echoes of
 that time still linger4 ,but the old   
restrictions had not been formally      
withdrawn before a new process of       
regulation began4 ,the conditions       
produced by the new factory system      
shocked the public conscience2 and as   
early as #ahjb we find the first of a   
long series of laws1 out of which has   
grown an industrial code that year by   
year follows the life of the operative1 
in his relations with his employer1 into
 more minute detail4 ,the first stages  
of this movement were contemplated with 
doubt and distrust by many men of       
,liberal sympathies4 ,the intention was1
 doubtless1 to protect the weaker party1
 but the method was that of interference
 with freedom of contract4 ,now the     
freedom of the sane adult               
individual--even such strong            

individualists as ,cobden recognized    
that the case of children stood         
apart--carried with it the right of     
concluding such agreements as seemed    
best to suit his own interests1 and     
involved both the right and the duty of 
determining the lines of his life for   
himself4 ,free contract and personal    
responsibility lay close to the heart of
 the whole ,liberal movement4 ,hence the
 doubts felt by so many ,liberals as to 
the regulation of industry by law4 ,none
 the less1 as time has gone on1 men of  
the keenest ,liberal sympathies have    
come not merely to accept but eagerly to
 advance the extension of public control
 in the industrial sphere1 and of       
collective responsibility in the matter 
of the education and even the feeding of
 children1 the housing of the industrial
 population1 the care of the sick and   
aged1 the provision of the means of     
regular employment4 ,on this side       
,liberalism seems definitely to have    
retraced its steps1 and we shall have to

 inquire closely into the question      
whether the reversal is a change of     
principle or of application4  ,closely  
connected with freedom of contract is   
freedom of association4 ,if men may make
 any agreement with one another in their
 mutual interest so long as they do not 
injure a third party1 they may          
apparently agree to act together        
permanently for any purposes of common  
interest on the same conditions4 ,that  
is1 they may form associations4 ,yet at 
bottom the powers of an association are 
something very different from the powers
 of the individuals composing it2 and it
 is only by legal pedantry that the     
attempt can be made to regulate the     
behaviour of an association on          
principles derived from and suitable to 
the relations of individuals4 ,an       
association might become so powerful as 
to form a state within the state1 and to
 contend with government on no unequal  
terms4 ,the history of some             
revolutionary societies1 of some        

ecclesiastical organizations1 even of   
some ,american trusts might be quoted to
 show that the danger is not imaginary4 
,short of this1 an association may act  
oppressively towards others and even    
towards its own members1 and the        
function of ,liberalism may be rather to
 protect the individual against the     
power of the association than to protect
 the right of association against the   
restriction of the law4 ,in fact1 in    
this regard1 the principle of liberty   
cuts both ways1 and this double         
application is reflected in history4    
,the emancipation of trade unions1      
however1 extending over the period from 
#ahbd to #aijf1 and perhaps not yet     
complete1 was in the main a liberating  
movement1 because combination was       
necessary to place the workman on       
something approaching terms of equality 
with the employer1 and because tacit    
combinations of employers could never1  
in fact1 be prevented by law4 ,it was1  
again1 a movement to liberty through    

equality4 ,on the other hand1 the       
oppressive capacities of a trade union  
could never be left out of account1     
while combinations of capital1 which    
might be infinitely more powerful1 have 
justly been regarded with distrust4 ,in 
this there is no inconsistency of       
principle1 but a just appreciation of a 
real difference of circumstance4 ,upon  
the whole it may be said that the       
function of ,liberalism is not so much  
to maintain a general right of free     
association as to define the right in   
each case in such terms as make for the 
maximum of real liberty and equality4   
#f4 ,domestic ,liberty4  ,of all        
associations within the ,state1 the     
miniature community of the ,family is   
the most universal and of the strongest 
independent vitality4 ,the authoritarian
 state was reflected in the             
authoritarian family1 in which the      
husband was within wide limits absolute 
lord of the person and property of wife 
and children4 ,the movement of          

liberation consists 7#a7 in rendering   
the wife a fully responsible individual1
 capable of holding property1 suing and 
being sued1 conducting business on her  
own account1 and enjoying full personal 
protection against her husband2 7#b7 in 
establishing marriage as far as the law 
is concerned on a purely contractual    
basis1 and leaving the sacramental      
aspect of marriage to the ordinances of 
the religion professed by the parties2  
7#c7 in securing the physical1 mental1  
and moral care of the children1 partly  
by imposing definite responsibilities on
 the parents and punishing them for     
neglect1 partly by elaborating a public 
system of education and of hygiene4 ,the
 first two movements are sufficiently   
typical cases of the interdependence of 
liberty and equality4 ,the third is more
 often conceived as a ,socialistic than 
a ,liberal tendency1 and1 in point of   
fact1 the ,state control of education   
gives rise to some searching questions  
of principle1 which have not yet been   

fully solved4 ,if1 in general1 education
 is a duty which the ,state has a right 
to enforce1 there is a countervailing   
right of choice as to the lines of      
education which it would be ill to      
ignore1 and the mode of adjustment has  
not yet been adequately determined      
either in theory or in practice4 ,i     
would1 however1 strongly maintain that  
the general conception of the ,state as 
,over-parent is quite as truly ,liberal 
as ,socialistic4 ,it is the basis of the
 rights of the child1 of his protection 
against parental neglect1 of the        
equality of opportunity which he may    
claim as a future citizen1 of his       
training to fill his place as a grown-up
 person in the social system4 ,liberty  
once more involves control and          
restraint4   #g4 ,local1 ,racial1 and   
,national ,liberty4  ,from the smallest 
social unit we pass to the largest4 ,a  
great part of the liberating movement is
 occupied with the struggle of entire   
nations against alien rule1 with the    

revolt of ,europe against ,napoleon1    
with the struggle of ,italy for freedom1
 with the fate of the ,christian        
subjects of ,turkey1 with the           
emancipation of the negro1 with the     
national movement in ,ireland and in    
,india4 ,many of these struggles present
 the problem of liberty in its simplest 
form4 ,it has been and is too often a   
question of securing the most elementary
 rights for the weaker party2 and those 
who are not touched by the appeal are   
deficient rather in imagination than in 
logic or ethics4 ,but at the back of    
national movements very difficult       
questions do arise4 ,what is a nation as
 distinct from a state8 ,what sort of   
unity does it constitute1 and what are  
its rights8 ,if ,ireland is a nation1 is
 ,ulster one8 and if ,ulster is a       
,british and ,protestant nation1 what of
 the ,catholic half of ,ulster8 ,history
 has in some cases given us a practical 
answer4 ,thus1 it has shown that1       
enjoying the gift of responsible        

government1 ,french and ,british1       
despite all historical quarrels and all 
differences of religious belief1        
language1 and social structure1 have    
fused into the nation of ,canada4       
,history has justified the conviction   
that ,germany was a nation1 and thrown  
ridicule on the contemptuous saying of  
,metternich that ,italy was a           
geographical expression4 ,but how to    
anticipate history1 what rights to      
concede to a people that claims to be a 
self-determining unit1 is less easy to  
decide4 ,there is no doubt that the     
general tendency of ,liberalism is to   
favour autonomy1 but1 faced as it is    
with the problems of subdivision and the
 complexity of group with group1 it has 
to rely on the concrete teaching of     
history and the practical insight of    
statesmanship to determine how the lines
 of autonomy are to be drawn4 ,there is1
 however1 one empirical test which seems
 generally applicable4 ,where a weaker  
nation incorporated with a larger or    

stronger one can be governed by ordinary
 law applicable to both parties to the  
union1 and fulfilling all the ordinary  
principles of liberty1 the arrangement  
may be the best for both parties4 ,but  
where this system fails1 where the      
government is constantly forced to      
resort to exceptional legislation or    
perhaps to de-liberalize its own        
institutions1 the case becomes urgent4  
,under such conditions the most         
liberally-minded democracy is           
maintaining a system which must         
undermine its own principles4 ,the      
,assyrian conqueror1 ,mr4 ,herbert      
,spencer remarks1 who is depicted in the
 bas-reliefs leading his captive by a   
cord1 is bound with that cord himself4  
,he forfeits his liberty as long as he  
retains his power4  ,somewhat similar   
questions arise about race1 which many  
people wrongly confuse with nationality4
 ,so far as elementary rights are       
concerned there can be no question as to
 the attitude of ,liberalism4 ,when the 

political power which should guarantee  
such rights is brought into view1       
questions of fact arise4 ,is the ,negro 
or the ,kaffir mentally and morally     
capable of self-government or of taking 
part in a self-governing ,state8 ,the   
experience of ,cape ,colony tends to the
 affirmative view4 ,american experience 
of the negro gives1 ,i take it1 a more  
doubtful answer4 ,a specious extension  
of the white man's rights to the black  
may be the best way of ruining the      
black4 ,to destroy tribal custom by     
introducing conceptions of individual   
property1 the free disposal of land1 and
 the free purchase of gin may be the    
handiest method for the expropriator4   
,in all relations with weaker peoples we
 move in an atmosphere vitiated by the  
insincere use of high-sounding words4   
,if men say equality1 they mean         
oppression by forms of justice4 ,if they
 say tutelage1 they appear to mean the  
kind of tutelage extended to the        
fattened goose4 ,in such an atmosphere1 

perhaps1 our safest course1 so far as   
principles and deductions avail at all1 
is to fix our eyes on the elements of   
the matter1 and in any part of the world
 to support whatever method succeeds in 
securing the coloured man from personal 
violence1 from the lash1 from           
expropriation1 and from gin2 above all1 
so far as it may yet be1 from the white 
man himself4 ,until the white man has   
fully learnt to rule his own life1 the  
best of all things that he can do with  
the dark man is to do nothing with him4 
,in this relation1 the day of a more    
constructive ,liberalism is yet to come4
   #h4 ,international ,liberty4  ,if    
non-interference is the best thing for  
the barbarian many ,liberals have       
thought it to be the supreme wisdom in  
international affairs generally4 ,i     
shall examine this view later4 ,here ,i 
merely remark3 7#a7 ,it is of the       
essence of ,liberalism to oppose the use
 of force1 the basis of all tyranny4    
7#b7 ,it is one of its practical        

necessities to withstand the tyranny of 
armaments4 ,not only may the military   
force be directly turned against        
liberty1 as in ,russia1 but there are   
more subtle ways1 as in ,western        
,europe1 in which the military spirit   
eats into free institutions and absorbs 
the public resources which might go to  
the advancement of civilization4 7#c7   
,in proportion as the world becomes     
free1 the use of force becomes          
meaningless4 ,there is no purpose in    
aggression if it is not to issue in one 
form or another of national subjection4 
#i4 ,political ,liberty and ,popular    
,sovereignty4  ,underlying all these    
questions of right is the question how  
they are to be secured and maintained4  
,by enforcing the responsibility of the 
executive and legislature to the        
community as a whole8 ,such is the      
general answer1 and it indicates one of 
the lines of connection between the     
general theory of liberty and the       
doctrine of universal suffrage and the  

sovereignty of the people4 ,the answer1 
however1 does not meet all the          
possibilities of the case4 ,the people  
as a whole might be careless of their   
rights and incapable of managing them4  
,they might be set on the conquest of   
others1 the expropriation of the rich1  
or on any form of collective tyranny or 
folly4 ,it is perfectly possible that   
from the point of view of general       
liberty and social progress a limited   
franchise might give better results than
 one that is more extended4 ,even in    
this country it is a tenable view that  
the extension of the suffrage in #ahhd  
tended for some years to arrest the     
development of liberty in various       
directions4 ,on what theory does the    
principle of popular sovereignty rest1  
and within what limits does it hold     
good8 ,is it a part of the general      
principles of liberty and equality1 or  
are other ideas involved8 ,these are    
among the questions which we shall have 
to examine4  ,we have now passed the    

main phases of the ,liberal movement in 
very summary review1 and we have noted1 
first1 that it is co-extensive with     
life4 ,it is concerned with the         
individual1 the family1 the ,state4 ,it 
touches industry1 law1 religion1 ethics4
 ,it would not be difficult1 if space   
allowed1 to illustrate its influence in 
literature and art1 to describe the war 
with convention1 insincerity1 and       
patronage1 and the struggle for free    
self-expression1 for reality1 for the   
artist's soul4 ,liberalism is an        
all-penetrating element of the          
life-structure of the modern world4     
,secondly1 it is an effective historical
 force4 ,if its work is nowhere         
complete1 it is almost everywhere in    
progress4 ,the modern ,state as we see  
it in ,europe outside ,russia1 in the   
,british colonies1 in ,north and ,south 
,america1 as we begin to see it in the  
,russian empire and throughout the vast 
continent of ,asia1 is the old          
authoritarian society modified in       

greater or less degree by the absorption
 of ,liberal principles4 ,turning1      
thirdly1 to those principles themselves1
 we have recognized ,liberalism in every
 department as a movement fairly denoted
 by the name--a movement of liberation1 
a clearance of obstructions1 an opening 
of channels for the flow of free        
spontaneous vital activity4 ,fourthly1  
we have seen that in a large number of  
cases what is under one aspect a        
movement for liberty is on another side 
a movement towards equality1 and the    
habitual association of these principles
 is so far confirmed4 ,on the other     
hand1 lastly1 we have seen numerous     
cases in which the exacter definition of
 liberty and the precise meaning of     
equality remain obscure1 and to discuss 
these will be our task4 ,we have1       
moreover1 admittedly regarded           
,liberalism mainly in its earlier and   
more negative aspect4 ,we have seen it  
as a force working within an old society
 and modifying it by the loosening of   

the bonds which its structure imposed on
 human activity4 ,we have yet to ask    
what constructive social scheme1 if any1
 could be formed on ,liberal principles2
 and it is here1 if at all1 that the    
fuller meaning of the principles of     
,liberty and ,equality should appear1   
and the methods of applying them be made
 out4 ,the problem of popular           
sovereignty pointed to the same need4   
,thus the lines of the remainder of our 
task are clearly laid down4 ,we have to 
get at the fundamentals of ,liberalism1 
and to consider what kind of structure  
can be raised upon the basis which they 
offer4 ,we will approach the question by
 tracing the historic movement of       
,liberal thought through certain        
well-marked phases4 ,we shall see how   
the problems which have been indicated  
were attacked by successive thinkers1   
and how partial solutions gave occasion 
for deeper probings4 ,following the     
guidance of the actual movement of      
ideas1 we shall reach the centre and    

heart of ,liberalism1 and we shall try  
to form a conception of the essentials  
of the ,liberal creed as a constructive 
theory of society4 ,this conception we  
shall then apply to the greater         
questions1 political and economic1 of   
our own day2 and this will enable us    
finally to estimate the present position
 of ,liberalism as a living force in the
 modern world and the prospect of       
transforming its ideals into            
actualities4  ,,footnotes3  #b ,in      
,england benefit of clergy was still a  
good plea for remission of sentence for 
a number of crimes in the seventeenth   
century4 ,at that time all who could    
read could claim benefit1 which was     
therefore of the nature of a privilege  
for the educated class4 ,the requirement
 of reading1 which had become a form1   
was abolished in #agje1 but peers and   
clerks in holy orders could still plead 
their clergy in the eighteenth century1 
and the last relics of the privilege    
were not finally abolished till the     

nineteenth century4  #c ,see an         
interesting chapter in ,faguet's        
,liberalisme1 which points out that the 
common saying that thought is free is   
negated by any inquisition which compels
 a man to disclose opinions1 and        
penalizes him if they are not such as to
 suit the inquisitor4     ,,chapter     
,,iii  ,,the ,,movement ,,of ,,theory   
,great changes are not caused by ideas  
alone2 but they are not effected without
 ideas4 ,the passions of men must be    
aroused if the frost of custom is to be 
broken or the chains of authority burst2
 but passion of itself is blind and its 
world is chaotic4 ,to be effective men  
must act together1 and to act together  
they must have a common understanding   
and a common object4 ,when it comes to  
be a question of any far-reaching       
change1 they must not merely conceive   
their own immediate end with clearness4 
,they must convert others1 they must    
communicate sympathy and win over the   
unconvinced4 ,upon the whole1 they must 

show that their object is possible1 that
 it is compatible with existing         
institutions1 or at any rate with some  
workable form of social life4 ,they are1
 in fact1 driven on by the requirements 
of their position to the elaboration of 
ideas1 and in the end to some sort of   
social philosophy2 and the philosophies 
that have driving force behind them are 
those which arise after this fashion out
 of the practical demands of human      
feeling4 ,the philosophies that remain  
ineffectual and academic are those that 
are formed by abstract reflection       
without relation to the thirsty souls of
 human kind4  ,in ,england1 it is true1 
where men are apt to be shy and unhandy 
in the region of theory1 the ,liberal   
movement has often sought to dispense   
with general principles4 ,in its early  
days and in its more moderate forms1 it 
sought its ends under the guise of      
constitutionalism4 ,as against the      
claims of the ,stuart monarchy1 there   
was a historic case as well as a        

philosophic argument1 and the earlier   
leaders of the ,parliament relied more  
on precedent than on principle4 ,this   
method was embodied in the ,whig        
tradition1 and runs on to our own time1 
as one of the elements that go to make  
up the working constitution of the      
,liberal mind4 ,it is1 so to say1 the   
,conservative element in ,liberalism1   
valuable in resistance to encroachments1
 valuable in securing continuity of     
development1 for purposes of            
re-construction insufficient4 ,to       
maintain the old order under changed    
circumstances may be1 in fact1 to       
initiate a revolution4 ,it was so in the
 seventeenth century4 ,pym and his      
followers could find justification for  
their contentions in our constitutional 
history1 but to do so they had to go    
behind both the ,stuarts and the        
,tudors2 and to apply the principles of 
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries  
in #afdj was1 in effect1 to institute a 
revolution4 ,in our own time1 to        

maintain the right of the ,commons      
against the ,lords is1 on the face of   
it1 to adhere to old constitutional     
right1 but to do so under the new       
circumstances which have made the       
,commons representative of the nation as
 a whole is1 in reality1 to establish   
democracy for the first time on a firm  
footing1 and this1 again1 is to         
accomplish a revolution4  ,now1 those   
who effect a revolution ought to know   
whither they are leading the world4     
,they have need of a social theory--and 
in point of fact the more thorough-going
 apostles of movement always have such a
 theory2 and though1 as we have         
remarked1 the theory emerges from the   
practical needs which they feel1 and is 
therefore apt to invest ideas of merely 
temporary value with the character of   
eternal truths1 it is not on this       
account to be dismissed as of secondary 
importance4 ,once formed1 it reacts upon
 the minds of its adherents1 and gives  
direction and unity to their efforts4   

,it becomes1 in its turn1 a real        
historic force1 and the degree of its   
coherence and adequacy is matter1 not   
merely of academic interest1 but of     
practical moment4 ,moreover1 the onward 
course of a movement is more clearly    
understood by appreciating the          
successive points of view which its     
thinkers and statesmen have occupied    
than by following the devious turnings  
of political events and the tangle of   
party controversy4 ,the point of view   
naturally affects the whole method of   
handling problems1 whether speculative  
or practical1 and to the historian it   
serves as a centre around which ideas   
and policies that perhaps differ1 and   
even conflict with one another1 may be  
so grouped as to show their underlying  
affinities4 ,let us then seek to        
determine the principal points of view  
which the ,liberal movement has         
occupied1 and distinguish the main types
 of theory in which the passion for     
freedom has sought to express itself4   

,the first of these types ,i will call  
the theory of the ,natural ,order4  ,the
 earlier ,liberalism had to deal with   
authoritarian government in church and  
state4 ,it had to vindicate the elements
 of personal1 civil1 and economic       
freedom2 and in so doing it took its    
stand on the rights of man1 and1 in     
proportion as it was forced to be       
constructive1 on the supposed harmony of
 the natural order4 ,government claimed 
supernatural sanction and divine        
ordinance4 ,liberal theory replied in   
effect that the rights of man rested on 
the law of ,nature1 and those of        
government on human institution4 ,the   
oldest institution in this view was the 
individual1 and the primordial society  
the natural grouping of human beings    
under the influence of family affection1
 and for the sake of mutual aid4        
,political society was a more artificial
 arrangement1 a convention arrived at   
for the specific purpose of securing a  
better order and maintaining the common 

safety4 ,it was1 perhaps1 as ,locke     
held1 founded on a contract between king
 and people1 a contract which was       
brought to an end if either party       
violated its terms4 ,or1 as in          
,rousseau's view1 it was essentially a  
contract of the people with one another1
 an arrangement by means of which1 out  
of many conflicting individual wills1 a 
common or general will could be formed4 
,a government might be instituted as the
 organ of this will1 but it would1 from 
the nature of the case1 be subordinate  
to the people from whom it derived      
authority4 ,the people were sovereign4  
,the government was their delegate4     
,whatever the differences of outlook    
that divide these theories1 those who   
from ,locke to ,rousseau and ,paine     
worked with this order of ideas agreed  
in conceiving political society as a    
restraint to which men voluntarily      
submitted themselves for specific       
purposes4 ,political institutions were  
the source of subjection and inequality4

 ,before and behind them stood the      
assemblage of free and equal            
individuals4 ,but the isolated          
individual was powerless4 ,he had rights
 which were limited only by the         
corresponding rights of others1 but he  
could not1 unless chance gave him the   
upper hand1 enforce them4 ,accordingly1 
he found it best to enter into an       
arrangement with others for the mutual  
respect of rights2 and for this purpose 
he instituted a government to maintain  
his rights within the community and to  
guard the community from assault from   
without4 ,it followed that the function 
of government was limited and definable4
 ,it was to maintain the natural rights 
of man as accurately as the conditions  
of society allowed1 and to do naught    
beside4 ,any further action employing   
the compulsory power of the ,state was  
of the nature of an infringement of the 
understanding on which government       
rested4 ,in entering into the compact1  
the individual gave up so much of his   

rights as was necessitated by the       
condition of submitting to a common     
rule--so much1 and no more4 ,he gave up 
his natural rights and received in      
return civil rights1 something less     
complete1 perhaps1 but more effective as
 resting on the guarantee of the        
collective power4 ,if you would         
discover1 then1 what the civil rights of
 man in society should be1 you must     
inquire what are the natural rights of  
man1#d and how far they are unavoidably 
modified in accommodating the           
conflicting claims of men with one      
another4 ,any interference that goes    
beyond this necessary accommodation is  
oppression4 ,civil rights should agree  
as nearly as possible with natural      
rights1 or1 as ,paine says1 a civil     
right is a natural right exchanged4     
,this conception of the relations of the
 ,state and the individual long outlived
 the theory on which it rested4 ,it     
underlies the entire teaching of the    
,manchester school4 ,its spirit was     

absorbed1 as we shall see1 by many of   
the ,utilitarians4 ,it operated1 though 
in diminishing force1 throughout the    
nineteenth century2 and it is strongly  
held by contemporary ,liberals like ,m4 
,faguet1 who frankly abrogate its       
speculative foundations and rest their  
case on social utility4 ,its strength   
is1 in effect1 not in its logical       
principles1 but in the compactness and  
consistency which it gives to a view of 
the functions of the ,state which       
responds to certain needs of modern     
society4 ,as long as those needs were   
uppermost1 the theory was of living     
value4 ,in proportion as they have been 
satisfied and other needs have emerged1 
the requirement has arisen for a fuller 
and sounder principle4  ,but there was  
another side to the theory of nature    
which we must not ignore4 ,if in this   
theory government is the marplot and    
authority the source of oppression and  
stagnation1 where are the springs of    
progress and civilization8 ,clearly1 in 

the action of individuals4 ,the more the
 individual receives free scope for the 
play of his faculties1 the more rapidly 
will society as a whole advance4 ,there 
are here the elements of an important   
truth1 but what is the implication8 ,if 
the individual is free1 any two         
individuals1 each pursuing his own ends1
 may find themselves in conflict4 ,it   
was1 in fact1 the possibility of such   
conflict which was recognized by our    
theory as the origin and foundation of  
society4 ,men had to agree to some      
measure of mutual restraint in order    
that their liberty might be effective4  
,but in the course of the eighteenth    
century1 and particularly in the        
economic sphere1 there arose a view that
 the conflict of wills is based on      
misunderstanding and ignorance1 and that
 its mischiefs are accentuated by       
governmental repression4 ,at bottom     
there is a natural harmony of interests4
 ,maintain external order1 suppress     
violence1 assure men in the possession  

of their property1 and enforce the      
fulfilment of contracts1 and the rest   
will go of itself4 ,each man will be    
guided by self-interest1 but interest   
will lead him along the lines of        
greatest productivity4 ,if all          
artificial barriers are removed1 he will
 find the occupation which best suits   
his capacities1 and this will be the    
occupation in which he will be most     
productive1 and therefore1 socially1    
most valuable4 ,he will have to sell his
 goods to a willing purchaser1 therefore
 he must devote himself to the          
production of things which others need1 
things1 therefore1 of social value4 ,he 
will1 by preference1 make that for which
 he can obtain the highest price1 and   
this will be that for which1 at the     
particular time and place and in        
relation to his particular capacities1  
there is the greatest need4 ,he will1   
again1 find the employer who will pay   
him best1 and that will be the employer 
to whom he can do the best service4     

,self-interest1 if enlightened and      
unfettered1 will1 in short1 lead him to 
conduct coincident with public interest4
 ,there is1 in this sense1 a natural    
harmony between the individual and      
society4 ,true1 this harmony might      
require a certain amount of education   
and enlightenment to make it effective4 
,what it did not require was            
governmental interference1 which would  
always hamper the causes making for its 
smooth and effectual operation4         
,government must keep the ring1 and     
leave it for individuals to play out the
 game4 ,the theory of the natural rights
 of the individual is thus supplemented 
by a theory of the mutual harmony of    
individual and social needs1 and1 so    
completed1 forms a conception of human  
society which is prim facie workable1   
which1 in fact1 contains important      
elements of truth1 and which was        
responsive to the needs of a great      
class1 and to many of the requirements  
of society as a whole1 during a         

considerable period4  ,on both sides1   
however1 the theory exhibits1 under     
criticism1 fundamental weaknesses which 
have both a historical and a speculative
 significance4 ,let us first consider   
the conception of natural rights4 ,what 
were these rights1 and on what did they 
rest8 ,on the first point men sought to 
be explicit4 ,by way of illustration we 
cannot do better than quote the leading 
clauses of the ,declaration of #aghi4e  
,article ,i4--,men are born and remain  
free and equal in rights4 ,social       
distinctions can only be founded on     
common utility4  ,article ,,ii4--,the   
end of every political association is   
the conservation of the natural and     
imprescriptible rights of man4#f ,these 
rights are liberty1 property1 security  
7la sret71 and resistance to oppression4
  ,article ,,iii4--,the principle of all
 sovereignty resides essentially in the 
nation4444  ,article ,,iv4--,liberty    
consists in the power to do anything    
that does not injure others2 thus1 the  

exercise of the natural rights of every 
man has only such limits as assure to   
other members of society the enjoyment  
of the same rights4 ,these limits can   
only be determined by law4  ,article    
,,vi4--,the law is the expression of the
 general will4 ,all citizens have a     
right to take part 7concourir71         
personally or by their representatives1 
in its formation4  ,the remainder of    
this article insists on the impartiality
 of law and the equal admission of all  
citizens to office4 ,the ,declaration of
 #agic is more emphatic about equality1 
and more rhetorical4 ,article ,,iii     
reads1 ,all men are equal by nature and 
before the law4  ,it is easy to subject 
these articles to a niggling form of    
criticism in which their spirit is      
altogether missed4 ,i would ask         
attention only to one or two points of  
principle4  7a7 ,what are the rights    
actually claimed8 ,security and         
resistance to oppression are not in     
principle distinct1 and1 moreover1 may  

be taken as covered by the definition of
 liberty4 ,the meaning at bottom is     
,security for liberty in respect of his 
person and property is the right of     
every man4 ,so expressed1 it will be    
seen that this right postulates the     
existence of an ordered society1 and    
lays down that it is the duty of such a 
society to secure the liberty of its    
members4 ,the right of the individual1  
then1 is not something independent of   
society1 but one of the principles which
 a good social order must recognize4    
7b7 ,observe that equality is limited by
 the common utility1 and that the sphere
 of liberty is ultimately to be defined 
by law4 ,in both cases we are referred  
back from the individual either to the  
needs or to the decision of society as a
 whole4 ,there are1 moreover1 two       
definitions of liberty4 7#a7 ,it is the 
power to do what does not injure others4
 7#b7 ,it is a right limited by the     
consideration that others must enjoy the
 same rights4 ,it is important to bear  

in mind that these two definitions are  
highly discrepant4 ,if my right to knock
 a man down is only limited by his equal
 right to knock me down1 the law has no 
business to interfere when we take to   
our fists4 ,if1 on the other hand1 ,i   
have no right to injure another1 the law
 should interfere4 ,very little         
reflection suffices to show that this is
 the sounder principle1 and that respect
 for the equal liberty of another is not
 an adequate definition of liberty4 ,my 
right to keep my neighbour awake by     
playing the piano all night is not      
satisfactorily counterbalanced by his   
right to keep a dog which howls all the 
time the piano is being played4 ,the    
right of a sweater to pay starvation    
wages is not satisfactorily limited by  
the corresponding right which his       
employee would enjoy if he were in a    
position to impose the same terms on    
some one else4 ,generally1 the right to 
injure or take advantage of another is  
not sufficiently limited by the right of

 that other if he should have the power 
to retaliate in kind4 ,there is no right
 to injure another2 and if we ask what  
is injury we are again thrown back on   
some general principle which will       
override the individual claim to do what
 one will4  7c7 ,the doctrine of popular
 sovereignty rests on two principles4   
7#a7 ,it is said to reside in the       
nation4 ,law is the expression of the   
general will4 ,here the nation is       
conceived as a collective whole1 as a   
unit4 7#b7 ,every citizen has the right 
to take part in making the law4 ,here   
the question is one of individual right4
 ,which is the real ground of democratic
 representation--the unity of the       
national life1 or the inherent right of 
the individual to be consulted about    
that which concerns himself8  ,further1 
and this is a very serious question1    
which is the ultimate authority--the    
will of the nation1 or the rights of the
 individual8 ,suppose the nation        
deliberately decides on laws which deny 

the rights of the individual1 ought such
 laws to be obeyed in the name of       
popular sovereignty1 or to be disobeyed 
in the name of natural rights8 ,it is a 
real issue1 and on these lines it is    
unfortunately quite insoluble4  ,these  
difficulties were among the             
considerations which led to the         
formation of the second type of ,liberal
 theory1 and what has to be said about  
the harmony of the natural order may be 
taken in conjunction with this second   
theory to which we may now pass1 and    
which is famous as ,the ,greatest       
,happiness ,principle4  ,bentham1 who   
spent the greater part of his life in   
elaborating the greatest happiness      
principle as a basis of social          
reconstruction1 was fully alive to the  
difficulties which we have found in the 
theory of natural rights4 ,the alleged  
rights of man were for him so many      
anarchical fallacies4 ,they were founded
 on no clearly assignable principle1 and
 admitted of no demonstration4 ,i say ,i

 have a right4 ,i say you have no such  
right4 ,between the disputants who or   
what is to decide8 ,what was the        
supposed law of nature8 ,when was it    
written1 and by whose authority8 ,on    
what ground do we maintain that men are 
free or equal8 ,on what principle and   
within what limits do we or can we      
maintain the right of property8 ,there  
were points on which1 by universal      
admission1 all these rights have to give
 way4 ,what is the right of property    
worth in times of war or of any         
overwhelming general need8 ,the         
,declaration itself recognized the need 
of appeal to common utility or to the   
law to define the limits of individual  
right4 ,bentham would frankly make all  
rights dependent on common utility1 and 
therewith he would make it possible to  
examine all conflicting claims in the   
light of a general principle4 ,he would 
measure them all by a common standard4  
,has a man the right to express his     
opinion freely8 ,to determine the       

question on ,bentham's lines we must ask
 whether it is1 on the whole1 useful to 
society that the free expression of     
opinion should be allowed1 and this1 he 
would say1 is a question which may be   
decided by general reasoning and by     
experience of results4 ,of course1 we   
must take the rough with the smooth4 ,if
 the free expression of opinion is      
allowed1 false opinion will find        
utterance and will mislead many4 ,the   
question would be1 does the loss        
involved in the promulgation of error   
counterbalance the gain to be derived   
from unfettered discussion8 and ,bentham
 would hold himself free to judge by    
results4 ,should the ,state maintain the
 rights of private property8 ,yes1 if   
the admission of those rights is useful 
to the community as a whole4 ,no1 if it 
is not useful4 ,some rights of property1
 again1 may be advantageous1 others     
disadvantageous4 ,the community is free 
to make a selection4 ,if it finds that  
certain forms of property are working to

 the exclusive benefit of individuals   
and the prejudice of the common weal1 it
 has good ground for the suppression of 
those forms of property1 while it may1  
with equal justice1 maintain other forms
 of property which it holds sound as    
judged by the effect on the common      
welfare4 ,it is limited by no           
imprescriptible right of the individual4
 ,it may do with the individual what it 
pleases provided that it has the good of
 the whole in view4 ,so far as the      
question of right is concerned the      
,benthamite principle might be regarded 
as decidedly socialistic or even        
authoritarian4 ,it contemplates1 at     
least as a possibility1 the complete    
subordination of individual to social   
claims4  ,there is1 however1 another    
side to the ,benthamite principle1 to   
understand which we must state the heads
 of the theory itself as a positive     
doctrine4 ,what is this social utility  
of which we have spoken8 ,in what does  
it consist8 ,what is useful to society1 

and what harmful8 ,the answer has the   
merit of great clearness and simplicity4
 ,an action is good which tends to      
promote the greatest possible happiness 
of the greatest possible number of those
 affected by it4 ,as with an action1 so1
 of course1 with an institution or a    
social system4 ,that is useful which    
conforms to this principle4 ,that is    
harmful which conflicts with it4 ,that  
is right which conforms to it1 that is  
wrong which conflicts with it4 ,the     
greatest happiness principle is the one 
and supreme principle of conduct4       
,observe that it imposes on us two      
considerations4 ,one is the greatest    
happiness4 ,now happiness is defined as 
consisting positively in the presence of
 pleasure1 negatively in the absence of 
pain4 ,a greater pleasure is then       
preferable to a lesser1 a pleasure      
unaccompanied by pain to one involving  
pain4 ,conceiving pain as a minus       
quantity of pleasure1 we may say that   
the principle requires us always to take

 quantity and pleasure into account1 and
 nothing else4 ,but1 secondly1 the      
number of individuals affected is       
material4 ,an act might cause pleasure  
to one and pain to two4 ,then it is     
wrong1 unless1 indeed1 the pleasure were
 very great and the pain in each case   
small4 ,we must balance the             
consequences1 taking all individuals    
affected into account1 and everybody    
must count for one and nobody for more  
than one4 ,this comment is an integral  
part of the original formula4 ,as       
between the happiness of his father1 his
 child1 or himself1 and the happiness of
 a stranger1 a man must be impartial4   
,he must only consider the quantity of  
pleasure secured or pain inflicted4     
,now1 in this conception of measurable  
quantities of pleasure and pain there   
is1 as many critics have insisted1      
something unreal and academic4 ,we shall
 have to return to the point1 but let us
 first endeavour to understand the      
bearing of ,bentham's teaching on the   

problems of his own time and on the     
subsequent development of ,liberal      
thought4 ,for this purpose we will keep 
to what is real in his doctrine1 even if
 it is not always defined with academic 
precision4 ,the salient points that we  
note1 then1 are 7#a7 the subordination  
of all considerations of right to the   
considerations of happiness1 7#b7 the   
importance of number1 and 7#c7 as the   
other side of the same doctrine1 the    
insistence on equality or impartiality  
between man and man4 ,the common utility
 which ,bentham considers is the        
happiness experienced by a number of    
individuals1 all of whom are reckoned   
for this purpose as of equal value4     
,this is the radical individualism of   
the ,benthamite creed1 to be set against
 that socialistic tendency which struck 
us in our preliminary account4  ,in this
 individualism1 equality is fundamental4
 ,everybody is to count for one1 nobody 
for more than one1 for every one can    
feel pain and pleasure4 ,liberty1 on the

 other hand1 is not fundamental1 it is a
 means to an end4 ,popular sovereignty  
is not fundamental1 for all government  
is a means to an end4 ,nevertheless1 the
 school of ,bentham1 upon the whole1    
stood by both liberty and democracy4    
,let us consider their attitude4  ,as to
 popular government1 ,bentham and ,james
 ,mill reasoned after this fashion4     
,men1 if left to themselves1 that is to 
say1 if neither trained by an           
educational discipline nor checked by   
responsibility1 do not consider the good
 of the greatest number4 ,they consider 
their own good4 ,a king1 if his power is
 unchecked1 will rule in his own        
interest4 ,a class1 if its power is     
unchecked1 will rule in its own         
interest4 ,the only way to secure fair  
consideration for the happiness of all  
is to allow to all an equal share of    
power4 ,true1 if there is a conflict the
 majority will prevail1 but they will be
 moved each by consideration of his own 
happiness1 and the majority as a whole1 

therefore1 by the happiness of the      
greater number4 ,there is no inherent   
right in the individual to take a part  
in government4 ,there is a claim to be  
considered in the distribution of the   
means of happiness1 and to share in the 
work of government as a means to this   
end4 ,it would follow1 among other      
things1 that if one man or one class    
could be shown to be so much wiser and  
better than others that his or their    
rule would1 in fact1 conduce more to the
 happiness of the greater number than a 
popular system1 then the business of    
government ought to be entrusted to that
 man or that class and no one else ought
 to interfere with it4  ,the whole      
argument1 however1 implies a crude view 
of the problem of government4 ,it is1 of
 course1 theoretically possible that a  
question should present itself1 detached
 from other questions1 in which a       
definite measurable interest of each of 
the seven millions or more of voters is 
at stake4 ,for example1 the great       

majority of ,english people drink tea4  
,comparatively few drink wine4 ,should a
 particular sum be raised by a duty on  
tea or on wine8 ,here the majority of   
tea-drinkers have a measurable interest1
 the same in kind and roughly the same  
in degree for each2 and the vote of the 
majority1 if it could be taken on this  
question alone and based on             
self-interest alone1 might be conceived 
without absurdity as representing a sum 
of individual interests4 ,even here1    
however1 observe that1 though the       
greatest number is considered1 the      
greatest happiness does not fare so     
well4 ,for to raise the same sum the tax
 on wine will1 as less is drunk1 have to
 be much larger than the tax on tea1 so 
that a little gain to many tea-drinkers 
might inflict a heavy loss on the few   
wine-drinkers1 and on the ,benthamite   
principle it is not clear that this     
would be just4 ,in point of fact it is  
possible for a majority to act          
tyrannically1 by insisting on a slight  

convenience to itself at the expense1   
perhaps1 of real suffering to a         
minority4 ,now the ,utilitarian         
principle by no means justifies such    
tyranny1 but it does seem to contemplate
 the weighing of one man's loss against 
another's gain1 and such a method of    
balancing does not at bottom commend    
itself to our sense of justice4 ,we may 
lay down that if there is a rational    
social order at all it must be one which
 never rests the essential indispensable
 condition of the happiness of one man  
on the unavoidable misery of another1   
nor the happiness of forty millions of  
men on the misery of one4 ,it may be    
temporarily expedient1 but it is        
eternally unjust1 that one man should   
die for the people4  ,we may go further4
 ,the case of the contemplated tax is1  
as applied to the politics of a modern  
,state1 an unreal one4 ,political       
questions cannot be thus isolated4 ,even
 if we could vote by referendum on a    
special tax1 the question which voters  

would have to consider would never be   
the revenue from and the incidence of   
that tax alone4 ,all the indirect social
 and economic bearings of the tax would 
come up for consideration1 and in the   
illustration chosen people would be     
swayed1 and rightly swayed1 by their    
opinion1 for example1 of the comparative
 effects of tea-drinking and            
wine-drinking4 ,no one element of the   
social life stands separate from the    
rest1 any more than any one element of  
the animal body stands separate from the
 rest4 ,in this sense the life of       
society is rightly held to be organic1  
and all considered public policy must be
 conceived in its bearing on the life of
 society as a whole4 ,but the moment    
that we apply this view to politics1 the
 ,benthamite mode of stating the case   
for democracy is seen to be             
insufficient4 ,the interests of every   
man are no doubt in the end bound up    
with the welfare of the whole community1
 but the relation is infinitely subtle  

and indirect4 ,moreover1 it takes time  
to work itself out1 and the evil that is
 done in the present day may only bear  
fruit when the generation that has done 
it has passed away4 ,thus1 the direct   
and calculable benefit of the majority  
may by no means coincide with the       
ultimate good of society as a whole2 and
 to suppose that the majority must1 on  
grounds of self-interest1 govern in the 
interests of the community as a whole is
 in reality to attribute to the mass of 
men full insight into problems which tax
 the highest efforts of science and of  
statesmanship4 ,lastly1 to suppose that 
men are governed entirely by a sense of 
their interests is a many-sided fallacy4
 ,men are neither so intelligent nor so 
selfish4 ,they are swayed by emotion and
 by impulse1 and both for good and for  
evil they will lend enthusiastic support
 to courses of public policy from which1
 as individuals1 they have nothing to   
gain4 ,to understand the real value of  
democratic government1 we shall have to 

probe far deeper into the relations of  
the individual and society4  ,i turn    
lastly to the question of liberty4 ,on  
,benthamite principles there could be no
 question here of indefeasible          
individual right4 ,there were even1 as  
we saw1 possibilities of a              
thorough-going ,socialism or of an      
authoritarian paternalism in the        
,benthamite principle4 ,but two great   
considerations told in the opposite     
direction4 ,one arose from the          
circumstances of the day4 ,bentham1     
originally a man of somewhat            
conservative temper1 was driven into    
,radicalism comparatively late in life  
by the indifference or hostility of the 
governing classes to his schemes of     
reform4 ,government1 as he saw it1 was  
of the nature of a close corporation    
with a vested interest hostile to the   
public weal1 and his work is penetrated 
by distrust of power as such4 ,there was
 much in the history of the time to     
justify his attitude4 ,it was difficult 

at that time to believe in an honest    
officialdom putting the commonwealth    
above every personal or corporate       
interest1 and reformers naturally looked
 to individual initiative as the source 
of progress4 ,secondly1 and this was a  
more philosophic argument1 the          
individual was supposed to understand   
his own interest best1 and as the common
 good was the sum of individual         
interests1 it followed that so far as   
every man was free to seek his own good1
 the good of the greatest number would  
be most effectually realized by general 
freedom of choice4 ,that there were     
difficulties in reconciling             
self-interest with the general good was 
not denied4 ,but men like ,james ,mill1 
who especially worked at this side of   
the problem1 held that they could be    
overcome by moral education4 ,trained   
from childhood to associate the good of 
others with his own1 a man would come1  
he thought1 to care for the happiness of
 others as for the happiness of self4   

,for1 in the long run1 the two things   
were coincident4 ,particularly in a free
 economic system1 as remarked above1    
each individual1 moving along the line  
of greatest personal profit1 would be   
found to fulfil the function of greatest
 profit to society4 ,let this be        
understood1 and we should have true     
social harmony based on the spontaneous 
operation of personal interest          
enlightened by intelligence and         
chastened by the discipline of unruly   
instinct4  ,thus1 though their          
starting-point was different1 the       
,benthamites arrived at practical       
results not notably divergent from those
 of the doctrine of natural liberty2    
and1 on the whole1 the two influences   
worked together in the formation of that
 school who in the reform period        
exercised so notable an influence on    
,english ,liberalism1 and to whose work 
we must now turn4  ,,footnotes3  #d ,cf4
 the preamble to the ,declaration of the
 ,rights of ,man by the ,french         

,national ,assembly in #aghi4 ,the      
,assembly lays down the natural1        
inalienable1 and sacred rights of man1  
in order1 among other things1 that the  
acts of the legislative power and those 
of the executive power1 being capable of
 being at every instant compared with   
the end of every political institution1 
may be more respected accordingly4  #e  
,the comparison of the ,declaration of  
the ,assembly in #aghi with that of the 
,convention in #agic is full of         
interest1 both for the points of        
agreement and difference1 but would     
require a lengthy examination4 ,i note  
one or two points in passing4  #f       
,contrast #agic1 ,art4 ,i3 ,the end of  
society is the common happiness4        
,government is instituted to guarantee  
to man the enjoyment of his natural and 
imprescriptible rights4     ,,chapter   
,,iv  ',,laissez-,,faire'   ,the school 
of ,cobden is affiliated in general     
outlook both to the doctrine of natural 
liberty and to the discipline of        

,bentham4 ,it shared with the           
,benthamites the thoroughly practical   
attitude dear to the ,english mind4 ,it 
has much less to say of natural rights  
than the ,french theorists4 ,on the     
other hand1 it is saturated with the    
conviction that the unfettered action of
 the individual is the mainspring of all
 progress4#g ,its starting-point is     
economic4 ,trade is still in fetters4   
,the worst of the archaic internal      
restrictions have1 indeed1 been thrown  
off4 ,but even here ,cobden is active in
 the work of finally emancipating       
,manchester from manorial rights that   
have no place in the nineteenth century4
 ,the main work1 however1 is the        
liberation of foreign trade4 ,the ,corn 
,laws1 as even the tariff reformers of  
our own day admit1 were conceived in the
 interest of the governing classes4     
,they frankly imposed a tax on the food 
of the masses for the benefit of the    
landlords1 and as the result of the     
agricultural and industrial revolutions 

which had been in progress since #agfj1 
the masses had been brought to the      
lowest point of economic misery4 ,give  
to every man the right to buy in the    
cheapest and sell in the dearest market1
 urged the ,cobdenite1 and trade would  
automatically expand4 ,the business     
career would be open to the talents4    
,the good workman would command the full
 money's worth of his work1 and his     
money would buy him food and clothing at
 the lowest rate in the world's market4 
,only so would he get the full value of 
his work1 paying toll to none4 ,taxes   
there must be to carry on government1   
but if we looked into the cost of       
government we found that it depended    
mostly on armaments4 ,why did we need   
armaments8 ,first1 because of the       
national antagonisms aroused and        
maintained by a protective system4 ,free
 commercial intercourse between nations 
would engender mutual knowledge1 and    
knit the severed peoples by countless   
ties of business interests4 ,free ,trade

 meant peace1 and once taught by the    
example of ,great ,britain's prosperity1
 other nations would follow suit1 and   
,free ,trade would be universal4 ,the   
other root of national danger was the   
principle of intervention4 ,we took it  
on ourselves to set other nations right4
 ,how could we judge for other nations8 
,force was no remedy4 ,let every people 
be free to work out its own salvation4  
,things were not so perfect with us that
 we need go about setting the houses of 
other people in order4 ,to complete     
personal freedom1 there must be national
 freedom4 ,there must also be colonial  
freedom4 ,the colonies could no longer  
be governed in the interests of the     
mother country1 nor ought they to       
require standing garrisons maintained by
 the mother country4 ,they were distant 
lands1 each1 if we gave it freedom1 with
 a great future of its own1 capable of  
protecting itself1 and developing with  
freedom into true nationhood4 ,personal 
freedom1 colonial freedom1 international

 freedom1 were parts of one whole4      
,non-intervention1 peace1 restriction of
 armaments1 retrenchment of expenditure1
 reduction of taxation1 were the        
connected series of practical           
consequences4 ,the money retrenched from
 wasteful military expenditure need not 
all be remitted to the taxpayer4 ,a     
fraction of it devoted to               
education--free1 secular1 and           
universal--would do as much good as when
 spent on guns and ships it did harm4   
,for education was necessary to raise   
the standard of intelligence1 and       
provide the substantial equality of     
opportunity at the start without which  
the mass of men could not make use of   
the freedom given by the removal of     
legislative restrictions4 ,there were   
here elements of a more constructive    
view for which ,cobden and his friends  
have not always received sufficient     
credit4  ,in the main1 however1 the     
teaching of the ,manchester school      
tended both in external and in internal 

affairs to a restricted view of the     
function of government4 ,government had 
to maintain order1 to restrain men from 
violence and fraud1 to hold them secure 
in person and property against foreign  
and domestic enemies1 to give them      
redress against injury1 that so they may
 rely on reaping where they have sown1  
may enjoy the fruits of their industry1 
may enter unimpeded into what           
arrangements they will with one another 
for their mutual benefit4 ,let us see   
what criticism was passed on this view  
by the contemporaries of ,cobden and by 
the loud voice of the facts themselves4 
,the old economic rgime had been in     
decay throughout the eighteenth century4
 ,the divorce of the labourer from the  
land was complete at the time when the  
,anti-,corn ,law ,league was formed4    
,the mass of the ,english peasantry were
 landless labourers working for a weekly
 wage of about ten or twelve shillings1 
and often for a good deal less4 ,the    
rise of machine industry since #agfj had

 destroyed the old domestic system and  
reduced the operative in the towns to   
the position of a factory hand under an 
employer1 who found the road to wealth  
easy in the monopoly of manufacture     
enjoyed by this country for two         
generations after the ,napoleonic war4  
,the factory system early brought       
matters to a head at one point by the   
systematic employment of women and young
 children under conditions which        
outraged the public conscience when they
 became known4 ,in the case of children 
it was admitted from an early date1 it  
was urged by ,cobden himself1 that the  
principle of free contract could not    
apply4 ,admitting1 for the sake of      
argument1 that the adult could make a   
better bargain for himself or herself   
than any one could do for him or her1 no
 one could contend that the pauper child
 apprenticed by ,poor ,law guardians to 
a manufacturer had any say or could have
 any judgment as to the work which it   
was set to do4 ,it had to be protected1 

and experience showed that it had to be 
protected by law4 ,free contract did not
 solve the question of the helpless     
child4 ,it left it to be exploited by   
the employer in his own interest1 and   
whatever regard might be shown for its  
health and well-being by individuals was
 a matter of individual benevolence1 not
 a right secured by the necessary       
operation of the system of liberty4     
,but these arguments admitted of great  
extension4 ,if the child was helpless1  
was the grown-up person1 man or woman1  
in a much better position8 ,here was the
 owner of a mill employing five hundred 
hands4 ,here was an operative possessed 
of no alternative means of subsistence  
seeking employment4 ,suppose them to    
bargain as to terms4 ,if the bargain    
failed1 the employer lost one man and   
had four hundred and ninety-nine to keep
 his mill going4 ,at worst he might for 
a day or two1 until another operative   
appeared1 have a little difficulty in   
working a single machine4 ,during the   

same days the operative might have      
nothing to eat1 and might see his       
children going hungry4 ,where was the   
effective liberty in such an            
arrangement8 ,the operatives themselves 
speedily found that there was none1 and 
had from an early period in the rise of 
the machine industry sought to redress  
the balance by combination4 ,now1       
combination was naturally disliked by   
employers1 and it was strongly suspect  
to believers in liberty because it put  
constraint upon individuals4 ,yet trade 
unions gained the first step in         
emancipation through the action of      
,place and the ,radicals in #ahbd1 more 
perhaps because these men conceived     
trade unions as the response of labour  
to oppressive laws which true freedom of
 competition would render superfluous   
than because they founded any serious   
hopes of permanent social progress upon 
,trade ,unionism itself4 ,in point of   
fact1 the critical attitude was not     
without its justification4 ,trade       

,unionism can be protective in spirit   
and oppressive in action4 ,nevertheless1
 it was essential to the maintenance of 
their industrial standard by the artisan
 classes1 because it alone1 in the      
absence of drastic legislative          
protection1 could do something to       
redress the inequality between employer 
and employed4 ,it gave1 upon the whole1 
far more freedom to the workman than it 
took away1 and in this we learn an      
important lesson which has far wider    
application4 ,in the matter of contract 
true freedom postulates substantial     
equality between the parties4 ,in       
proportion as one party is in a position
 of vantage1 he is able to dictate his  
terms4 ,in proportion as the other party
 is in a weak position1 he must accept  
unfavourable terms4 ,hence the truth of 
,walker's dictum that economic injuries 
tend to perpetuate themselves4 ,the more
 a class is brought low1 the greater its
 difficulty in rising again without     
assistance4 ,for purposes of legislation

 the ,state has been exceedingly slow to
 accept this view4 ,it began1 as we saw1
 with the child1 where the case was     
overwhelming4 ,it went on to include the
 young person and the woman--not without
 criticism from those who held by       
woman's rights1 and saw in this         
extension of tutelage an enlargement of 
male domination4 ,be that as it may1    
public opinion was brought to this point
 by the belief that it was intervening  
in an exceptional manner to protect a   
definite class not strong enough to     
bargain for itself4 ,it drew the line at
 the adult male2 and it is only within  
our own time1 and as the result of a    
controversy waged for many years within 
the trade union world itself1 that      
legislation has avowedly undertaken the 
task of controlling the conditions of   
industry1 the hours1 and at length1     
through the institution of ,wages       
,boards in sweated industries1 the      
actual remuneration of working people   
without limitation of age or sex4 ,to   

this it has been driven by the manifest 
teaching of experience that liberty     
without equality is a name of noble     
sound and squalid result4  ,in place of 
the system of unfettered agreements     
between individual and individual which 
the school of ,cobden contemplated1 the 
industrial system which has actually    
grown up and is in process of further   
development rests on conditions         
prescribed by the ,state1 and within the
 limits of those conditions is very     
largely governed by collective          
arrangements between associations of    
employers and employed4 ,the law        
provides for the safety of the worker   
and the sanitary conditions of          
employment4 ,it prescribes the length of
 the working day for women and children 
in factories and workshops1 and for men 
in mines and on railways4#h ,in the     
future it will probably deal freely with
 the hours of men4 ,it enables wages    
boards to establish a legal minimum wage
 in scheduled industries which will     

undoubtedly grow in number4 ,it makes   
employers liable for all injuries       
suffered by operatives in the course of 
their employment1 and forbids any one to
 contract out of this obligation4       
,within these limits1 it allows freedom 
of contract4 ,but at this point1 in the 
more highly developed trades1 the work  
is taken up by voluntary associations4  
,combinations of men have been met by   
combinations of employers1 and wages1   
hours1 and all the details of the       
industrial bargain are settled by       
collective agreement through the agency 
of a joint board with an impartial      
chairman or referee in case of necessity
 for an entire locality and even an     
entire trade4 ,so far have we gone from 
the free competition of isolated        
individuals4  ,this development is      
sometimes held to have involved the     
decay and death of the older            
,liberalism4 ,it is true that in the    
beginning factory legislation enjoyed a 
large measure of ,conservative support4 

,it was at that stage in accordance with
 the best traditions of paternal rule1  
and it commended itself to the religious
 convictions of men of whom ,lord       
,shaftesbury was the typical example4   
,it is true1 also1 that it was bitterly 
opposed by ,cobden and ,bright4 ,on the 
other hand1 ,radicals like ,j4 ,cam     
,hobhouse took a leading part in the    
earlier legislation1 and ,whig          
,governments passed the very important  
,acts of #ahcc and #ahdg4 ,the cleavage 
of opinion1 in fact1 cut across the     
ordinary divisions of party4 ,what is   
more to the purpose is that1 as         
experience ripened1 the implications of 
the new legislation became clearer1 and 
men came to see that by industrial      
control they were not destroying liberty
 but confirming it4 ,a new and more     
concrete conception of liberty arose and
 many old presuppositions were          
challenged4  ,let us look for a moment  
at these presuppositions4 ,we have seen 
that the theory of laissez-faire assumed

 that the ,state would hold the ring4   
,that is to say1 it would suppress force
 and fraud1 keep property safe1 and aid 
men in enforcing contracts4 ,on these   
conditions1 it was maintained1 men      
should be absolutely free to compete    
with one another1 so that their best    
energies should be called forth1 so that
 each should feel himself responsible   
for the guidance of his own life1 and   
exert his manhood to the utmost4 ,but   
why1 it might be asked1 on these        
conditions1 just these and no others8   
,why should the ,state ensure protection
 of person and property8 ,the time was  
when the strong man armed kept his      
goods1 and incidentally his neighbour's 
goods too if he could get hold of them4 
,why should the ,state intervene to do  
for a man that which his ancestor did   
for himself8 ,why should a man who has  
been soundly beaten in physical fight go
 to a public authority for redress8 ,how
 much more manly to fight his own       
battle6 ,was it not a kind of           

pauperization to make men secure in     
person and property through no efforts  
of their own1 by the agency of a state  
machinery operating over their heads8   
,would not a really consistent          
individualism abolish this machinery8   
,but1 the advocate of laissez-faire may 
reply1 the use of force is criminal1 and
 the ,state must suppress crime4 ,so men
 held in the nineteenth century4 ,but   
there was an earlier time when they did 
not take this view1 but left it to      
individuals and their kinsfolk to       
revenge their own injuries by their own 
might4 ,was not this a time of more     
unrestricted individual liberty8 ,yet   
the nineteenth century regarded it1 and 
justly1 as an age of barbarism4 ,what1  
we may ask in our turn1 is the essence  
of crime8 ,may we not say that any      
intentional injury to another may be    
legitimately punished by a public       
authority1 and may we not say that to   
impose twelve hours' daily labour on a  
child was to inflict a greater injury   

than the theft of a purse for which a   
century ago a man might be hanged8 ,on  
what principle1 then1 is the line drawn1
 so as to specify certain injuries which
 the ,state may prohibit and to mark off
 others which it must leave untouched8  
,well1 it may be said1 volenti non fit  
injuria4 ,no wrong is done to a man by a
 bargain to which he is a willing party4
 ,that may be1 though there are doubtful
 cases4 ,but in the field that has been 
in question the contention is that one  
party is not willing4 ,the bargain is a 
forced bargain4 ,the weaker man consents
 as one slipping over a precipice might 
consent to give all his fortune to one  
who will throw him a rope on no other   
terms4 ,this is not true consent4 ,true 
consent is free consent1 and full       
freedom of consent implies equality on  
the part of both parties to the bargain4
 ,just as government first secured the  
elements of freedom for all when it     
prevented the physically stronger man   
from slaying1 beating1 despoiling his   

neighbours1 so it secures a larger      
measure of freedom for all by every     
restriction which it imposes with a view
 to preventing one man from making use  
of any of his advantages to the         
disadvantage of others4  ,there emerges 
a distinction between unsocial and      
social freedom4 ,unsocial freedom is the
 right of a man to use his powers       
without regard to the wishes or         
interests of any one but himself4 ,such 
freedom is theoretically possible for an
 individual4 ,it is antithetic to all   
public control4 ,it is theoretically    
impossible for a plurality of           
individuals living in mutual contact4   
,socially it is a contradiction1 unless 
the desires of all men were             
automatically attuned to social ends4   
,social freedom1 then1 for any epoch    
short of the millennium rests on        
restraint4 ,it is a freedom that can be 
enjoyed by all the members of a         
community1 and it is the freedom to     
choose among those lines of activity    

which do not involve injury to others4  
,as experience of the social effects of 
action ripens1 and as the social        
conscience is awakened1 the conception  
of injury is widened and insight into   
its causes is deepened4 ,the area of    
restraint is therefore increased4 ,but1 
inasmuch as injury inflicted is itself  
crippling to the sufferer1 as it lowers 
his health1 confines his life1 cramps   
his powers1 so the prevention of such   
injury sets him free4 ,the restraint of 
the aggressor is the freedom of the     
sufferer1 and only by restraint on the  
actions by which men injure one another 
do they as a whole community gain       
freedom in all courses of conduct that  
can be pursued without ultimate social  
disharmony4  ,it is1 therefore1 a very  
shallow wit that taunts contemporary    
,liberalism with inconsistency in       
opposing economic protection while it   
supports protective legislation for the 
manual labourer4 ,the two things have   
nothing in common but that they are     

restraints intended to operate in the   
interests of somebody4 ,the one is a    
restraint which1 in the ,liberal view1  
would operate in favour of certain      
industries and interests to the         
prejudice of others1 and1 on the whole1 
in favour of those who are already more 
fortunately placed and against the      
poorer classes4 ,the other is a         
restraint conceived in the interest     
primarily of the poorer classes with the
 object of securing to them a more      
effective freedom and a nearer approach 
to equality of conditions in industrial 
relations4 ,there is point in the       
argument only for those who conceive    
liberty as opposed to restraint as such4
 ,for those who understand that all     
social liberty rests upon restraint1    
that restraint of one man in one respect
 is the condition of the freedom of     
other men in that respect1 the taunt has
 no meaning whatever4 ,the liberty which
 is good is not the liberty of one      
gained at the expense of others1 but the

 liberty which can be enjoyed by all who
 dwell together1 and this liberty       
depends on and is measured by the       
completeness with which by law1 custom1 
or their own feelings they are          
restrained from mutual injury4          
,individualism1 as ordinarily           
understood1 not only takes the policeman
 and the law court for granted4 ,it also
 takes the rights of property for       
granted4 ,but what is meant by the      
rights of property8 ,in ordinary use the
 phrase means just that system to which 
long usage has accustomed us4 ,this is a
 system under which a man is free to    
acquire by any method of production or  
exchange within the limits of the law   
whatever he can of land1 consumable     
goods1 or capital2 to dispose of it at  
his own will and pleasure for his own   
purposes1 to destroy it if he likes1 to 
give it away or sell it as it suits him1
 and at death to bequeath it to         
whomsoever he will4 ,the ,state1 it is  
admitted1 can take a part of a man's    

property by taxation4 ,for the ,state is
 a necessity1 and men must pay a price  
for security2 but in all taxation the   
,state on this view is taking something 
from a man which is his1 and in so doing
 is justified only by necessity4 ,it has
 no right to deprive the individual of  
anything that is his in order to promote
 objects of its own which are not       
necessary to the common order4 ,to do so
 is to infringe individual rights and   
make a man contribute by force to       
objects which he may view with          
indifference or even with dislike4      
,socialistic taxation is an infringement
 of individual freedom1 the freedom to  
hold one's own and do as one will with  
one's own4 ,such seems to be the        
ordinary view4  ,but a consistent theory
 of liberty could not rest wholly       
satisfied with the actual system under  
which property is held4 ,the first point
 of attack1 already pressed by the      
disciples of ,cobden1 was the barrier to
 free exchange in the matter of land4   

,it was not and still is not easy for   
the landless to acquire land1 and in the
 name of free contract ,cobden and his  
disciples pressed for cheap and         
unimpeded transfer4 ,but a more         
searching criticism was possible4 ,land 
is limited in amount1 certain kinds of  
land very narrowly limited4 ,where there
 is limitation of supply monopoly is    
always possible1 and against monopoly   
the principles of free competition      
declared war4 ,to ,cobden himself1 free 
trade in land was the pendant to free   
trade in goods4 ,but the attack on the  
land monopoly could be carried much     
further1 and might lead the             
individualist who was in earnest about  
his principles to march a certain       
distance on parallel lines with the     
,socialist enemy4 ,this has1 in fact1   
occurred in the school of ,henry        
,george4 ,this school holds by          
competition1 but by competition only on 
the basis of a genuine freedom and      
equality for all individuals4 ,to secure

 this basis1 it would purge the social  
system of all elements of monopoly1 of  
which the private ownership of land is  
in its view the most important4 ,this   
object1 it maintains1 can be secured    
only through the absorption by the      
,state of all elements of monopoly      
value4 ,now1 monopoly value accrues     
whenever anything of worth to men of    
which the supply is limited falls into  
private hands4 ,in this case competition
 fails4 ,there is no check upon the     
owner except the limitations of demand4 
,he can exact a price which bears no    
necessary relation to the cost of any   
effort of his own4 ,in addition to      
normal wages and profits1 he can extract
 from the necessities of others a       
surplus1 to which the name of economic  
rent is given4 ,he can also hold up his 
property and refuse to allow others to  
make use of it until the time when its  
full value has accrued1 thereby         
increasing the rent which he will       
ultimately receive at the cost of much  

loss in the interim to society4         
,monopolies in our country fall into    
three classes4 ,there is1 first1 the    
monopoly of land4 ,urban rents1 for     
example1 represent not merely the cost  
of building1 nor the cost of building   
plus the site1 as it would be if sites  
of the kind required were unlimited in  
amount4 ,they represent the cost of a   
site where the supply falls short of the
 demand1 that is to say1 where there is 
an element of monopoly4 ,and site       
value--the element in the actual cost of
 a house or factory that depends on its 
position--varies directly with the      
degree of this monopoly4 ,this value the
 land nationalizer contends is not      
created by the owner4 ,it is created by 
society4 ,in part it is due to the      
general growth of the country to which  
the increase of population and the rise 
of town life is to be attributed4 ,in   
part it depends on the growth of the    
particular locality1 and in part on the 
direct expenditure of the ratepayers'   

money in sanitation and other           
improvements which make the place one   
where people can live and industry can  
thrive4 ,directly and indirectly1 the   
community creates the site value4 ,the  
landlord receives it1 and1 receiving it1
 can charge any one who wants to live or
 carry on industry upon the site with   
rent to the full amount4 ,the           
land-nationalizer1 looking at rights of 
property purely from the point of view  
of the individual1 denies the justice of
 this arrangement1 and he sees no       
solution except this--that the monopoly 
value should pass back to the community 
which creates it4 ,accordingly1 he      
favours the taxation of site value to   
its full amount4 ,another element of    
monopoly arises from industries in which
 competition is inapplicable--the supply
 of gas and water1 for example1 a       
tramway service1 and in some conditions 
a railway service4 ,here competition may
 be wasteful if not altogether          
impossible2 and here again1 on the lines

 of a strictly consistent individualism1
 if the industry is allowed to fall into
 private hands the owners will be able  
to secure something more than the normal
 profits of competitive industry4 ,they 
will profit by monopoly at the expense  
of the general consumer1 and the remedy 
is public control or public ownership4  
,the latter is the more complete and    
efficacious remedy1 and it is also the  
remedy of municipal socialism4 ,lastly1 
there may be forms of monopoly created  
by the ,state1 such as the sale of      
liquor as restricted by the licensing   
system4 ,in accordance with competitive 
ideas the value so created ought not to 
pass into private hands1 and if on      
social grounds the monopoly is          
maintained1 the taxation of licensed    
premises ought to be so arranged that   
the monopoly value returns to the       
community4  ,up to this point a         
thoroughly consistent individualism can 
work in harmony with socialism1 and it  
is this partial alliance which has1 in  

fact1 laid down the lines of later      
,liberal finance4 ,the great ,budget of 
#aiji had behind it the united forces of
 ,socialist and individualist opinion4  
,it may be added that there is a fourth 
form of monopoly which would be open to 
the same double attack1 but it is one of
 which less has been heard in ,great    
,britain than in the ,united ,states4   
,it is possible under a competitive     
system for rivals to come to an         
agreement4 ,the more powerful may coerce
 the weaker1 or a number of equals may  
agree to work together4 ,thus           
competition may defeat itself1 and      
industry may be marshalled into trusts  
or other combinations for the private   
advantage against the public interest4  
,such combinations1 predicted by ,karl  
,marx as the appointed means of         
dissolving the competitive system1 have 
been kept at bay in this country by     
,free ,trade4 ,under ,protection they   
constitute the most urgent problem of   
the day4 ,even here the railways1 to    

take one example1 are rapidly moving to 
a system of combination1 the economies  
of which are obvious1 while its         
immediate result is monopoly1 and its   
assured end is nationalization4  ,thus  
individualism1 when it grapples with the
 facts1 is driven no small distance     
along ,socialist lines4 ,once again we  
have found that to maintain individual  
freedom and equality we have to extend  
the sphere of social control4 ,but to   
carry through the real principles of    
,liberalism1 to achieve social liberty  
and living equality of rights1 we shall 
have to probe still deeper4 ,we must not
 assume any of the rights of property as
 axiomatic4 ,we must look at their      
actual working and consider how they    
affect the life of society4 ,we shall   
have to ask whether1 if we could abolish
 all monopoly on articles of limited    
supply1 we should yet have dealt with   
all the causes that contribute to social
 injustice and industrial disorder1     
whether we should have rescued the      

sweated worker1 afforded to every man   
adequate security for a fair return for 
an honest day's toil1 and prevented the 
use of economic advantage to procure    
gain for one man at the expense of      
another4 ,we should have to ask whether 
we had the basis of a just delimitation 
between the rights of the community and 
those of the individual1 and therewith a
 due appreciation of the appropriate    
ends of the ,state and the equitable    
basis of taxation4 ,these inquiries take
 us to first principles1 and to approach
 that part of our discussion it is      
desirable to carry further our sketch of
 the historic development of ,liberalism
 in thought and action4  ,,footnotes3   
#g ,if ,i were asked to sum up in a     
sentence the difference and the         
connection 7between the two schools7 ,i 
would say that the ,manchester men were 
the disciples of ,adam ,smith and       
,bentham1 while the ,philosophical      
,radicals followed ,bentham and ,adam   
,smith 7,f4 ,w4 ,hirst1 ,the ,manchester

 ,school1 ,introd41 p4 xi74 ,lord       
,morley1 in the concluding chapter of   
his ,life of ,cobden1 points out that it
 was the view of policy as a whole in   
connection with the economic movement of
 society which distinguished the school 
of ,cobden from that of the             
,benthamites4  #h ,indirectly it has for
 long limited the hours of men in       
factories owing to the interdependence  
of the adult male with the female and   
child operative4     ,,chapter ,v       
,,gladstone ,,and ,,mill   ,from the    
middle of the nineteenth century two    
great names stand out in the history of 
,british ,liberalism--that of ,gladstone
 in the world of action1 that of ,mill  
in the world of thought4 ,differing in  
much1 they agreed in one respect4 ,they 
had the supreme virtue of keeping their 
minds fresh and open to new ideas1 and  
both of them in consequence advanced to 
a deeper interpretation of social life  
as they grew older4 ,in #ahdf ,gladstone
 ranked as a ,conservative1 but he      

parted from his old traditions under the
 leadership of ,peel on the question of 
,free ,trade1 and for many years to come
 the most notable of his public services
 lay in the completion of the ,cobdenite
 policy of financial emancipation4 ,in  
the pursuit of this policy he was       
brought into collision with the ,house  
of ,lords1 and it was his active        
intervention in #ahei-fj which saved the
 ,commons from a humiliating surrender1 
and secured its financial supremacy     
unimpaired until #aiji4 ,in the         
following decade he stood for the       
extension of the suffrage1 and it was   
his ,government which1 in #ahhd1 carried
 the extension of the representative    
principle to the point at which it      
rested twenty-seven years later4 ,in    
economics ,gladstone kept upon the whole
 to the ,cobdenite principles which he  
acquired in middle life4 ,he was not    
sympathetically disposed to the ,new    
,unionism and the semi-socialistic ideas
 that came at the end of the 'eighties1 

which1 in fact1 constituted a powerful  
cross current to the political work that
 he had immediately in hand4 ,yet in    
relation to ,irish land he entered upon 
a new departure which threw over freedom
 of contract in a leading case where the
 two parties were on glaringly unequal  
terms4 ,no abstract thinker1 he had a   
passion for justice in the concrete     
which was capable of carrying him far4  
,he knew tyranny when he saw it1 and    
upon it he waged unremitting and        
many-sided war4  ,but his most original 
work was done in the sphere of imperial 
relations4 ,the maligned ,majuba        
settlement was an act of justice which  
came too late to effect a permanent     
undoing of mischief4 ,all the greater   
was the courage of the statesman who    
could throw himself at that time upon   
the inherent force of national liberty  
and international fair dealing4 ,in the 
case of ,ireland ,gladstone again relied
 on the same principles1 but another    
force was necessary to carry the day1 a 

force which no man can command1 the     
force of time4 ,in international        
dealings generally ,gladstone was a     
pioneer4 ,his principle was not         
precisely that of ,cobden4 ,he was not a
 non-interventionist4 ,he took action on
 behalf of ,greece1 and would have done 
so on behalf of the ,armenians1 to save 
the national honour and prevent a       
monstrous wrong4 ,the ,gladstonian      
principle may be defined by antithesis  
to that of ,machiavelli1 and to that of 
,bismarck1 and to the practice of every 
,foreign ,office4 ,as that practice     
proceeds on the principle that reasons  
of ,state justify everything1 so        
,gladstone proceeded on the principle   
that reasons of ,state justify nothing  
that is not justified already by the    
human conscience4 ,the statesman is for 
him a man charged with maintaining not  
only the material interests but the     
honour of his country4 ,he is a citizen 
of the world in that he represents his  
nation1 which is a member of the        

community of the world4 ,he has to      
recognize rights and duties1 as every   
representative of every other human     
organization has to recognize rights and
 duties4 ,there is no line drawn beyond 
which human obligations cease4 ,there is
 no gulf across which the voice of human
 suffering cannot be heard1 beyond which
 massacre and torture cease to be       
execrable4 ,simply as a patriot1 again1 
a man should recognize that a nation may
 become great not merely by painting the
 map red1 or extending her commerce     
beyond all precedent1 but also as the   
champion of justice1 the succourer of   
the oppressed1 the established home of  
freedom4 ,from the denunciation of the  
,opium ,war1 from the exposure of the   
,neapolitan prisons1 to his last        
appearance on the morrow of the         
,constantinople massacre this was the   
message which ,gladstone sought to      
convey4 ,he was before his time4 ,he was
 not always able to maintain his        
principle in his own ,cabinet1 and on   

his retirement the world appeared to    
relapse definitely into the older ways4 
,his own party gave itself up in large  
measure to opposite views4 ,on the other
 hand1 careful and unprejudiced         
criticism will recognize that the chief 
opponent of his old age1 ,lord          
,salisbury1 had imbibed something of his
 spirit1 and under its influence did    
much to save the country from the       
excesses of ,imperialism1 while his     
follower1 ,sir ,henry                   
,campbell-,bannerman1 used the brief    
term of his power to reverse the policy 
of racial domination in ,south ,africa  
and to prove the value of the old       
,gladstonian trust in the recuperative  
force of political freedom4 ,it may be  
added that1 if cynicism has since       
appeared to hold the field in           
international politics1 it is the       
cynicism of terror rather than the      
cynicism of ambition4 ,the ,scare has   
superseded the ,vision as the moving    
force in our external relations1 and    

there are now signs that the ,scare in  
turn has spent its force and is making  
room at last for ,sense4  ,in other     
respects1 ,gladstone was a moral rather 
than an intellectual force4 ,he raised  
the whole level of public life4 ,by     
habitually calling upon what was best in
 men1 he deepened the sense of public   
responsibility and paved the way1 half  
unconsciously1 for the fuller exercise  
of the social conscience4 ,mill was also
 a moral force1 and the most persistent 
influence of his books is more an effect
 of character than of intellect4 ,but1  
in place of ,gladstone's driving power  
and practical capacity1 ,mill had the   
qualities of a life-long learner1 and in
 his single person he spans the interval
 between the old and the new            
,liberalism4 ,brought up on the pure    
milk of the ,benthamite word1 he never  
definitely abandoned the first          
principles of his father4 ,but he was   
perpetually bringing them into contact  
with fresh experience and new trains of 

thought1 considering how they worked1   
and how they ought to be modified in    
order to maintain what was really sound 
and valuable in their content4 ,hence1  
,mill is the easiest person in the world
 to convict of inconsistency1           
incompleteness1 and lack of rounded     
system4 ,hence1 also1 his work will     
survive the death of many consistent1   
complete1 and perfectly rounded systems4
  ,as a utilitarian1 ,mill cannot appeal
 to any rights of the individual that   
can be set in opposition to the public  
welfare4 ,his method is to show that the
 permanent welfare of the public is     
bound up with the rights of the         
individual4 ,of course1 there are       
occasions on which the immediate        
expediency of the public would be met by
 ignoring personal rights4 ,but if the  
rule of expediency were followed there  
would be neither right nor law at all4  
,there would be no fixed rules in social
 life1 and nothing to which men could   
trust in guiding their conduct4 ,for the

 utilitarian1 then1 the question of     
right resolves itself into the question3
 ,what claim is it1 in general and as a 
matter of principle1 advisable for      
society to recognize8 ,what in any given
 relation are the permanent conditions  
of social health8 ,in regard to liberty 
,mill's reply turns on the moral or     
spiritual forces which determine the    
life of society4 ,first1 particularly as
 regards freedom of thought and         
discussion1 society needs light4 ,truth 
has a social value1 and we are never to 
suppose that we are in the possession of
 complete and final truth4 ,but truth is
 only to be sought by experience in the 
world of thought1 and of action as well4
 ,in the process of experimentation     
there are endless opportunities of      
error1 and the free search for truth    
therefore involves friction and waste4  
,the promulgation of error will do harm1
 a harm that might be averted if error  
were suppressed4 ,but suppression by any
 other means than those of rational     

suasion is one of those remedies which  
cure the disease by killing the patient4
 ,it paralyzes the free search for      
truth4 ,not only so1 but there is an    
element of positive value in honest     
error which places it above mechanically
 accepted truth4 ,so far as it is honest
 it springs from the spontaneous        
operation of the mind on the basis of   
some partial and incomplete experience4 
,it is1 so far as it goes1 an           
interpretation of experience1 though a  
faulty one1 whereas the belief imposed  
by authority is no interpretation of    
experience at all4 ,it involves no      
personal effort4 ,its blind acceptance  
seals the resignation of the will and   
the intellect to effacement and         
stultification4  ,the argument on this  
side does not rest on human fallibility4
 ,it appeals in its full strength to    
those who are most confident that they  
possess truth final and complete4 ,they 
are asked to recognize that the way in  
which this truth must be communicated to

 others is not by material but by       
spiritual means1 and that if they hold  
out physical threats as a deterrent1 or 
worldly advantage as a means of         
persuasion1 they are destroying not     
merely the fruits but the very root of  
truth as it grows within the human mind4
 ,yet the argument receives additional  
force when we consider the actual       
history of human belief4 ,the candid man
 who knows anything of the movements of 
thought will recognize that even the    
faith which is most vital to him is     
something that has grown through the    
generations1 and he may infer1 if he is 
reasonable1 that as it has grown in the 
past so1 if it has the vital seed within
 it1 it will grow in the future4 ,it may
 be permanent in outline1 but in content
 it will change4 ,but1 if truth itself  
is an expanding circle of ideas that    
grows through criticism and by          
modification1 we need say no more as to 
the rough and imperfect apprehension of 
truth which constitutes the dominant    

opinion of society at any given moment4 
,it needs little effort of detachment to
 appreciate the danger of any limitation
 of inquiry by the collective will      
whether its organ be law or the         
repressive force of public opinion4     
,the foundation of liberty on this side1
 then1 is the conception of thought as a
 growth dependent on spiritual laws1    
flourishing in the movement of ideas as 
guided by experience1 reflection and    
feeling1 corrupted by the intrusion of  
material considerations1 slain by the   
guillotine of finality4 ,the same       
conception is broadened out to cover the
 whole idea of personality4 ,social     
well-being cannot be incompatible with  
individual well-being4 ,but individual  
well-being has as its foundation the    
responsible life of the rational        
creature4 ,manhood1 and ,mill would     
emphatically add womanhood too1 rests on
 the spontaneous development of faculty4
 ,to find vent for the capacities of    
feeling1 of emotion1 of thought1 of     

action1 is to find oneself4 ,the result 
is no anarchy4 ,the self so found has as
 the pivot of its life the power of     
control4 ,to introduce some unity into  
life1 some harmony into thought1 action 
and feeling1 is its central achievement1
 and to realize its relation to others  
and guide its own life thereby1 its     
noblest rule4 ,but the essential of     
control is that it should be            
self-control4 ,compulsion may be        
necessary for the purposes of external  
order1 but it adds nothing to the inward
 life that is the true being of man4 ,it
 even threatens it with loss of         
authority and infringes the sphere of   
its responsibility4 ,it is a means and  
not an end1 and a means that readily    
becomes a danger to ends that are very  
vital4 ,under self-guidance individuals 
will diverge widely1 and some of their  
eccentricities will be futile1 others   
wasteful1 others even painful and       
abhorrent to witness4 ,but1 upon the    
whole1 it is good that they should      

differ4 ,individuality is an element of 
well-being1 and that not only because it
 is the necessary consequence of        
self-government1 but because1 after all 
allowances for waste1 the common life is
 fuller and richer for the multiplicity 
of types that it includes1 and that go  
to enlarge the area of collective       
experience4 ,the larger wrong done by   
the repression of women is not the loss 
to women themselves who constitute one  
half of the community1 but the          
impoverishment of the community as a    
whole1 the loss of all the elements in  
the common stock which the free play of 
the woman's mind would contribute4      
,similar principles underlie ,mill's    
treatment of representative government4 
,if the adult citizen1 male or female1  
has a right to vote1 it is not so much  
as a means to the enforcement of his    
claims upon society1 but rather as a    
means of enforcing his personal         
responsibility for the actions of the   
community4 ,the problem of character is 

the determining issue in the question of
 government4 ,if men could be spoon-fed 
with happiness1 a benevolent despotism  
would be the ideal system4 ,if they are 
to take a part in working out their own 
salvation1 they must be summoned to     
their share in the task of directing the
 common life4 ,carrying this principle  
further1 ,mill turned the edge of the   
common objection to the extension of the
 suffrage based on the ignorance and the
 irresponsibility of the voters4 ,to    
learn anything men must practise4 ,they 
must be trusted with more responsibility
 if they are to acquire the sense of    
responsibility4 ,there were dangers in  
the process1 but there were greater     
dangers and there were fewer elements of
 hope as long as the mass of the        
population was left outside the circle  
of civic rights and duties4 ,the        
greatest danger that ,mill saw in       
democracy was that of the tyranny of the
 majority4 ,he emphasized1 perhaps more 
than any ,liberal teacher before him1   

the difference between the desire of the
 majority and the good of the community4
 ,he recognized that the different      
rights for which the ,liberal was wont  
to plead might turn out in practice hard
 to reconcile with one another1 that if 
personal liberty were fundamental it    
might only be imperilled by a so-called 
political liberty which would give to   
the majority unlimited powers of        
coercion4 ,he was1 therefore1 for many  
years anxiously concerned with the means
 of securing a fair hearing and fair    
representation to minorities1 and as a  
pioneer of the movement for             
,proportional ,representation he sought 
to make ,parliament the reflection not  
of a portion of the people1 however     
preponderant numerically1 but of the    
whole4  ,on the economic side of social 
life ,mill recognized in principle the  
necessity of controlling contract where 
the parties were not on equal terms1 but
 his insistence on personal             
responsibility made him chary in        

extending the principle to grown-up     
persons1 and his especial attachment to 
the cause of feminine emancipation led  
him to resist the tide of feeling which 
was1 in fact1 securing the first        
elements of emancipation for the woman  
worker4 ,he trusted at the outset of his
 career to the elevation of the standard
 of comfort as the best means of        
improving the position of the           
wage-earner1 and in this elevation he   
regarded the limitation of the family as
 an essential condition4 ,as he advanced
 in life1 however1 he became more and   
more dissatisfied with the whole        
structure of a system which left the    
mass of the population in the position  
of wage-earners1 while the minority     
lived on rents1 profits1 and the        
interest on invested capital4 ,he came  
to look forward to a co-operative       
organization of society in which a man  
would learn to dig and weave for his    
country1 as he now is prepared to fight 
for it1 and in which the surplus        

products of industry would be           
distributed among the producers4 ,in    
middle life voluntary co-operation      
appeared to him the best means to this  
end1 but towards the close he recognized
 that his change of views was such as1  
on the whole1 to rank him with the      
,socialists1 and the brief exposition of
 the ,socialist ideal given in his      
,autobiography remains perhaps the best 
summary statement of ,liberal ,socialism
 that we possess4     ,,chapter ,,vi    
,,the ,,heart ,,of ,,liberalism   ,the  
teaching of ,mill brings us close to the
 heart of ,liberalism4 ,we learn from   
him1 in the first place1 that liberty is
 no mere formula of law1 or of the      
restriction of law4 ,there may be a     
tyranny of custom1 a tyranny of opinion1
 even a tyranny of circumstance1 as real
 as any tyranny of government and more  
pervasive4 ,nor does liberty rest on the
 self-assertion of the individual4      
,there is scope abundant for ,liberalism
 and illiberalism in personal conduct4  

,nor is liberty opposed to discipline1  
to organization1 to strenuous conviction
 as to what is true and just4 ,nor is it
 to be identified with tolerance of     
opposed opinions4 ,the ,liberal does not
 meet opinions which he conceives to be 
false with toleration1 as though they   
did not matter4 ,he meets them with     
justice1 and exacts for them a fair     
hearing as though they mattered just as 
much as his own4 ,he is always ready to 
put his own convictions to the proof1   
not because he doubts them1 but because 
he believes in them4 ,for1 both as to   
that which he holds for true and as to  
that which he holds for false1 he       
believes that one final test applies4   
,let error have free play1 and one of   
two things will happen4 ,either as it   
develops1 as its implications and       
consequences become clear1 some elements
 of truth will appear within it4 ,they  
will separate themselves out2 they will 
go to enrich the stock of human ideas2  
they will add something to the truth    

which he himself mistakenly took as     
final2 they will serve to explain the   
root of the error2 for error itself is  
generally a truth misconceived1 and it  
is only when it is explained that it is 
finally and satisfactorily confuted4    
,or1 in the alternative1 no element of  
truth will appear4 ,in that case the    
more fully the error is understood1 the 
more patiently it is followed up in all 
the windings of its implications and    
consequences1 the more thoroughly will  
it refute itself4 ,the cancerous growth 
cannot be extirpated by the knife4 ,the 
root is always left1 and it is only the 
evolution of the self-protecting        
anti-toxin that works the final cure4   
,exactly parallel is the logic of truth4
 ,the more the truth is developed in all
 its implications1 the greater is the   
opportunity of detecting any element of 
error that it may contain2 and1         
conversely1 if no error appears1 the    
more completely does it establish itself
 as the whole truth and nothing but the 

truth4 ,liberalism applies the wisdom of
 ,gamaliel in no spirit of indifference1
 but in the full conviction of the      
potency of truth4 ,if this thing be of  
man1 i4 e4 if it is not rooted in actual
 verity1 it will come to nought4 ,if it 
be of ,god1 let us take care that we be 
not found fighting against ,god4        
,divergences of opinion1 of character1  
of conduct are not unimportant matters4 
,they may be most serious matters1 and  
no one is called on in the name of      
,liberalism to overlook their           
seriousness4 ,there are1 for example1   
certain disqualifications inherent in   
the profession of certain opinions4 ,it 
is not illiberal to recognize such      
disqualifications4 ,it is not illiberal 
for a ,protestant in choosing a tutor   
for his son to reject a conscientious   
,roman ,catholic who avows that all his 
teaching is centred on the doctrine of  
his ,church4 ,it would be illiberal to  
reject the same man for the specific    
purpose of teaching arithmetic1 if he   

avowed that he had no intention of using
 his position for the purpose of        
religious propagandism4 ,for the former 
purpose the divergence of religious     
opinion is an inherent disqualification4
 ,it negates the object propounded1     
which is the general education of the   
boy on lines in which the father        
believes4 ,for the latter purpose the   
opinion is no disqualification4 ,the    
devout ,catholic accepts the            
multiplication table1 and can impart his
 knowledge without reference to the     
infallibility of the ,pope4 ,to refuse  
to employ him is to impose an extraneous
 penalty on his convictions4 ,it is not 
illiberal for an editor to decline the  
services of a member of the opposite    
party as a leader writer1 or even as a  
political reviewer or in any capacity in
 which his opinions would affect his    
work4 ,it is illiberal to reject him as 
a compositor or as a clerk1 or in any   
capacity in which his opinions would not
 affect his work for the paper4 ,it is  

not illiberal to refuse a position of   
trust to the man whose record shows that
 he is likely to abuse such a trust4 ,it
 is illiberal--and this the moralist has
 yet to learn--to punish a man who has  
done a wrong in one relation by         
excluding him from the performance of   
useful social functions for which he is 
perfectly fitted1 by which he could at  
once serve society and re-establish his 
own self-respect4 ,there may1 however1  
yet come a time when ,liberalism1       
already recognized as a duty in religion
 and in politics1 will take its true    
place at the centre of our ethical      
conceptions1 and will be seen to have   
its application not only to him whom we 
conceive to be the teacher of false     
opinions1 but to the man whom we hold a 
sinner4  ,the ground of ,liberalism so  
understood is certainly not the view    
that a man's personal opinions are      
socially indifferent1 nor that his      
personal morality matters nothing to    
others4 ,so far as ,mill rested his case

 on the distinction between             
self-regarding actions and actions that 
affect others1 he was still dominated by
 the older individualism4 ,we should    
frankly recognize that there is no side 
of a man's life which is unimportant to 
society1 for whatever he is1 does1 or   
thinks may affect his own well-being1   
which is and ought to be matter of      
common concern1 and may also directly or
 indirectly affect the thought1 action1 
and character of those with whom he     
comes in contact4 ,the underlying       
principle may be put in two ways4 ,in   
the first place1 the man is much more   
than his opinions and his actions4      
,carlyle and ,sterling did not differ   
except in opinion4 ,to most of us that  
is just what difference means4 ,carlyle 
was aware that there was something much 
deeper1 something that opinion just     
crassly formulates1 and for the most    
part formulates inadequately1 that is   
the real man4 ,the real man is something
 more than is ever adequately expressed 

in terms which his fellows can          
understand2 and just as his essential   
humanity lies deeper than all           
distinctions of rank1 and class1 and    
colour1 and even1 though in a different 
sense1 of sex1 so also it goes far below
 those comparatively external events    
which make one man figure as a saint and
 another as a criminal4 ,this sense of  
ultimate oneness is the real meaning of 
equality1 as it is the foundation of    
social solidarity and the bond which1 if
 genuinely experienced1 resists the     
disruptive force of all conflict1       
intellectual1 religious1 and ethical4   
,but1 further1 while personal opinions  
and social institutions are like        
crystallized results1 achievements that 
have been won by certain definite       
processes of individual or collective   
effort1 human personality is that within
 which lives and grows1 which can be    
destroyed but cannot be made1 which     
cannot be taken to pieces and repaired1 
but can be placed under conditions in   

which it will flourish and expand1 or1  
if it is diseased1 under conditions in  
which it will heal itself by its own    
recuperative powers4 ,the foundation of 
liberty is the idea of growth4 ,life is 
learning1 but whether in theory or      
practice what a man genuinely learns is 
what he absorbs1 and what he absorbs    
depends on the energy which he himself  
puts forth in response to his           
surroundings4 ,thus1 to come at once to 
the real crux1 the question of moral    
discipline1 it is of course possible to 
reduce a man to order and prevent him   
from being a nuisance to his neighbours 
by arbitrary control and harsh          
punishment4 ,this may be to the comfort 
of the neighbours1 as is admitted1 but  
regarded as a moral discipline it is a  
contradiction in terms4 ,it is doing    
less than nothing for the character of  
the man himself4 ,it is merely crushing 
him1 and unless his will is killed the  
effect will be seen if ever the         
superincumbent pressure is by chance    

removed4 ,it is also possible1 though it
 takes a much higher skill1 to teach the
 same man to discipline himself1 and    
this is to foster the development of    
will1 of personality1 of self control1  
or whatever we please to call that      
central harmonizing power which makes us
 capable of directing our own lives4    
,liberalism is the belief that society  
can safely be founded on this           
self-directing power of personality1    
that it is only on this foundation that 
a true community can be built1 and that 
so established its foundations are so   
deep and so wide that there is no limit 
that we can place to the extent of the  
building4 ,liberty then becomes not so  
much a right of the individual as a     
necessity of society4 ,it rests not on  
the claim of ,a to be let alone by ,b1  
but on the duty of ,b to treat ,a as a  
rational being4 ,it is not right to let 
crime alone or to let error alone1 but  
it is imperative to treat the criminal  
or the mistaken or the ignorant as      

beings capable of right and truth1 and  
to lead them on instead of merely       
beating them down4 ,the rule of liberty 
is just the application of rational     
method4 ,it is the opening of the door  
to the appeal of reason1 of imagination1
 of social feeling2 and except through  
the response to this appeal there is no 
assured progress of society4  ,now1 ,i  
am not contending that these principles 
are free from difficulty in application4
 ,at many points they suggest           
difficulties both in theory and in      
practice1 with some of which ,i shall   
try to deal later on4 ,nor1 again1 am ,i
 contending that freedom is the         
universal solvent1 or the idea of       
liberty the sole foundation on which a  
true social philosophy can be based4 ,on
 the contrary1 freedom is only one side 
of social life4 ,mutual aid is not less 
important than mutual forbearance1 the  
theory of collective action no less     
fundamental than the theory of personal 
freedom4 ,but1 in an inquiry where all  

the elements are so closely interwoven  
as they are in the field of social life1
 the point of departure becomes almost  
indifferent4 ,wherever we start we      
shall1 if we are quite frank and        
consistent1 be led on to look at the    
whole from some central point1 and this1
 ,i think1 has happened to us in working
 with the conception of 'liberty4' ,for1
 beginning with the right of the        
individual1 and the antithesis between  
personal freedom and social control1 we 
have been led on to a point at which we 
regard liberty as primarily a matter of 
social interest1 as something flowing   
from the necessities of continuous      
advance in those regions of truth and of
 ethics which constitute the matters of 
highest social concern4 ,at the same    
time1 we have come to look for the      
effect of liberty in the firmer         
establishment of social solidarity1 as  
the only foundation on which such       
solidarity can securely rest4 ,we have1 
in fact1 arrived by a path of our own at

 that which is ordinarily described as  
the organic conception of the relation  
between the individual and society--a   
conception towards which ,mill worked   
through his career1 and which forms the 
starting-point of ,t4 ,h4 ,green's      
philosophy alike in ethics and in       
politics4  ,the term organic is so much 
used and abused that it is best to state
 simply what it means4 ,a thing is      
called organic when it is made up of    
parts which are quite distinct from one 
another1 but which are destroyed or     
vitally altered when they are removed   
from the whole4 ,thus1 the human body is
 organic because its life depends on the
 functions performed by many organs1    
while each of these organs depends in   
turn on the life of the body1 perishing 
and decomposing if removed therefrom4   
,now1 the organic view of society is    
equally simple4 ,it means that1 while   
the life of society is nothing but the  
life of individuals as they act one upon
 another1 the life of the individual in 

turn would be something utterly         
different if he could be separated from 
society4 ,a great deal of him would not 
exist at all4 ,even if he himself could 
maintain physical existence by the luck 
and skill of a ,robinson ,crusoe1 his   
mental and moral being would1 if it     
existed at all1 be something quite      
different from anything that we know4   
,by language1 by training1 by simply    
living with others1 each of us absorbs  
into his system the social atmosphere   
that surrounds us4 ,in particular1 in   
the matter of rights and duties which is
 cardinal for ,liberal theory1 the      
relation of the individual to the       
community is everything4 ,his rights and
 his duties are alike defined by the    
common good4 ,what1 for example1 is my  
right8 ,on the face of it1 it is        
something that ,i claim4 ,but a mere    
claim is nothing4 ,i might claim        
anything and everything4 ,if my claim is
 of right it is because it is sound1    
well grounded1 in the judgment of an    

impartial observer4 ,but an impartial   
observer will not consider me alone4 ,he
 will equally weigh the opposed claims  
of others4 ,he will take us in relation 
to one another1 that is to say1 as      
individuals involved in a social        
relationship4 ,further1 if his decision 
is in any sense a rational one1 it must 
rest on a principle of some kind2 and   
again1 as a rational man1 any principle 
which he asserts he must found on some  
good result which it serves or embodies1
 and as an impartial man he must take   
the good of every one affected into     
account4 ,that is to say1 he must found 
his judgment on the common good4 ,an    
individual right1 then1 cannot conflict 
with the common good1 nor could any     
right exist apart from the common good4 
,the argument might seem to make the    
individual too subservient to society4  
,but this is to forget the other side of
 the original supposition4 ,society     
consists wholly of persons4 ,it has no  
distinct personality separate from and  

superior to those of its members4 ,it   
has1 indeed1 a certain collective life  
and character4 ,the ,british nation is a
 unity with a life of its own4 ,but the 
unity is constituted by certain ties    
that bind together all ,british         
subjects1 which ties are in the last    
resort feelings and ideas1 sentiments of
 patriotism1 of kinship1 a common pride1
 and a thousand more subtle sentiments  
that bind together men who speak a      
common language1 have behind them a     
common history1 and understand one      
another as they can understand no one   
else4 ,the ,british nation is not a     
mysterious entity over and above the    
forty odd millions of living souls who  
dwell together under a common law4 ,its 
life is their life1 its well-being or   
ill-fortune their well-being or         
ill-fortune4 ,thus1 the common good to  
which each man's rights are subordinate 
is a good in which each man has a share4
 ,this share consists in realizing his  
capacities of feeling1 of loving1 of    

mental and physical energy1 and in      
realizing these he plays his part in the
 social life1 or1 in ,green's phrase1 he
 finds his own good in the common good4 
,now1 this phrase1 it must be admitted1 
involves a certain assumption1 which may
 be regarded as the fundamental         
postulate of the organic view of        
society4 ,it implies that such a        
fulfilment or full development of       
personality is practically possible not 
for one man only but for all members of 
a community4 ,there must be a line of   
development open along which each can   
move in harmony with others4 ,harmony in
 the full sense would involve not merely
 absence of conflict but actual support4
 ,there must be for each1 then1         
possibilities of development such as not
 merely to permit but actively to       
further the development of others4 ,now1
 the older economists conceived a       
natural harmony1 such that the interests
 of each would1 if properly understood  
and unchecked by outside interference1  

inevitably lead him in courses          
profitable to others and to society at  
large4 ,we saw that this assumption was 
too optimistic4 ,the conception which we
 have now reached does not assume so    
much4 ,it postulates1 not that there is 
an actually existing harmony requiring  
nothing but prudence and coolness of    
judgment for its effective operation1   
but only that there is a possible       
ethical harmony1 to which1 partly by    
discipline1 partly by the improvement of
 the conditions of life1 men might      
attain1 and that in such attainment lies
 the social ideal4 ,to attempt the      
systematic proof of this postulate would
 take us into the field of philosophical
 first principles4 ,it is the point at  
which the philosophy of politics comes  
into contact with that of ethics4 ,it   
must suffice to say here that1 just as  
the endeavour to establish coherent     
system in the world of thought is the   
characteristic of the rational impulse  
which lies at the root of science and   

philosophy1 so the impulse to establish 
harmony in the world of feeling and     
action--a harmony which must include all
 those who think and feel--is of the    
essence of the rational impulse in the  
world of practice4 ,to move towards     
harmony is the persistent impulse of the
 rational being1 even if the goal lies  
always beyond the reach of accomplished 
effort4  ,these principles may appear   
very abstract1 remote from practical    
life1 and valueless for concrete        
teaching4 ,but this remoteness is of the
 nature of first principles when taken  
without the connecting links that bind  
them to the details of experience4 ,to  
find some of these links let us take up 
again our old ,liberal principles1 and  
see how they look in the light of the   
organic1 or1 as we may now call it1 the 
harmonic conception4 ,we shall readily  
see1 to begin with1 that the old idea of
 equality has its place4 ,for the common
 good includes every individual4 ,it is 
founded on personality1 and postulates  

free scope for the development of       
personality in each member of the       
community4 ,this is the foundation not  
only of equal rights before the law1 but
 also of what is called equality of     
opportunity4 ,it does not necessarily   
imply actual equality of treatment for  
all persons any more than it implies    
original equality of powers4#i ,it does1
 ,i think1 imply that whatever          
inequality of actual treatment1 of      
income1 rank1 office1 consideration1    
there be in a good social system1 it    
would rest1 not on the interest of the  
favoured individual as such1 but on the 
common good4 ,if the existence of       
millionaires on the one hand and of     
paupers on the other is just1 it must be
 because such contrasts are the result  
of an economic system which upon the    
whole works out for the common good1 the
 good of the pauper being included      
therein as well as the good of the      
millionaire2 that is to say1 that when  
we have well weighed the good and the   

evil of all parties concerned we can    
find no alternative open to us which    
could do better for the good of all4 ,i 
am not for the moment either attacking  
or defending any economic system4 ,i    
point out only that this is the position
 which according to the organic or      
harmonic view of society must be made   
good by any rational defence of grave   
inequality in the distribution of       
wealth4 ,in relation to equality1       
indeed1 it appears1 oddly enough1 that  
the harmonic principle can adopt        
wholesale1 and even expand1 one of the  
,rights of ,man as formulated in        
#aghi--,social distinctions can only be 
founded upon common utility4 ,if it is  
really just that ,a should be superior  
to ,b in wealth or power or position1 it
 is only because when the good of all   
concerned is considered1 among whom ,b  
is one1 it turns out that there is a net
 gain in the arrangement as compared    
with any alternative that we can devise4
  ,if we turn from equality to liberty1 

the general lines of argument have      
already been indicated1 and the         
discussion of difficulties in detail    
must be left for the next chapter4 ,it  
need only be repeated here that on the  
harmonic principle the fundamental      
importance of liberty rests on the      
nature of the good itself1 and that     
whether we are thinking of the good of  
society or the good of the individual4  
,the good is something attained by the  
development of the basal factors of     
personality2 a development proceeding by
 the widening of ideas1 the awakening of
 the imagination1 the play of affection 
and passion1 the strengthening and      
extension of rational control4 ,as it is
 the development of these factors in    
each human being that makes his life    
worth having1 so it is their harmonious 
interaction1 the response of each to    
each1 that makes of society a living    
whole4 ,liberty so interpreted cannot1  
as we have seen1 dispense with          
restraint2 restraint1 however1 is not an

 end but a means to an end1 and one of  
the principal elements in that end is   
the enlargement of liberty4  ,but the   
collective activity of the community    
does not necessarily proceed by coercion
 or restraint4 ,the more securely it is 
founded on freedom and general willing  
assent1 the more it is free to work out 
all the achievements in which the       
individual is feeble or powerless while 
combined action is strong4 ,human       
progress1 on whatever side we consider  
it1 is found to be in the main social   
progress1 the work of conscious or      
unconscious co-operation4 ,in this work 
voluntary association plays a large and 
increasing part4 ,but the ,state is one 
form of association among others1       
distinguished by its use of coercive    
power1 by its supremacy1 and by its     
claim to control all who dwell within   
its geographical limits4 ,what the      
functions of such a form of association 
are to be we shall have to consider a   
little further in connection with the   

other questions which we have already   
raised4 ,but that1 in general1 we are   
justified in regarding the ,state as one
 among many forms of human association  
for the maintenance and improvement of  
life is the general principle that we   
have to point out here1 and this is the 
point at which we stand furthest from   
the older ,liberalism4 ,we have1        
however1 already seen some reason for   
thinking that the older doctrines led1  
when carefully examined1 to a more      
enlarged conception of ,state action    
than appeared on the surface2 and we    
shall see more fully before we have done
 that the positive conception of the    
,state which we have now reached not    
only involves no conflict with the true 
principle of personal liberty1 but is   
necessary to its effective realization4 
,there is1 in addition1 one principle of
 historic ,liberalism with which our    
present conception of the ,state is in  
full sympathy4 ,the conception of the   
common good as it has been explained can

 be realized in its fullness only       
through the common will4 ,there are1 of 
course1 elements of value in the good   
government of a benevolent despot or of 
a fatherly aristocracy4 ,within any     
peaceful order there is room for many   
good things to flourish4 ,but the full  
fruit of social progress is only to be  
reaped by a society in which the        
generality of men and women are not only
 passive recipients but practical       
contributors4 ,to make the rights and   
responsibilities of citizens real and   
living1 and to extend them as widely as 
the conditions of society allow1 is thus
 an integral part of the organic        
conception of society1 and the          
justification of the democratic         
principle4 ,it is1 at the same time1 the
 justification of nationalism so far as 
nationalism is founded on a true        
interpretation of history4 ,for1        
inasmuch as the true social harmony     
rests on feeling and makes use of all   
the natural ties of kinship1 of         

neighbourliness1 of congruity of        
character and belief1 and of language   
and mode of life1 the best1 healthiest1 
and most vigorous political unit is that
 to which men are by their own feelings 
strongly drawn4 ,any breach of such     
unity1 whether by forcible disruption or
 by compulsory inclusion in a larger    
society of alien sentiments and laws1   
tends to mutilate--or1 at lowest1 to    
cramp--the spontaneous development of   
social life4 ,national and personal     
freedom are growths of the same root1   
and their historic connection rests on  
no accident1 but on ultimate identity of
 idea4  ,thus in the organic conception 
of society each of the leading ideas of 
historic ,liberalism has its part to    
play4 ,the ideal society is conceived as
 a whole which lives and flourishes by  
the harmonious growth of its parts1 each
 of which in developing on its own lines
 and in accordance with its own nature  
tends on the whole to further the       
development of others4 ,there is some   

elementary trace of such harmony in     
every form of social life that can      
maintain itself1 for if the conflicting 
impulses predominated society would     
break up1 and when they do predominate  
society does break up4 ,at the other    
extreme1 true harmony is an ideal which 
it is perhaps beyond the power of man to
 realize1 but which serves to indicate  
the line of advance4 ,but to admit this 
is to admit that the lines of possible  
development for each individual or1 to  
use a more general phrase1 for each     
constituent of the social order are not 
limited and fixed4 ,there are many      
possibilities1 and the course that will 
in the end make for social harmony is   
only one among them1 while the          
possibilities of disharmony and conflict
 are many4 ,the progress of society like
 that of the individual depends1 then1  
ultimately on choice4 ,it is not        
natural1 in the sense in which a        
physical law is natural1 that is1 in the
 sense of going forward automatically   

from stage to stage without backward    
turnings1 deflections to the left1 or   
fallings away on the right4 ,it is      
natural only in this sense1 that it is  
the expression of deep-seated forces of 
human nature which come to their own    
only by an infinitely slow and          
cumbersome process of mutual adjustment4
 ,every constructive social doctrine    
rests on the conception of human        
progress4 ,the heart of ,liberalism is  
the understanding that progress is not a
 matter of mechanical contrivance1 but  
of the liberation of living spiritual   
energy4 ,good mechanism is that which   
provides the channels wherein such      
energy can flow unimpeded1 unobstructed 
by its own exuberance of output1        
vivifying the social structure1         
expanding and ennobling the life of     
mind4  ,,footnote3  #i ,an absurd       
misconception fostered principally by   
opponents of equality for controversial 
purposes4     ,,chapter ,,vii  ,,the    
,,state ,,and ,,the ,,individual   ,we  

have seen something of the principle    
underlying the ,liberal idea and of its 
various applications4 ,we have now to   
put the test question4 ,are these       
different applications compatible8 ,will
 they work together to make that        
harmonious whole of which it is easy    
enough to talk in abstract terms8 ,are  
they themselves really harmonious in    
theory and in practice8 ,does scope for 
individual development1 for example1    
consort with the idea of equality8 ,is  
popular sovereignty a practicable basis 
of personal freedom1 or does it open an 
avenue to the tyranny of the mob8 ,will 
the sentiment of nationality dwell in   
unison with the ideal of peace8 ,is the 
love of liberty compatible with the full
 realization of the common will8 ,if    
reconcilable in theory1 may not these   
ideals collide in practice8 ,are there  
not clearly occasions demonstrable in   
history when development in one         
direction involves retrogression in     
another8 ,if so1 how are we to strike   

the balance of gain and loss8 ,does     
political progress offer us nothing but 
a choice of evils1 or may we have some  
confidence that1 in solving the most    
pressing problem of the moment1 we shall
 in the end be in a better position for 
grappling with the obstacles that come  
next in turn8  ,i shall deal with these 
questions as far as limits of space     
allow1 and ,i will take first the       
question of liberty and the common will 
upon which everything turns4 ,enough has
 already been said on this topic to     
enable us to shorten the discussion4 ,we
 have seen that social liberty rests on 
restraint4 ,a man can be free to direct 
his own life only in so far as others   
are prevented from molesting and        
interfering with him4 ,so far there is  
no real departure from the strictest    
tenets of individualism4 ,we have1      
indeed1 had occasion to examine the     
application of the doctrine to freedom  
of contract on the one hand1 and to the 
action of combinations on the other1 and

 have seen reason to think that in      
either case nominal freedom1 that is to 
say1 the absence of legal restraint1    
might have the effect of impairing real 
freedom1 that is to say1 would allow the
 stronger party to coerce the weaker4   
,we have also seen that the effect of   
combination may be double edged1 that it
 may restrict freedom on one side and   
enlarge it on the other4 ,in all these  
cases our contention has been simply    
that we should be guided by real and not
 by verbal considerations1--that we     
should ask in every case what policy    
will yield effective freedom--and we    
have found a close connection in each   
instance between freedom and equality4  
,in these cases1 however1 we were       
dealing with the relations of one man   
with another1 or of one body of men with
 another1 and we could regard the       
community as an arbiter between them    
whose business it was to see justice    
done and prevent the abuse of coercive  
power4 ,hence we could treat a very     

large part of the modern development of 
social control as motived by the desire 
for a more effective liberty4 ,the case 
is not so clear when we find the will of
 the individual in conflict with the    
will of the community as a whole4 ,when 
such conflict occurs1 it would seem that
 we must be prepared for one of two     
things4 ,either we must admit the       
legitimacy of coercion1 avowedly not in 
the interests of freedom but in         
furtherance1 without regard to freedom1 
of other ends which the community deems 
good4 ,or we must admit limitations     
which may cramp the development of the  
general will1 and perchance prove a     
serious obstacle to collective progress4
 ,is there any means of avoiding this   
conflict8 ,must we leave the question to
 be fought out in each case by a balance
 of advantages and disadvantages1 or are
 there any general considerations which 
help us to determine the true sphere of 
collective and of private action8  ,let 
us first observe that1 as ,mill pointed 

out long ago1 there are many forms of   
collective action which do not involve  
coercion4 ,the ,state may provide for   
certain objects which it deems good     
without compelling any one to make use  
of them4 ,thus it may maintain          
hospitals1 though any one who can pay   
for them remains free to employ his own 
doctors and nurses4 ,it may and does    
maintain a great educational system1    
while leaving every one free to maintain
 or to attend a private school4 ,it     
maintains parks and picture galleries   
without driving any one into them4      
,there is a municipal tramway service1  
which does not prevent private people   
from running motor 'buses along the same
 streets1 and so on4 ,it is true that   
for the support of these objects rates  
and taxes are compulsorily levied1 but  
this form of compulsion raises a set of 
questions of which we shall have to     
speak in another connection1 and does   
not concern us here4 ,for the moment we 
have to deal only with those actions of 

,state which compel all citizens1 or all
 whom they concern1 to fall in with them
 and allow of no divergence4 ,this kind 
of coercion tends to increase4 ,is its  
extension necessarily an encroachment   
upon liberty1 or are the elements of    
value secured by collective control     
distinct from the elements of value     
secured by individual choice1 so that   
within due limits each may develop side 
by side8  ,we have already declined to  
solve the problem by applying ,mill's   
distinction between self-regarding and  
other-regarding actions1 first because  
there are no actions which may not      
directly or indirectly affect others1   
secondly because even if there were they
 would not cease to be matter of concern
 to others4 ,the common good includes   
the good of every member of the         
community1 and the injury which a man   
inflicts upon himself is matter of      
common concern1 even apart from any     
ulterior effect upon others4 ,if we     
refrain from coercing a man for his own 

good1 it is not because his good is     
indifferent to us1 but because it cannot
 be furthered by coercion4 ,the         
difficulty is founded on the nature of  
the good itself1 which on its personal  
side depends on the spontaneous flow of 
feeling checked and guided not by       
external restraint but by rational      
self-control4 ,to try to form character 
by coercion is to destroy it in the     
making4 ,personality is not built up    
from without but grows from within1 and 
the function of the outer order is not  
to create it1 but to provide for it the 
most suitable conditions of growth4     
,thus1 to the common question whether it
 is possible to make men good by ,act of
 ,parliament1 the reply is that it is   
not possible to compel morality because 
morality is the act or character of a   
free agent1 but that it is possible to  
create the conditions under which       
morality can develop1 and among these   
not the least important is freedom from 
compulsion by others4  ,the argument    

suggests that compulsion is limited not 
by indifference--how could the character
 of its members be matter of            
indifference to the community8--but by  
its own incapacity to achieve its ends4 
,the spirit cannot be forced4 ,nor1     
conversely1 can it prevail by force4 ,it
 may require social expression4 ,it may 
build up an association1 a church for   
example1 to carry out the common objects
 and maintain the common life of all who
 are like-minded4 ,but the association  
must be free1 because spiritually       
everything depends not on what is done  
but on the will with which it is done4  
,the limit to the value of coercion thus
 lies not in the restriction of social  
purpose1 but in the conditions of       
personal life4 ,no force can compel     
growth4 ,whatever elements of social    
value depend on the accord of feeling1  
on comprehension of meaning1 on the     
assent of will1 must come through       
liberty4 ,here is the sphere and        
function of liberty in the social       

harmony4  ,where1 then1 is the sphere of
 compulsion1 and what is its value8 ,the
 reply is that compulsion is of value   
where outward conformity is of value1   
and this may be in any case where the   
non-conformity of one wrecks the purpose
 of others4 ,we have already remarked   
that liberty itself only rests upon     
restraint4 ,thus a religious body is    
not1 properly speaking1 free to march in
 procession through the streets unless  
people of a different religion are      
restrained from pelting the procession  
with stones and pursuing it with        
insolence4 ,we restrain them from       
disorder not to teach them the genuine  
spirit of religion1 which they will not 
learn in the police court1 but to secure
 to the other party the right of worship
 unmolested4 ,the enforced restraint has
 its value in the action that it sets   
free4 ,but we may not only restrain one 
man from obstructing another--and the   
extent to which we do this is the       
measure of the freedom that we          

maintain--but we may also restrain him  
from obstructing the general will2 and  
this we have to do whenever uniformity  
is necessary to the end which the       
general will has in view4 ,the majority 
of employers in a trade we may suppose  
would be willing to adopt certain       
precautions for the health or safety of 
their workers1 to lower hours or to     
raise the rate of wages4 ,they are      
unable to do so1 however1 as long as a  
minority1 perhaps as long as a single   
employer1 stands out4 ,he would beat    
them in competition if they were        
voluntarily to undertake expenses from  
which he is free4 ,in this case1 the    
will of a minority1 possibly the will of
 one man1 thwarts that of the remainder4
 ,it coerces them1 indirectly1 but quite
 as effectively as if he were their     
master4 ,if they1 by combination1 can   
coerce him no principle of liberty is   
violated4 ,it is coercion against       
coercion1 differing possibly in form and
 method1 but not in principle or in     

spirit4 ,further1 if the community as a 
whole sympathizes with the one side     
rather than the other1 it can reasonably
 bring the law into play4 ,its object is
 not the moral education of the recusant
 individuals4 ,its object is to secure  
certain conditions which it believes    
necessary for the welfare of its        
members1 and which can only be secured  
by an enforced uniformity4  ,it appears1
 then1 that the true distinction is not 
between self-regarding and              
other-regarding actions1 but between    
coercive and non-coercive actions4 ,the 
function of ,state coercion is to       
override individual coercion1 and1 of   
course1 coercion exercised by any       
association of individuals within the   
,state4 ,it is by this means that it    
maintains liberty of expression1        
security of person and property1 genuine
 freedom of contract1 the rights of     
public meeting and association1 and     
finally its own power to carry out      
common objects undefeated by the        

recalcitrance of individual members4    
,undoubtedly it endows both individuals 
and associations with powers as well as 
with rights4 ,but over these powers it  
must exercise supervision in the        
interests of equal justice4 ,just as    
compulsion failed in the sphere of      
liberty1 the sphere of spiritual growth1
 so liberty fails in the external order 
wherever1 by the mere absence of        
supervisory restriction1 men are able   
directly or indirectly to put constraint
 on one another4 ,this is why there is  
no intrinsic and inevitable conflict    
between liberty and compulsion1 but at  
bottom a mutual need4 ,the object of    
compulsion is to secure the most        
favourable external conditions of inward
 growth and happiness so far as these   
conditions depend on combined action and
 uniform observance4 ,the sphere of     
liberty is the sphere of growth itself4 
,there is no true opposition between    
liberty as such and control as such1 for
 every liberty rests on a corresponding 

act of control4 ,the true opposition is 
between the control that cramps the     
personal life and the spiritual order1  
and the control that is aimed at        
securing the external and material      
conditions of their free and unimpeded  
development4  ,i do not pretend that    
this delimitation solves all problems4  
,the inward life will seek to express   
itself in outward acts4 ,a religious    
ordinance may bid the devout refuse     
military service1 or withhold the       
payment of a tax1 or decline to submit a
 building to inspection4 ,here are      
external matters where conscience and   
the ,state come into direct conflict1   
and where is the court of appeal that is
 to decide between them8 ,in any given  
case the right1 as judged by the        
ultimate effect on human welfare1 may1  
of course1 be on the one side1 or on the
 other1 or between the two4 ,but is     
there anything to guide the two parties 
as long as each believes itself to be in
 the right and sees no ground for       

waiving its opinion8 ,to begin with1    
clearly the ,state does well to avoid   
such conflicts by substituting          
alternatives4 ,other duties than that of
 military service may be found for a    
follower of ,tolstoy1 and as long as he 
is willing to take his full share of    
burdens the difficulty is fairly met4   
,again1 the mere convenience of the     
majority cannot be fairly weighed       
against the religious convictions of the
 few4 ,it might be convenient that      
certain public work should be done on   
,saturday1 but mere convenience would be
 an insufficient ground for compelling  
,jews to participate in it4 ,religious  
and ethical conviction must be weighed  
against religious and ethical           
conviction4 ,it is not number that      
counts morally1 but the belief that is  
reasoned out according to the best of   
one's lights as to the necessities of   
the common good4 ,but the conscience of 
the community has its rights just as    
much as the conscience of the           

individual4 ,if we are convinced that   
the inspection of a convent laundry is  
required in the interest1 not of mere   
official routine1 but of justice and    
humanity1 we can do nothing but insist  
upon it1 and when all has been done that
 can be done to save the individual     
conscience the common conviction of the 
common good must have its way4 ,in the  
end the external order belongs to the   
community1 and the right of protest to  
the individual4  ,on the other side1 the
 individual owes more to the community  
than is always recognized4 ,under modern
 conditions he is too much inclined to  
take for granted what the ,state does   
for him and to use the personal security
 and liberty of speech which it affords 
him as a vantage ground from which he   
can in safety denounce its works and    
repudiate its authority4 ,he assumes the
 right to be in or out of the social    
system as he chooses4 ,he relies on the 
general law which protects him1 and     
emancipates himself from some particular

 law which he finds oppressive to his   
conscience4 ,he forgets or does not take
 the trouble to reflect that1 if every  
one were to act as he does1 the social  
machine would come to a stop4 ,he       
certainly fails to make it clear how a  
society would subsist in which every man
 should claim the right of unrestricted 
disobedience to a law which he happens  
to think wrong4 ,in fact1 it is possible
 for an over-tender conscience to       
consort with an insufficient sense of   
social responsibility4 ,the combination 
is unfortunate2 and we may fairly say   
that1 if the ,state owes the utmost     
consideration to the conscience1 its    
owner owes a corresponding debt to the  
,state4 ,with such mutual consideration1
 and with the development of the civic  
sense1 conflicts between law and        
conscience are capable of being brought 
within very narrow limits1 though their 
complete reconciliation will always     
remain a problem until men are generally
 agreed as to the fundamental conditions

 of the social harmony4  ,it may be     
asked1 on the other hand1 whether in    
insisting on the free development of    
personality we have not understated the 
duty of society to its members4 ,we all 
admit a collective responsibility for   
children4 ,are there not grown-up people
 who stand just as much in need of care8
 ,what of the idiot1 the imbecile1 the  
feeble-minded or the drunkard8 ,what    
does rational self-determination mean   
for these classes8 ,they may injure no  
one but themselves except by the        
contagion of bad example4 ,but have we  
no duty towards them1 having in view    
their own good alone and leaving every  
other consideration aside8 ,have we not 
the right to take the feeble-minded     
under our care and to keep the drunkard 
from drink1 purely for their own good   
and apart from every ulterior           
consideration8 ,and1 if so1 must we not 
extend the whole sphere of permissible  
coercion1 and admit that a man may for  
his own sake and with no ulterior       

object1 be compelled to do what we think
 right and avoid what we think wrong8   
,the reply is that the argument is weak 
just where it seeks to generalize4 ,we  
are compelled to put the insane under   
restraint for social reasons apart from 
their own benefit4 ,but their own       
benefit would be a fully sufficient     
reason if no other existed4 ,to them1 by
 their misfortune1 liberty1 as we       
understand the term1 has no application1
 because they are incapable of rational 
choice and therefore of the kind of     
growth for the sake of which freedom is 
valuable4 ,the same thing is true of the
 feeble-minded1 and if they are not yet 
treated on the same principle it is     
merely because the recognition of their 
type as a type is relatively modern4    
,but the same thing is also in its      
degree true of the drunkard1 so far as  
he is the victim of an impulse which he 
has allowed to grow beyond his own      
control2 and the question whether he    
should be regarded as a fit object for  

tutelage or not is to be decided in each
 case by asking whether such capacity of
 self-control as he retains would be    
impaired or repaired by a period of     
tutelar restraint4 ,there is nothing in 
all this to touch the essential of      
liberty which is the value of the power 
of self-governance where it exists4 ,all
 that is proved is that where it does   
not exist it is right to save men from  
suffering1 and if the case admits to put
 them under conditions in which the     
normal balance of impulse is most likely
 to be restored4 ,it may be added that1 
in the case of the drunkard--and ,i     
think the argument applies to all cases 
where overwhelming impulse is apt to    
master the will--it is a still more     
obvious and elementary duty to remove   
the sources of temptation1 and to treat 
as anti-social in the highest degree    
every attempt to make profit out of     
human weakness1 misery1 and wrong-doing4
 ,the case is not unlike that of a very 
unequal contract4 ,the tempter is coolly

 seeking his profit1 and the sufferer is
 beset with a fiend within4 ,there is a 
form of coercion here which the genuine 
spirit of liberty will not fail to      
recognize as its enemy1 and a form of   
injury to another which is not the less 
real because its weapon is an impulse   
which forces that other to the consent  
which he yields4  ,i conclude that there
 is nothing in the doctrine of liberty  
to hinder the movement of general will  
in the sphere in which it is really     
efficient1 and nothing in a just        
conception of the objects and methods of
 the general will to curtail liberty in 
the performance of the functions1 social
 and personal1 in which its value lies4 
,liberty and compulsion have            
complementary functions1 and the        
self-governing ,state is at once the    
product and the condition of the        
self-governing individual4  ,thus there 
is no difficulty in understanding why   
the extension of ,state control on one  
side goes along with determined         

resistance to encroachments on another4 
,it is a question not of increasing or  
diminishing1 but of reorganizing1       
restraints4 ,the period which has       
witnessed a rapid extension of          
industrial legislation has seen as      
determined a resistance to anything like
 the establishment of doctrinal         
religious teaching by a ,state          
authority1#aj and the distinction is    
perfectly just4 ,at bottom it is the    
same conception of liberty and the same 
conception of the common will that      
prompts the regulation of industry and  
the severance of religious worship and  
doctrinal teaching from the mechanism of
 ,state control4  ,so far we have been  
considering what the ,state compels the 
individual to do4 ,if we pass to the    
question what the ,state is to do for   
the individual1 a different but parallel
 question arises1 and we have to note a 
corresponding movement of opinion4 ,if  
the ,state does for the individual what 
he ought to do for himself what will be 

the effect on character1 initiative1    
enterprise8 ,it is a question now not of
 freedom1 but of responsibility1 and it 
is one that has caused many searchings  
of heart1 and in respect of which       
opinion has undergone a remarkable      
change4 ,thus1 in relation to poverty   
the older view was that the first thing 
needful was self-help4 ,it was the      
business of every man to provide for    
himself and his family4 ,if1 indeed1 he 
utterly failed1 neither he nor they     
could be left to starve1 and there was  
the ,poor ,law machinery to deal with   
his case4 ,but the aim of every sincere 
friend of the poor must be to keep them 
away from the ,poor ,law machine4       
,experience of the forty years before   
#ahcd had taught us what came of free   
resort to public funds by way of        
subvention to inadequate wages4 ,it     
meant simply that the standard of       
remuneration was lowered in proportion  
as men could rely on public aid to make 
good the deficiency1 while at the same  

time the incentives to independent      
labour were weakened when the pauper    
stood on an equal footing with the      
hard-working man4 ,in general1 if the   
attempt was made to substitute for      
personal effort the help of others1 the 
result would only sap individual        
initiative and in the end bring down the
 rate of industrial remuneration4 ,it   
was thought1 for example--and this very 
point was urged against proposals for   
,old ,age ,pensions--that if any of the 
objects for which a man will1 if        
possible1 provide were removed from the 
scope of his own activity1 he would in  
consequence be content with             
proportionally lower wages2 if the      
employer was to compensate him for      
accident1 he would fail to make         
provision for accidents on his own      
account2 if his children were fed by the
 ratepayers1 he would not earn the money
 wherewith to feed them4 ,hence1 on the 
one hand1 it was urged that the rate of 
wages would tend to adapt itself to the 

necessities of the wage earner1 that in 
proportion as his necessities were met  
from other sources his wages would fall1
 that accordingly the apparent relief   
would be in large measure illusory1     
while finally1 in view of the diminished
 stimulus to individual exertion1 the   
productivity of labour would fall off1  
the incentives to industry would be     
diminished1 and the community as a whole
 would be poorer4 ,upon the other hand1 
it was conceived that1 however          
deplorable the condition of the working 
classes might be1 the right way of      
raising them was to trust to individual 
enterprise and possibly1 according to   
some thinkers1 to voluntary combination4
 ,by these means the efficiency of      
labour might be enhanced and its regular
 remuneration raised4 ,by sternly       
withholding all external supports we    
should teach the working classes to     
stand alone1 and if there were pain in  
the disciplinary process there was yet  
hope in the future4 ,they would come by 

degrees to a position of economic       
independence in which they would be able
 to face the risks of life1 not in      
reliance upon the ,state1 but by the    
force of their own brains and the       
strength of their own right arms4       
,these views no longer command the same 
measure of assent4 ,on all sides we find
 the ,state making active provision for 
the poorer classes and not by any means 
for the destitute alone4 ,we find it    
educating the children1 providing       
medical inspection1 authorizing the     
feeding of the necessitous at the       
expense of the ratepayers1 helping them 
to obtain employment through free       
,labour ,exchanges1 seeking to organize 
the labour market with a view to the    
mitigation of unemployment1 and         
providing old age pensions for all whose
 incomes fall below thirteen shillings a
 week1 without exacting any             
contribution4 ,now1 in all this1 we may 
well ask1 is the ,state going forward   
blindly on the paths of broad and       

generous but unconsidered charity8 ,is  
it and can it remain indifferent to the 
effect on individual initiative and     
personal or parental responsibility8 ,or
 may we suppose that the wiser heads are
 well aware of what they are about1 have
 looked at the matter on all sides1 and 
are guided by a reasonable conception of
 the duty of the ,state and the         
responsibilities of the individual8 ,are
 we1 in fact--for this is really the    
question--seeking charity or justice8   
,we said above that it was the function 
of the ,state to secure the conditions  
upon which mind and character may       
develop themselves4 ,similarly we may   
say now that the function of the ,state 
is to secure conditions upon which its  
citizens are able to win by their own   
efforts all that is necessary to a full 
civic efficiency4 ,it is not for the    
,state to feed1 house1 or clothe them4  
,it is for the ,state to take care that 
the economic conditions are such that   
the normal man who is not defective in  

mind or body or will can by useful      
labour feed1 house1 and clothe himself  
and his family4 ,the right to work and  
the right to a living wage are just as  
valid as the rights of person or        
property4 ,that is to say1 they are     
integral conditions of a good social    
order4 ,a society in which a single     
honest man of normal capacity is        
definitely unable to find the means of  
maintaining himself by useful work is to
 that extent suffering from             
malorganization4 ,there is somewhere a  
defect in the social system1 a hitch in 
the economic machine4 ,now1 the         
individual workman cannot put the       
machine straight4 ,he is the last person
 to have any say in the control of the  
market4 ,it is not his fault if there is
 over-production in his industry1 or if 
a new and cheaper process has been      
introduced which makes his particular   
skill1 perhaps the product of years of  
application1 a drug in the market4 ,he  
does not direct or regulate industry4   

,he is not responsible for its ups and  
downs1 but he has to pay for them4 ,that
 is why it is not charity but justice   
for which he is asking4 ,now1 it may be 
infinitely difficult to meet his demand4
 ,to do so may involve a far-reaching   
economic reconstruction4 ,the industrial
 questions involved may be so little    
understood that we may easily make      
matters worse in the attempt to make    
them better4 ,all this shows the        
difficulty in finding means of meeting  
this particular claim of justice1 but it
 does not shake its position as a claim 
of justice4 ,a right is a right none the
 less though the means of securing it be
 imperfectly known2 and the workman who 
is unemployed or underpaid through      
economic malorganization will remain a  
reproach not to the charity but to the  
justice of society as long as he is to  
be seen in the land4  ,if this view of  
the duty of the ,state and the right of 
the workman is coming to prevail1 it is 
owing partly to an enhanced sense of    

common responsibility1 and partly to the
 teaching of experience4 ,in the earlier
 days of the ,free ,trade era1 it was   
permissible to hope that self-help would
 be an adequate solvent1 and that with  
cheap food and expanding commerce the   
average workman would be able by the    
exercise of prudence and thrift not only
 to maintain himself in good times1 but 
to lay by for sickness1 unemployment1   
and old age4 ,the actual course of      
events has in large measure disappointed
 these hopes4 ,it is true that the      
standard of living in ,england has      
progressively advanced throughout the   
nineteenth century4 ,it is true1 in     
particular1 that1 since the disastrous  
period that preceded the ,repeal of the 
,corn ,laws and the passing of the ,ten 
,hours' ,act1 social improvement has    
been real and marked4 ,trade ,unionism  
and co-operation have grown1 wages upon 
the whole have increased1 the cost of   
living has diminished1 housing and      
sanitation have improved1 the death rate

 has fallen from about twenty-two to    
less than fifteen per thousand4 ,but    
with all this improvement the prospect  
of a complete and lifelong economic     
independence for the average workman    
upon the lines of individual            
competition1 even when supplemented and 
guarded by the collective bargaining of 
the ,trade ,union1 appears exceedingly  
remote4 ,the increase of wages does not 
appear to be by any means proportionate 
to the general growth of wealth4 ,the   
whole standard of living has risen2 the 
very provision of education has brought 
with it new needs and has almost        
compelled a higher standard of life in  
order to satisfy them4 ,as a whole1 the 
working classes of ,england1 though less
 thrifty than those of some ,continental
 countries1 cannot be accused of undue  
negligence with regard to the future4   
,the accumulation of savings in         
,friendly ,societies1 ,trade ,unions1   
,co-operative ,societies1 and ,savings  
,banks shows an increase which has more 

than kept pace with the rise in the     
level of wages2 yet there appears no    
likelihood that the average manual      
worker will attain the goal of that full
 independence1 covering all the risks of
 life for self and family1 which can    
alone render the competitive system     
really adequate to the demands of a     
civilized conscience4 ,the careful      
researches of ,mr4 ,booth in ,london and
 ,mr4 ,rowntree in ,york1 and of others 
in country districts1 have revealed that
 a considerable percentage of the       
working classes are actually unable to  
earn a sum of money representing the    
full cost of the barest physical        
necessities for an average family2 and1 
though the bulk of the working classes  
are undoubtedly in a better position    
than this1 these researches go to show  
that even the relatively well-to-do     
gravitate towards this line of primary  
poverty in seasons of stress1 at the    
time when the children are still at     
school1 for example1 or from the moment 

when the principal wage-earner begins to
 fail1 in the decline of middle life4   
,if only some ten per cent4 of the      
population are actually living upon the 
poverty line at any given time1#aa twice
 or three times that number1 it is      
reasonable to suppose1 must approach the
 line in one period or other of their   
lives4 ,but when we ascend from the     
conception of a bare physical           
maintenance for an average family to    
such a wage as would provide the real   
minimum requirements of a civilized life
 and meet all its contingencies without 
having to lean on any external prop1 we 
should have to make additions to ,mr4   
,rowntree's figure which have not yet   
been computed1 but as to which it is    
probably well within the mark to say    
that none but the most highly skilled   
artisans are able to earn a remuneration
 meeting the requirements of the case4  
,but1 if that is so1 it is clear that   
the system of industrial competition    
fails to meet the ethical demand        

embodied in the conception of the living
 wage4 ,that system holds out no hope of
 an improvement which shall bring the   
means of such a healthy and independent 
existence as should be the birthright of
 every citizen of a free state within   
the grasp of the mass of the people of  
the ,united ,kingdom4 ,it is this belief
 slowly penetrating the public mind     
which has turned it to new thoughts of  
social regeneration4 ,the sum and       
substance of the changes that ,i have   
mentioned may be expressed in the       
principle that the individual cannot    
stand alone1 but that between him and   
the ,state there is a reciprocal        
obligation4 ,he owes the ,state the duty
 of industriously working for himself   
and his family4 ,he is not to exploit   
the labour of his young children1 but to
 submit to the public requirements for  
their education1 health1 cleanliness and
 general well-being4 ,on the other side 
society owes to him the means of        
maintaining a civilized standard of     

life1 and this debt is not adequately   
discharged by leaving him to secure such
 wages as he can in the higgling of the 
market4  ,this view of social obligation
 lays increased stress on public but by 
no means ignores private responsibility4
 ,it is a simple principle of applied   
ethics that responsibility should be    
commensurate with power4 ,now1 given the
 opportunity of adequately remunerated  
work1 a man has the power to earn his   
living4 ,it is his right and his duty to
 make the best use of his opportunity1  
and if he fails he may fairly suffer the
 penalty of being treated as a pauper or
 even1 in an extreme case1 as a         
criminal4 ,but the opportunity itself he
 cannot command with the same freedom4  
,it is only within narrow limits that it
 comes within the sphere of his control4
 ,the opportunities of work and the     
remuneration for work are determined by 
a complex mass of social forces which no
 individual1 certainly no individual    
workman1 can shape4 ,they can be        

controlled1 if at all1 by the organized 
action of the community1 and therefore1 
by a just apportionment of              
responsibility1 it is for the community 
to deal with them4  ,but this1 it will  
be said1 is not ,liberalism but         
,socialism4 ,pursuing the economic      
rights of the individual we have been   
led to contemplate a ,socialistic       
organization of industry4 ,but a word   
like ,socialism has many meanings1 and  
it is possible that there should be a   
,liberal ,socialism1 as well as a       
,socialism that is illiberal4 ,let us1  
then1 without sticking at a word1 seek  
to follow out the ,liberal view of the  
,state in the sphere of economics4 ,let 
us try to determine in very general     
terms what is involved in realizing     
those primary conditions of industrial  
well-being which have been laid down1   
and how they consort with the rights of 
property and the claims of free         
industrial enterprise4  ,,footnotes3    
#aj ,the objection most often taken to  

undenominationalism itself is that it is
 in reality a form of doctrinal teaching
 seeking ,state endowment4  #aa ,i do   
not include those living in secondary   
poverty1 as defined by ,mr4 ,rowntree1  
as the responsibility in this case is   
partly personal4 ,it must1 however1 be  
remembered that great poverty increases 
the difficulty of efficient management4 
,,chapter ,,viii  ,,economic            
,,liberalism   ,there are two forms of  
,socialism with which ,liberalism has   
nothing to do4 ,these ,i will call the  
mechanical and the official4 ,mechanical
 ,socialism is founded on a false       
interpretation of history4 ,it          
attributes the phenomena of social life 
and development to the sole operation of
 the economic factor1 whereas the       
beginning of sound sociology is to      
conceive society as a whole in which all
 the parts interact4 ,the economic      
factor1 to take a single point1 is at   
least as much the effect as it is the   
cause of scientific invention4 ,there   

would be no world-wide system of        
telegraphy if there was no need of      
world-wide intercommunication4 ,but     
there would be no electric telegraph at 
all but for the scientific interest     
which determined the experiments of     
,gauss and ,weber4 ,mechanical          
,socialism1 further1 is founded on a    
false economic analysis which attributes
 all value to labour1 denying1          
confounding or distorting the distinct  
functions of the direction of           
enterprise1 the unavoidable payment for 
the use of capital1 the productivity of 
nature1 and the very complex social     
forces which1 by determining the        
movements of demand and supply actually 
fix the rates at which goods exchange   
with one another4 ,politically1         
mechanical ,socialism supposes a class  
war1 resting on a clear-cut distinction 
of classes which does not exist4 ,far   
from tending to clear and simple lines  
of cleavage1 modern society exhibits a  
more and more complex interweaving of   

interests1 and it is impossible for a   
modern revolutionist to assail property 
in the interest of labour without       
finding that half the labour to which he
 appeals has a direct or indirect       
interest in property4 ,as to the future1
 mechanical ,socialism conceives a      
logically developed system of the       
control of industry by government4 ,of  
this all that need be said is that the  
construction of ,utopias is not a sound 
method of social science2 that this     
particular ,utopia makes insufficient   
provision for liberty1 movement1 and    
growth2 and that in order to bring his  
ideals into the region of practical     
discussion1 what the ,socialist needs is
 to formulate not a system to be        
substituted as a whole for our present  
arrangements but a principle to guide   
statesmanship in the practical work of  
reforming what is amiss and developing  
what is good in the actual fabric of    
industry4 ,a principle so applied grows 
if it has seeds of good in it1 and so in

 particular the collective control of   
industry will be extended in proportion 
as it is found in practice to yield good
 results4 ,the fancied clearness of     
,utopian vision is illusory1 because its
 objects are artificial ideas and not   
living facts4 ,the system of the world  
of books must be reconstructed as a     
principle that can be applied to the    
railway1 the mine1 the workshop1 and the
 office that we know1 before it can even
 be sensibly discussed4 ,the evolution  
of ,socialism as a practical force in   
politics has1 in point of fact1         
proceeded by such a reconstruction1 and 
this change carries with it the end of  
the materialistic ,utopia4  ,official   
,socialism is a creed of different      
brand4 ,beginning with a contempt for   
ideals of liberty based on a confusion  
between liberty and competition1 it     
proceeds to a measure of contempt for   
average humanity in general4 ,it        
conceives mankind as in the mass a      
helpless and feeble race1 which it is   

its duty to treat kindly4 ,true         
kindness1 of course1 must be combined   
with firmness1 and the life of the      
average man must be organized for his   
own good4 ,he need not know that he is  
being organized4 ,the socialistic       
organization will work in the           
background1 and there will be wheels    
within wheels1 or rather wires pulling  
wires4 ,ostensibly there will be a class
 of the elect1 an aristocracy of        
character and intellect which will fill 
the civil services and do the practical 
work of administration4 ,behind these   
will be committees of union and progress
 who will direct operations1 and behind 
the committees again one or more master 
minds from whom will emanate the ideas  
that are to direct the world4 ,the play 
of democratic government will go on for 
a time1 but the idea of a common will   
that should actually undertake the      
organization of social life is held the 
most childish of illusions4 ,the master 
minds can for the moment work more      

easily through democratic forms1 because
 they are here1 and to destroy them     
would cause an upheaval4 ,but the       
essence of government lies in the method
 of capture4 ,the ostensible leaders of 
democracy are ignorant creatures who can
 with a little management be set to walk
 in the way in which they should go1 and
 whom the crowd will follow like sheep4 
,the art of governing consists in making
 men do what you wish without knowing   
what they are doing1 to lead them on    
without showing them whither until it is
 too late for them to retrace their     
steps4 ,socialism so conceived has in   
essentials nothing to do with democracy 
or with liberty4 ,it is a scheme of the 
organization of life by the superior    
person1 who will decide for each man how
 he should work1 how he should live1 and
 indeed1 with the aid of the ,eugenist1 
whether he should live at all or whether
 he has any business to be born4 ,at any
 rate1 if he ought not to have been     
born--if1 that is1 he comes of a stock  

whose qualities are not approved--the   
,samurai will take care that he does not
 perpetuate his race4  ,now the average 
,liberal might have more sympathy with  
this view of life if he did not feel    
that for his part he is just a very     
ordinary man4 ,he is quite sure that he 
cannot manage the lives of other people 
for them4 ,he finds it enough to manage 
his own4 ,but with the leave of the     
,superior he would rather do this in his
 own way than in the way of another1    
whose way may be much wiser but is not  
his4 ,he would rather marry the woman of
 his own choice1 than the one who would 
be sure to bring forth children of the  
standard type4 ,he does not want to be  
standardized4 ,he does not conceive     
himself as essentially an item in a     
census return4 ,he does not want the    
standard clothes or the standard food1  
he wants the clothes which he finds     
comfortable and the food which he likes4
 ,with this unregenerate ,adam in him1  
,i fear that the ,liberalism that is    

also within him is quite ready to make  
terms4 ,indeed1 it incites him to go    
still further4 ,it bids him consider    
that other men are1 on the whole1 very  
like himself and look on life in much   
the same way1 and when it speaks within 
him of social duty it encourages him to 
aim not at a position of superiority    
which will enable him to govern his     
fellow creatures for their own good1 but
 at a spirit of comradeship in which he 
will stand shoulder to shoulder with    
them on behalf of common aims4  ,if1    
then1 there be such a thing as a        
,liberal ,socialism--and whether there  
be is still a subject for inquiry--it   
must clearly fulfil two conditions4 ,in 
the first place1 it must be democratic4 
,it must come from below1 not from      
above4 ,or rather1 it must emerge from  
the efforts of society as a whole to    
secure a fuller measure of justice1 and 
a better organization of mutual aid4 ,it
 must engage the efforts and respond to 
the genuine desires not of a handful of 

superior beings1 but of great masses of 
men4 ,and1 secondly1 and for that very  
reason1 it must make its account with   
the human individual4 ,it must give the 
average man free play in the personal   
life for which he really cares4 ,it must
 be founded on liberty1 and must make   
not for the suppression but for the     
development of personality4 ,how far1 it
 may be asked1 are these objects        
compatible8 ,how far is it possible to  
organize industry in the interest of the
 common welfare without either          
overriding the freedom of individual    
choice or drying up the springs of      
initiative and energy8 ,how far is it   
possible to abolish poverty1 or to      
institute economic equality without     
arresting industrial progress8 ,we      
cannot put the question without raising 
more fundamental issues4 ,what is the   
real meaning of equality in economics8  
,would it mean1 for example1 that all   
should enjoy equal rewards1 or that     
equal efforts should enjoy equal        

rewards1 or that equal attainments      
should enjoy equal rewards8 ,what is the
 province of justice in economics8      
,where does justice end and charity     
begin8 ,and what1 behind all this1 is   
the basis of property8 ,what is its     
social function and value8 ,what is the 
measure of consideration due to vested  
interest and prescriptive right8 ,it is 
impossible1 within the limits of a      
volume1 to deal exhaustively with such  
fundamental questions4 ,the best course 
will be to follow out the lines of      
development which appear to proceed from
 those principles of ,liberalism which  
have been already indicated and to see  
how far they lead to a solution4  ,we   
saw that it was the duty of the ,state  
to secure the conditions of             
self-maintenance for the normal healthy 
citizen4 ,there are two lines along     
which the fulfilment of this duty may be
 sought4 ,one would consist in providing
 access to the means of production1 the 
other in guaranteeing to the individual 

a certain share in the common stock4 ,in
 point of fact1 both lines have been    
followed by ,liberal legislation4 ,on   
the one side this legislation has set   
itself1 however timidly and             
ineffectively as yet1 to reversing the  
process which divorced the ,english     
peasantry from the soil4 ,contemporary  
research is making it clear that this   
divorce was not the inevitable result of
 slowly operating economic forces4 ,it  
was brought about by the deliberate     
policy of the enclosure of the common   
fields begun in the fifteenth century1  
partially arrested from the middle of   
the sixteenth to the eighteenth1 and    
completed between the reigns of ,george 
,,ii and ,queen ,victoria4 ,as this     
process was furthered by an aristocracy1
 so there is every reason to hope that  
it can be successfully reversed by a    
democracy1 and that it will be possible 
to reconstitute a class of independent  
peasantry as the backbone of the working
 population4 ,the experiment1 however1  

involves one form or another of communal
 ownership4 ,the labourer can only      
obtain the land with the financial help 
of the ,state1 and it is certainly not  
the view of ,liberals that the ,state1  
having once regained the fee simple1    
should part with it again4 ,on the      
contrary1 in an equitable division of   
the fruits of agriculture all advantages
 that are derived from the qualities or 
position of the soil itself1 or from the
 enhancement of prices by tariffs would1
 since they are the product of no man's 
labour1 fall to no man's share1 or1 what
 is the same thing1 they should fall to 
every man1 that is1 to the community4   
,this is why ,liberal legislation seeks 
to create a class not of small landlords
 but of small tenants4 ,it would give to
 this class access to the land and would
 reward them with the fruits of their   
own work--and no more4 ,the surplus it  
would take to itself in the form of     
rent1 and while it is desirable to give 
the ,state tenant full security against 

disturbance1 rents must at stated       
periods be adjustable to prices and to  
cost4 ,so1 while ,conservative policy is
 to establish a peasant proprietary     
which would reinforce the voting        
strength of property1 the ,liberal      
policy is to establish a ,state tenantry
 from whose prosperity the whole        
community would profit4 ,the one        
solution is individualist4 ,the other1  
as far as it goes1 is nearer to the     
,socialist ideal4  ,but1 though ,british
 agriculture may have a great future    
before it1 it will never regain its     
dominant position in our economic life1 
nor are small holdings ever likely to be
 the prevalent form of agriculture4 ,the
 bulk of industry is1 and probably will 
be1 more and more in the hands of large 
undertakings with which the individual  
workman could not compete whatever      
instruments of production were placed in
 his hands4 ,for the mass of the people1
 therefore1 to be assured of the means  
of a decent livelihood must mean to be  

assured of continuous employment at a   
living wage1 or1 as an alternative1 of  
public assistance4 ,now1 as has been    
remarked1 experience goes to show that  
the wage of the average worker1 as fixed
 by competition1 is not and is not      
likely to become sufficient to cover all
 the fortunes and misfortunes of life1  
to provide for sickness1 accident1      
unemployment and old age1 in addition to
 the regular needs of an average family4
 ,in the case of accident the ,state has
 put the burden of making provision on  
the employer4 ,in the case of old age it
 has1 acting1 as ,i think1 upon a       
sounder principle1 taken the burden upon
 itself4 ,it is very important to       
realize precisely what the new departure
 involved in the ,old ,age ,pensions    
,act amounted to in point of principle4 
,the ,poor ,law already guaranteed the  
aged person and the poor in general     
against actual starvation4 ,but the     
,poor ,law came into operation only at  
the point of sheer destitution4 ,it     

failed to help those who had helped     
themselves4 ,indeed1 to many it held out
 little inducement to help themselves if
 they could not hope to lay by so much  
as would enable them to live more       
comfortably on their means than they    
would live in the workhouse4 ,the       
pension system throws over the test of  
destitution4 ,it provides a certain     
minimum1 a basis to go upon1 a          
foundation upon which independent thrift
 may hope to build up a sufficiency4 ,it
 is not a narcotic but a stimulus to    
self help and to friendly aid or filial 
support1 and it is1 up to a limit1      
available for all alike4 ,it is         
precisely one of the conditions of      
independence of which voluntary effort  
can make use1 but requiring voluntary   
effort to make it fully available4  ,the
 suggestion underlying the movement for 
the break up of the ,poor ,law is just  
the general application of this         
principle4 ,it is that1 instead of      
redeeming the destitute1 we should seek 

to render generally available the means 
of avoiding destitution1 though in doing
 so we should uniformly call on the     
individual for a corresponding effort on
 his part4 ,one method of meeting these 
conditions is to supply a basis for     
private effort to work upon1 as is done 
in the case of the aged4 ,another method
 is that of ,state-aided insurance1 and 
on these lines ,liberal legislators have
 been experimenting in the hope of      
dealing with sickness1 invalidity1 and  
one portion of the problem of           
unemployment4 ,a third may be           
illustrated by the method by which the  
,minority of the ,poor ,law             
,commissioners would deal with the case1
 at present so often full of tragic     
import1 of the widowed or deserted      
mother of young children4 ,hitherto she 
has been regarded as an object of       
charity4 ,it has been a matter for the  
benevolent to help her to retain her    
home1 while it has been regarded as her 
duty to keep off the rates at the cost  

of no matter what expenditure of labour 
away from home4 ,the newer conception of
 rights and duties comes out clearly in 
the argument of the commissioners1 that 
if we take in earnest all that we say of
 the duties and responsibilities of     
motherhood1 we shall recognize that the 
mother of young children is doing better
 service to the community and one more  
worthy of pecuniary remuneration when   
she stays at home and minds her children
 than when she goes out charing and     
leaves them to the chances of the street
 or to the perfunctory care of a        
neighbour4 ,in proportion as we realize 
the force of this argument1 we reverse  
our view as to the nature of public     
assistance in such a case4 ,we no longer
 consider it desirable to drive the     
mother out to her charing work if we    
possibly can1 nor do we consider her    
degraded by receiving public money4 ,we 
cease1 in fact1 to regard the public    
money as a dole1 we treat it as a       
payment for a civic service1 and the    

condition that we are inclined to exact 
is precisely that she should not        
endeavour to add to it by earning wages1
 but rather that she should keep her    
home respectable and bring up her       
children in health and happiness4  ,in  
defence of the competitive system two   
arguments have been familiar from old   
days4 ,one is based on the habits of the
 working classes4 ,it is said that they 
spend their surplus incomes on drink1   
and that if they have no margin for     
saving1 it is because they have sunk it 
in the public-house4 ,that argument is  
rapidly being met by the actual change  
of habits4 ,the wave of temperance which
 two generations ago reformed the habits
 of the well-to-do in ,england is       
rapidly spreading through all classes in
 our own time4 ,the drink bill is still 
excessive1 the proportion of his weekly 
wages spent on drink by the average     
workman is still too great1 but it is a 
diminishing quantity1 and the fear which
 might have been legitimately expressed 

in old days that to add to wages was to 
add to the drink bill could no longer be
 felt as a valid objection to any       
improvement in the material condition of
 the working population in our own time4
 ,we no longer find the drink bill      
heavily increasing in years of          
commercial prosperity as of old4 ,the   
second argument has experienced an even 
more decisive fate4 ,down to my own time
 it was forcibly contended that any     
improvement in the material condition of
 the mass of the people would result in 
an increase of the birth rate which1 by 
extending the supply of labour1 would   
bring down wages by an automatic process
 to the old level4 ,there would be more 
people and they would all be as         
miserable as before4 ,the actual decline
 of the birth rate1 whatever its other  
consequences may be1 has driven this    
argument from the field4 ,the birth rate
 does not increase with prosperity1 but 
diminishes4 ,there is no fear of        
over-population2 if there is any present

 danger1 it is upon the other side4 ,the
 fate of these two arguments must be    
reckoned as a very important factor in  
the changes of opinion which we have    
noted4  ,nevertheless1 it may be thought
 that the system that ,i have outlined  
is no better than a vast organization of
 ,state charity1 and that as such it    
must carry the consequences associated  
with charity on a large scale4 ,it must 
dry up the sources of energy and        
undermine the independence of the       
individual4 ,on the first point1 ,i have
 already referred to certain cogent     
arguments for a contrary view4 ,what the
 ,state is doing1 what it would be doing
 if the whole series of contemplated    
changes were carried through to the end1
 would by no means suffice to meet the  
needs of the normal man4 ,he would still
 have to labour to earn his own living4 
,but he would have a basis to go upon1 a
 sub-structure on which it would be     
possible for him to rear the fabric of a
 real sufficiency4 ,he would have       

greater security1 a brighter outlook1 a 
more confident hope of being able to    
keep his head above water4 ,the         
experience of life suggests that hope is
 a better stimulus than fear1 confidence
 a better mental environment than       
insecurity4 ,if desperation will        
sometimes spur men to exceptional       
exertion the effect is fleeting1 and1   
for a permanence1 a more stable         
condition is better suited to foster    
that blend of restraint and energy which
 makes up the tissue of a life of normal
 health4 ,there would be those who would
 abuse their advantages as there are    
those who abuse every form of social    
institution4 ,but upon the whole it is  
thought that individual responsibility  
can be more clearly fixed and more      
rigorously insisted on when its         
legitimate sphere is properly defined1  
that is to say1 when the burden on the  
shoulders of the individual is not too  
great for average human nature to bear4 
,but1 it may be urged1 any reliance on  

external assistance is destructive of   
independence4 ,it is true that to look  
for support to private philanthropy has 
this effect1 because it makes one man   
dependent on the good graces of another4
 ,but it is submitted that a form of    
support on which a man can count as a   
matter of legal right has not           
necessarily the same effect4 ,charity1  
again1 tends to diminish the value of   
independent effort because it flows in  
the direction of the failures4 ,it is a 
compensation for misfortune which easily
 slides into an encouragement to        
carelessness4 ,what is matter of right1 
on the other hand1 is enjoyed equally by
 the successful and the unsuccessful4   
,it is not a handicap in favour of the  
one1 but an equal distance deducted from
 the race to be run against fate by     
both4 ,this brings us to the real       
question4 ,are measures of the kind     
under discussion to be regarded as      
measures of philanthropy or measures of 
justice1 as the expression of collective

 benevolence or as the recognition of a 
general right8 ,the full discussion of  
the question involves complex and in    
some respects novel conceptions of      
economics and of social ethics to which 
,i can hardly do justice within the     
limits of this chapter4 ,but ,i will    
endeavour to indicate in outline the    
conception of social and economic       
justice which underlies the movement of 
modern ,liberal opinion4  ,we may       
approach the subject by observing that1 
whatever the legal theory1 in practice  
the existing ,english ,poor ,law        
recognizes the right of every person to 
the bare necessaries of life4 ,the      
destitute man or woman can come to a    
public authority1 and the public        
authority is bound to give him food and 
shelter4 ,he has to that extent a lien  
on the public resources in virtue of his
 needs as a human being and on no other 
ground4 ,this lien1 however1 only       
operates when he is destitute2 and he   
can only exercise it by submitting to   

such conditions as the authorities      
impose1 which when the workhouse test is
 enforced means loss of liberty4 ,it was
 the leading principle of #ahcd that the
 lot of the pauper should be made less  
eligible than that of the independent   
labourer4 ,perhaps we may express the   
change of opinion which has come about  
in our day by saying that according to  
the newer principle the duty of society 
is rather to ensure that the lot of the 
independent labourer be more eligible   
than that of the pauper4 ,with this     
object the lien on the common wealth is 
enlarged and reconstituted4 ,its        
exercise does not entail the penal      
consequence of the loss of freedom      
unless there is proved misfeasance or   
neglect on the part of the individual4  
,the underlying contention is that1 in a
 ,state so wealthy as the ,united       
,kingdom1 every citizen should have full
 means of earning by socially useful    
labour so much material support as      
experience proves to be the necessary   

basis of a healthy1 civilized existence4
 ,and if in the actual working of the   
industrial system the means are not in  
actual fact sufficiently available he is
 held to have a claim not as of charity 
but as of right on the national         
resources to make good the deficiency4  
,that there are rights of property we   
all admit4 ,is there not perhaps a      
general right to property8 ,is there not
 something radically wrong with an      
economic system under which through the 
laws of inheritance and bequest vast    
inequalities are perpetuated8 ,ought we 
to acquiesce in a condition in which the
 great majority are born to nothing     
except what they can earn1 while some   
are born to more than the social value  
of any individual of whatever merit8    
,may it not be that in a reasoned scheme
 of economic ethics we should have to   
allow a true right of property in the   
member of the community as such which   
would take the form of a certain minimum
 claim on the public resources8 ,a      

pretty idea1 it may be said1 but ethics 
apart1 what are the resources on which  
the less fortunate is to draw8 ,the     
,british ,state has little or no        
collective property available for any   
such purpose4 ,its revenues are based on
 taxation1 and in the end what all this 
means is that the rich are to be taxed  
for the benefit of the poor1 which we   
may be told is neither justice nor      
charity but sheer spoliation4 ,to this  
,i would reply that the depletion of    
public resources is a symptom of        
profound economic disorganization4      
,wealth1 ,i would contend1 has a social 
as well as a personal basis4 ,some forms
 of wealth1 such as ground rents in and 
about cities1 are substantially the     
creation of society1 and it is only     
through the misfeasance of government in
 times past that such wealth has been   
allowed to fall into private hands4     
,other great sources of wealth are found
 in financial and speculative           
operations1 often of distinctly         

anti-social tendency and possible only  
through the defective organization of   
our economy4 ,other causes rest in the  
partial monopolies which our liquor     
laws1 on the one side1 and the old      
practice of allowing the supply of      
municipal services to fall into private 
hands have built up4 ,through the       
principle of inheritance1 property so   
accumulated is handed on2 and the result
 is that while there is a small class   
born to the inheritance of a share in   
the material benefits of civilization1  
there is a far larger class which can   
say naked we enter1 naked we leave4     
,this system1 as a whole1 it is         
maintained1 requires revision4 ,property
 in this condition of things ceases1 it 
is urged1 to be essentially an          
institution by which each man can secure
 to himself the fruits of his own       
labour1 and becomes an instrument       
whereby the owner can command the labour
 of others on terms which he is in      
general able to dictate4 ,this tendency 

is held to be undesirable1 and to be    
capable of a remedy through a concerted 
series of fiscal1 industrial1 and social
 measures which would have the effect of
 augmenting the common stock at the     
disposal of society1 and so applying it 
as to secure the economic independence  
of all who do not forfeit their         
advantages by idleness1 incapacity1 or  
crime4 ,there are early forms of        
communal society in which each person is
 born to his appropriate status1        
carrying its appropriate share of the   
common land4 ,in destroying the last    
relics of this system economic          
individualism has laid the basis of     
great material advances1 but at great   
cost to the happiness of the masses4    
,the ground problem in economics is not 
to destroy property1 but to restore the 
social conception of property to its    
right place under conditions suitable to
 modern needs4 ,this is not to be done  
by crude measures of redistribution1    
such as those of which we hear in       

ancient history4 ,it is to be done by   
distinguishing the social from the      
individual factors in wealth1 by        
bringing the elements of social wealth  
into the public coffers1 and by holding 
it at the disposal of society to        
administer to the prime needs of its    
members4  ,the basis of property is     
social1 and that in two senses4 ,on the 
one hand1 it is the organized force of  
society that maintains the rights of    
owners by protecting them against       
thieves and depredators4 ,in spite of   
all criticism many people still seem to 
speak of the rights of property as      
though they were conferred by ,nature or
 by ,providence upon certain fortunate  
individuals1 and as though these        
individuals had an unlimited right to   
command the ,state1 as their servant1 to
 secure them by the free use of the     
machinery of law in the undisturbed     
enjoyment of their possessions4 ,they   
forget that without the organized force 
of society their rights are not worth a 

week's purchase4 ,they do not ask       
themselves where they would be without  
the judge and the policeman and the     
settled order which society maintains4  
,the prosperous business man who thinks 
that he has made his fortune entirely by
 self help does not pause to consider   
what single step he could have taken on 
the road to his success but for the     
ordered tranquillity which has made     
commercial development possible1 the    
security by road1 and rail1 and sea1 the
 masses of skilled labour1 and the sum  
of intelligence which civilization has  
placed at his disposal1 the very demand 
for the goods which he produces which   
the general progress of the world has   
created1 the inventions which he uses as
 a matter of course and which have been 
built up by the collective effort of    
generations of men of science and       
organizers of industry4 ,if he dug to   
the foundations of his fortune he would 
recognize that1 as it is society that   
maintains and guarantees his            

possessions1 so also it is society which
 is an indispensable partner in its     
original creation4  ,this brings us to  
the second sense in which property is   
social4 ,there is a social element in   
value and a social element in           
production4 ,in modern industry there is
 very little that the individual can do 
by his unaided efforts4 ,labour is      
minutely divided2 and in proportion as  
it is divided it is forced to be        
co-operative4 ,men produce goods to     
sell1 and the rate of exchange1 that is1
 price1 is fixed by relations of demand 
and supply the rates of which are       
determined by complex social forces4 ,in
 the methods of production every man    
makes use1 to the best of his ability1  
of the whole available means of         
civilization1 of the machinery which the
 brains of other men have devised1 of   
the human apparatus which is the gift of
 acquired civilization4 ,society thus   
provides conditions or opportunities of 
which one man will make much better use 

than another1 and the use to which they 
are put is the individual or personal   
element in production which is the basis
 of the personal claim to reward4 ,to   
maintain and stimulate this personal    
effort is a necessity of good economic  
organization1 and without asking here   
whether any particular conception of    
,socialism would or would not meet this 
need we may lay down with confidence    
that no form of ,socialism which should 
ignore it could possibly enjoy enduring 
success4 ,on the other hand1 an         
individualism which ignores the social  
factor in wealth will deplete the       
national resources1 deprive the         
community of its just share in the      
fruits of industry and so result in a   
one-sided and inequitable distribution  
of wealth4 ,economic justice is to      
render what is due not only to each     
individual but to each function1 social 
or personal1 that is engaged in the     
performance of useful service1 and this 
due is measured by the amount necessary 

to stimulate and maintain the efficient 
exercise of that useful function4 ,this 
equation between function and sustenance
 is the true meaning of economic        
equality4  ,now to apply this principle 
to the adjustment of the claims of the  
community on the one hand and the       
producers or inheritors of wealth on the
 other would involve a discrimination of
 the factors of production which is not 
easy to make in all instances4 ,if we   
take the case of urban land1 referred to
 above1 the distinction is tolerably    
clear4 ,the value of a site in ,london  
is something due essentially to ,london1
 not to the landlord4 ,more accurately a
 part of it is due to ,london1 a part to
 the ,british empire1 a part1 perhaps we
 should say1 to ,western civilization4  
,but while it would be impossible to    
disentangle these subsidiary factors1   
the main point that the entire increment
 of value is due to one social factor or
 another is sufficiently clear1 and this
 explains why ,liberal opinion has      

fastened on the conception of site value
 as being by right communal and not     
personal property4 ,the monopoly value  
of licensed premises1 which is the      
direct creation of laws passed for the  
control of the liquor traffic1 is       
another case in point4 ,the difficulty  
which society finds in dealing with     
these cases is that it has allowed these
 sources of wealth to pass out of its   
hands1 and that property of these kinds 
has freely passed from one man to       
another in the market1 in the belief    
that it stood and would stand on the    
same basis in law as any other4 ,hence1 
it is not possible for society to insist
 on the whole of its claim4 ,it could   
only resume its full rights at the cost 
of great hardship to individuals and a  
shock to the industrial system4 ,what it
 can do is to shift taxation step by    
step from the wealth due to individual  
enterprise to the wealth that depends on
 its own collective progress1 thus by   
degrees regaining the ownership of the  

fruits of its own collective work4      
,much more difficult in principle is the
 question of the more general elements  
of social value which run through       
production as a whole4 ,we are dealing  
here with factors so intricately        
interwoven in their operation that they 
can only be separated by an indirect    
process4 ,what this process would be we 
may best understand by imagining for a  
moment a thoroughgoing centralized      
organization of the industrial system   
endeavouring to carry out the principles
 of remuneration outlined above4 ,the   
central authority which we imagine as   
endowed with such wisdom and justice as 
to find for every man his right place   
and to assign to every man his due      
reward would1 if our argument is sound1 
find it necessary to assign to each     
producer1 whether working with hand or  
brain1 whether directing a department of
 industry or serving under direction1   
such remuneration as would stimulate him
 to put forth his best efforts and would

 maintain him in the condition necessary
 for the life-long exercise of his      
function4 ,if we are right in           
considering that a great part of the    
wealth produced from year to year is of 
social origin1 it would follow that1    
after the assignment of this            
remuneration1 there would remain a      
surplus1 and this would fall to the     
coffers of the community and be         
available for public purposes1 for      
national defence1 public works1         
education1 charity1 and the furtherance 
of civilized life4  ,now1 this is merely
 an imaginary picture1 and ,i need not  
ask whether such a measure of wisdom on 
the part of a ,government is practically
 attainable1 or whether such a measure  
of centralization might not carry       
consequences which would hamper progress
 in other directions4 ,the picture      
serves merely to illustrate the         
principles of equitable distribution by 
which the ,state should be guided in    
dealing with property4 ,it serves to    

define our conception of economic       
justice1 and therewith the lines on     
which we should be guided in the        
adjustment of taxation and the          
reorganization of industry4 ,i may      
illustrate its bearing by taking a      
couple of cases4  ,one important source 
of private wealth under modern          
conditions is speculation4 ,is this also
 a source of social wealth8 ,does it    
produce anything for society8 ,does it  
perform a function for which our ideal  
administration would think it necessary 
to pay8 ,i buy some railway stock at    
#aaj4 ,a year or two later ,i seize a   
favourable opportunity and sell it at   
#abe4 ,is the increment earned or       
unearned8 ,the answer in the single case
 is clear1 but it may be said that my   
good fortune in this case may be        
balanced by ill luck in another4 ,no    
doubt4 ,but1 to go no further1 if on    
balance ,i make a fortune or an income  
by this method it would seem to be a    
fortune or an income not earned by      

productive service4 ,to this it may be  
replied that the buyers and sellers of  
stocks are indirectly performing the    
function of adjusting demand and supply1
 and so regulating industry4 ,so far as 
they are expert business men trained in 
the knowledge of a particular market    
this may be so4 ,so far as they dabble  
in the market in the hope of profiting  
from a favourable turn1 they appear     
rather as gamblers4 ,i will not pretend 
to determine which of the two is the    
larger class4 ,i would point out only   
that1 on the face of the facts1 the     
profits derived from this particular    
source appear to be rather of the nature
 of a tax which astute or fortunate     
individuals are able to levy on the     
producer than as the reward which they  
obtain for a definite contribution on   
their own part to production4 ,there are
 two possible empirical tests of this   
view4 ,one is that a form of collective 
organization should be devised which    
should diminish the importance of the   

speculative market4 ,our principle would
 suggest the propriety of an attempt in 
that direction whenever opportunity     
offers4 ,another would be the imposition
 of a special tax on incomes derived    
from this source1 and experience would  
rapidly show whether any such tax would 
actually hamper the process of          
production and distribution at any      
stage4 ,if not1 it would justify itself4
 ,it would prove that the total profit  
now absorbed by individuals exceeds1 at 
least by the amount of the tax1 the     
remuneration necessary to maintain that 
particular economic function4  ,the     
other case ,i will take is that of      
inherited wealth4 ,this is the main     
determining factor in the social and    
economic structure of our time4 ,it is  
clear on our principle that it stands in
 quite a different position from that of
 wealth which is being created from day 
to day4 ,it can be defended only on two 
grounds4 ,one is prescriptive right1 and
 the difficulty of disturbing the basis 

of the economic order4 ,this provides an
 unanswerable argument against violent  
and hasty methods1 but no argument at   
all against a gentle and slow-moving    
policy of economic reorganization4 ,the 
other argument is that inherited wealth 
serves several indirect functions4 ,the 
desire to provide for children and to   
found a family is a stimulus to effort4 
,the existence of a leisured class      
affords possibilities for the free      
development of originality1 and a supply
 of disinterested men and women for the 
service of the ,state4 ,i would suggest 
once again that the only real test to   
which the value of these arguments can  
be submitted is the empirical test4 ,on 
the face of the facts inherited wealth  
stands on a different footing from      
acquired wealth1 and ,liberal policy is 
on the right lines in beginning the     
discrimination of earned from unearned  
income4 ,the distinction is misconceived
 only so far as income derived from     
capital or land may represent the       

savings of the individual and not his   
inheritance4 ,the true distinction is   
between the inherited and the acquired1 
and while the taxation of acquired      
wealth may operate1 so far as it goes1  
to diminish the profits1 and so far to  
weaken the motive springs1 of industry1 
it is by no means self-evident that any 
increase of taxation on inherited wealth
 would necessarily have that effect1 or 
that it would vitally derange any other 
social function4 ,it is1 again1 a matter
 on which only experience can decide1   
but if experience goes to show that we  
can impose a given tax on inherited     
wealth without diminishing the available
 supply of capital and without losing   
any service of value1 the result would  
be net gain4 ,the ,state could never be 
the sole producer1 for in production the
 personal factor is vital1 but there is 
no limit set by the necessities of      
things to the extension of its control  
of natural resources1 on the one hand1  
and the accumulated heritage of the     

past1 on the other4  ,if ,liberal policy
 has committed itself not only to the   
discrimination of earned and unearned   
incomes but also to a super-tax on large
 incomes from whatever source1 the      
ground principle1 again1 ,i take to be a
 respectful doubt whether any single    
individual is worth to society by any   
means as much as some individuals       
obtain4 ,we might1 indeed1 have to      
qualify this doubt if the great fortunes
 of the world fell to the great         
geniuses4 ,it would be impossible to    
determine what we ought to pay for a    
,shakespere1 a ,browning1 a ,newton1 or 
a ,cobden4 ,impossible1 but fortunately 
unnecessary4 ,for the man of genius is  
forced by his own cravings to give1 and 
the only reward that he asks from       
society is to be let alone and have some
 quiet and fresh air4 ,nor is he in     
reality entitled1 notwithstanding his   
services1 to ask more than the modest   
sufficiency which enables him to obtain 
those primary needs of the life of      

thought and creation1 since his creative
 energy is the response to an inward    
stimulus which goads him on without     
regard to the wishes of any one else4   
,the case of the great organizers of    
industry is rather different1 but they1 
again1 so far as their work is socially 
sound1 are driven on more by internal   
necessity than by the genuine love of   
gain4 ,they make great profits because  
their works reach a scale at which1 if  
the balance is on the right side at all1
 it is certain to be a big balance1 and 
they no doubt tend to be interested in  
money as the sign of their success1 and 
also as the basis of increased social   
power4 ,but ,i believe the direct       
influence of the lust of gain on this   
type of mind to have been immensely     
exaggerated2 and as proof ,i would      
refer1 first1 to the readiness of many  
men of this class to accept and in      
individual cases actively to promote    
measures tending to diminish their      
material gain1 and1 secondly1 to the    

mass of high business capacity which is 
at the command of the public            
administration for salaries which1 as   
their recipient must be perfectly       
conscious1 bear no relation to the      
income which it would be open to him to 
earn in commercial competition4  ,on the
 whole1 then1 we may take it that the   
principle of the super-tax is based on  
the conception that when we come to an  
income of some #e1jjj a year we approach
 the limit of the industrial value of   
the individual4#ab ,we are not likely to
 discourage any service of genuine      
social value by a rapidly increasing    
surtax on incomes above that amount4 ,it
 is more likely that we shall quench the
 anti-social ardour for unmeasured      
wealth1 for social power1 and the vanity
 of display4  ,these illustrations may  
suffice to give some concreteness to the
 conception of economic justice as the  
maintenance of social function4 ,they   
serve also to show that the true        
resources of the ,state are larger and  

more varied than is generally supposed4 
,the true function of taxation is to    
secure to society the element in wealth 
that is of social origin1 or1 more      
broadly1 all that does not owe its      
origin to the efforts of living         
individuals4 ,when taxation1 based on   
these principles1 is utilized to secure 
healthy conditions of existence to the  
mass of the people it is clear that this
 is no case of robbing ,peter to pay    
,paul4 ,peter is not robbed4 ,apart from
 the tax it is he who would be robbing  
the ,state4 ,a tax which enables the    
,state to secure a certain share of     
social value is not something deducted  
from that which the taxpayer has an     
unlimited right to call his own1 but    
rather a repayment of something which   
was all along due to society4  ,but why 
should the proceeds of the tax go to the
 poor in particular8 ,granting that     
,peter is not robbed1 why should ,paul  
be paid8 ,why should not the proceeds be
 expended on something of common concern

 to ,peter and ,paul alike1 for ,peter  
is equally a member of the community8   
,undoubtedly the only just method of    
dealing with the common funds is to     
expend them in objects which subserve   
the common good1 and there are many     
directions in which public expenditure  
does in fact benefit all classes alike4 
,this1 it is worth noting1 is true even 
of some important branches of           
expenditure which in their direct aim   
concern the poorer classes4 ,consider1  
for example1 the value of public        
sanitation1 not merely to the poorer    
regions which would suffer first if it  
were withheld1 but to the richer as well
 who1 seclude themselves as they may1   
cannot escape infection4 ,in the old    
days judge and jury1 as well as         
prisoners1 would die of gaol fever4     
,consider1 again1 the economic value of 
education1 not only to the worker1 but  
to the employer whom he will serve4 ,but
 when all this is allowed for it must be
 admitted that we have throughout       

contemplated a considerable measure of  
public expenditure in the elimination of
 poverty4 ,the prime justification of   
this expenditure is that the prevention 
of suffering from the actual lack of    
adequate physical comforts is an        
essential element in the common good1 an
 object in which all are bound to       
concern themselves1 which all have the  
right to demand and the duty to fulfil4 
,any common life based on the avoidable 
suffering even of one of those who      
partake in it is a life not of harmony1 
but of discord4  ,but we can go further4
 ,we said at the outset that the        
function of society was to secure to all
 normal adult members the means of      
earning by useful work the material     
necessaries of a healthy and efficient  
life4 ,we can see now that this is one  
case and1 properly understood1 the      
largest and most far reaching case      
falling under the general principle of  
economic justice4 ,this principle lays  
down that every social function must    

receive the reward that is sufficient to
 stimulate and maintain it through the  
life of the individual4 ,now1 how much  
this reward may be in any case it is    
probably impossible to determine        
otherwise than by specific experiment4  
,but if we grant1 in accordance with the
 idea with which we have been working   
all along1 that it is demanded of all   
sane adult men and women that they      
should live as civilized beings1 as     
industrious workers1 as good parents1 as
 orderly and efficient citizens1 it is1 
on the other side1 the function of the  
economic organization of society to     
secure them the material means of living
 such a life1 and the immediate duty of 
society is to mark the points at which  
such means fail and to make good the    
deficiency4 ,thus the conditions of     
social efficiency mark the minimum of   
industrial remuneration1 and if they are
 not secured without the deliberate     
action of the ,state they must be       
secured by means of the deliberate      

action of the ,state4 ,if it is the     
business of good economic organization  
to secure the equation between function 
and maintenance1 the first and greatest 
application of this principle is to the 
primary needs4 ,these fix the minimum   
standard of remuneration beyond which we
 require detailed experiment to tell us 
at what rate increased value of service 
rendered necessitates corresponding     
increase of reward4  ,it may be objected
 that such a standard is unattainable4  
,there are those1 it may be contended1  
who are not1 and never will be1 worth a 
full efficiency wage4 ,whatever is done 
to secure them such a remuneration will 
only involve net loss4 ,hence it        
violates our standard of economic       
justice4 ,it involves payment for a     
function of more than it is actually    
worth1 and the discrepancy might be so  
great as to cripple society4 ,it must1  
of course1 be admitted that the         
population contains a certain percentage
 of the physically incapable1 the       

mentally defective1 and the morally     
uncontrolled4 ,the treatment of these   
classes1 all must agree1 is and must be 
based on other principles than those of 
economics4 ,one class requires punitive 
discipline1 another needs life-long     
care1 a third--the mentally and morally 
sound but physically defective--must    
depend1 to its misfortune1 on private   
and public charity4 ,there is no        
question here of payment for a function1
 but of ministering to human suffering4 
,it is1 of course1 desirable on economic
 as well as on broader grounds that the 
ministration should be so conceived as  
to render its object as nearly as       
possible independent and                
self-supporting4 ,but in the main all   
that is done for these classes of the   
population is1 and must be1 a charge on 
the surplus4 ,the real question that may
 be raised by a critic is whether the   
considerable proportion of the working  
class whose earnings actually fall      
short1 as we should contend1 of the     

minimum1 could in point of fact earn    
that minimum4 ,their actual value1 he   
may urge1 is measured by the wage which 
they do in fact command in the          
competitive market1 and if their wage   
falls short of the standard society may 
make good the deficiency if it will and 
can1 but must not shut its eyes to the  
fact that in doing so it is performing1 
not an act of economic justice1 but of  
charity4 ,to this the reply is that the 
price which naked labour without        
property can command in bargaining with 
employers who possess property is no    
measure at all of the addition which    
such labour can actually make to wealth4
 ,the bargain is unequal1 and low       
remuneration is itself a cause of low   
efficiency which in turn tends to react 
unfavourably on remuneration4           
,conversely1 a general improvement in   
the conditions of life reacts favourably
 on the productivity of labour4 ,real   
wages have risen considerably in the    
last half century1 but the income-tax   

returns indicate that the wealth of the 
business and professional man has       
increased even more rapidly4 ,up to the 
efficiency minimum there is1 then1 every
 reason to think that a general increase
 of wages would positively increase the 
available surplus whether that surplus  
goes to individuals as profits or to the
 ,state as national revenue4 ,the       
material improvement of working-class   
conditions will more than pay its way   
regarded purely as an economic          
investment on behalf of society4  ,this 
conclusion is strengthened if we        
consider narrowly what elements of cost 
the living wage ought in principle to   
cover4 ,we are apt to assume            
uncritically that the wages earned by   
the labour of an adult man ought to     
suffice for the maintenance of an       
average family1 providing for all risks4
 ,it ought1 we think1 to cover not only 
the food and clothing of wife and       
children1 but the risks of sickness1    
accident1 and unemployment4 ,it ought to

 provide for education and lay by for   
old age4 ,if it fails we are apt to     
think that the wage earner is not self  
supporting4 ,now1 it is certainly open  
to doubt whether the actual addition to 
wealth made by an unskilled labourer    
denuded of all inherited property would 
equal the cost represented by the sum of
 these items4 ,but here our further     
principle comes into play4 ,he ought not
 to be denuded of all inherited         
property4 ,as a citizen he should have a
 certain share in the social            
inheritance4 ,this share should be his  
support in the times of misfortune1 of  
sickness1 and of worklessness1 whether  
due to economic disorganization or to   
invalidity and old age4 ,his children's 
share1 again1 is the ,state-provided    
education4 ,these shares are charges on 
the social surplus4 ,it does not1 if    
fiscal arrangements are what they should
 be1 infringe upon the income of other  
individuals1 and the man who without    
further aid than the universally        

available share in the social           
inheritance which is to fall to him as a
 citizen pays his way through life is to
 be justly regarded as self-supporting4 
,the central point of ,liberal          
economics1 then1 is the equation of     
social service and reward4 ,this is the 
principle that every function of social 
value requires such remuneration as     
serves to stimulate and maintain its    
effective performance2 that every one   
who performs such a function has the    
right1 in the strict ethical sense of   
that term1 to such remuneration and to  
no more2 that the residue of existing   
wealth should be at the disposal of the 
community for social purposes4 ,further1
 it is the right1 in the same sense1 of 
every person capable of performing some 
useful social function that he should   
have the opportunity of so doing1 and it
 is his right that the remuneration that
 he receives for it should be his       
property1 i4 e4 that it should stand at 
his free disposal enabling him to direct

 his personal concerns according to his 
own preferences4 ,these are rights in   
the sense that they are conditions of   
the welfare of its members which a      
well-ordered ,state will seek by every  
means to fulfil4 ,but it is not         
suggested that the way of such          
fulfilment is plain1 or that it could be
 achieved at a stroke by a revolutionary
 change in the tenure of property or the
 system of industry4 ,it is1 indeed1    
implied that the ,state is vested with a
 certain overlordship over property in  
general and a supervisory power over    
industry in general1 and this principle 
of economic sovereignty may be set side 
by side with that of economic justice as
 a no less fundamental conception of    
economic ,liberalism4 ,for here1 as     
elsewhere1 liberty implies control4 ,but
 the manner in which the ,state is to   
exercise its controlling power is to be 
learnt by experience and even in large  
measure by cautious experiment4 ,we have
 sought to determine the principle which

 should guide its action1 the ends at   
which it is to aim4 ,the systematic     
study of the means lies rather within   
the province of economics2 and the      
teaching of history seems to be that    
progress is more continuous and secure  
when men are content to deal with       
problems piecemeal than when they seek  
to destroy root and branch in order to  
erect a complete system which has       
captured the imagination4  ,it is       
evident that these conceptions embody   
many of the ideas that go to make up the
 framework of ,socialist teaching1      
though they also emphasize elements of  
individual right and personal           
independence1 of which ,socialism at    
times appears oblivious4 ,the           
distinction that ,i would claim for     
economic ,liberalism is that it seeks to
 do justice to the social and individual
 factors in industry alike1 as opposed  
to an abstract ,socialism which         
emphasizes the one side and an abstract 
,individualism which leans its whole    

weight on the other4 ,by keeping to the 
conception of harmony as our clue we    
constantly define the rights of the     
individual in terms of the common good1 
and think of the common good in terms of
 the welfare of all the individuals who 
constitute a society4 ,thus in economics
 we avoid the confusion of liberty with 
competition1 and see no virtue in the   
right of a man to get the better of     
others4 ,at the same time we are not led
 to minimize the share of personal      
initiative1 talent1 or energy in        
production1 but are free to contend for 
their claim to adequate recognition4 ,a 
,socialist who is convinced of the      
logical coherence and practical         
applicability of his system may dismiss 
such endeavours to harmonize divergent  
claims as a half-hearted and illogical  
series of compromises4 ,it is equally   
possible that a ,socialist who conceives
 ,socialism as consisting in essence in 
the co-operative organization of        
industry by consumers1 and is convinced 

that the full solution of industrial    
problems lies in that direction1 should 
in proportion as he considers the       
psychological factors in production and 
investigates the means of realizing his 
ideal1 find himself working back along  
the path to a point where he will meet  
the men who are grappling with the      
problems of the day on the principles   
here suggested1 and will find himself   
able to move forward in practice in the 
front ranks of economic ,liberalism4 ,if
 this is so1 the growing co-operation of
 political ,liberalism and ,labour1     
which in the last few years has replaced
 the antagonism of the 'nineties1 is no 
mere accident of temporary political    
convenience1 but has its roots deep in  
the necessities of ,democracy4          
,,footnote3  #ab ,it is true that so    
long as it remains possible for a       
certain order of ability to earn #ej1jjj
 a year1 the community will not obtain  
its services for #e1jjj4 ,but if things 
should be so altered by taxation and    

economic reorganization that #e1jjj     
became in practice the highest limit    
attainable1 and remained attainable even
 for the ablest only by effort1 there is
 no reason to doubt that that effort    
would be forthcoming4 ,it is not the    
absolute amount of remuneration1 but the
 increment of remuneration in proportion
 to the output of industrial or         
commercial capacity1 which serves as the
 needed stimulus to energy4             
,,chapter ,,ix  ,,the ,,future ,,of     
,,liberalism   ,the nineteenth century  
might be called the age of ,liberalism1 
yet its close saw the fortunes of that  
great movement brought to their lowest  
ebb4 ,whether at home or abroad those   
who represented ,liberal ideas had      
suffered crushing defeats4 ,but this was
 the least considerable of the causes   
for anxiety4 ,if ,liberals had been     
defeated1 something much worse seemed   
about to befall ,liberalism4 ,its faith 
in itself was waxing cold4 ,it seemed to
 have done its work4 ,it had the air of 

a creed that is becoming fossilized as  
an extinct form1 a fossil that occupied1
 moreover1 an awkward position between  
two very active and energetically moving
 grindstones--the upper grindstone of   
plutocratic imperialism1 and the nether 
grindstone of social democracy4 ,we know
 all about you1 these parties seemed to 
say to ,liberalism2 we have been right  
through you and come out on the other   
side4 ,respectable platitudes1 you go   
maundering on about ,cobden and         
,gladstone1 and the liberty of the      
individual1 and the rights of           
nationality1 and government by the      
people4 ,what you say is not precisely  
untrue1 but it is unreal and            
uninteresting4 ,so far in chorus4 ,it is
 not up to date1 finished the           
,imperialist1 and the ,socialist        
bureaucrat4 ,it is not bread and butter1
 finished the ,social democrat4 ,opposed
 in everything else1 these two parties  
agreed in one thing4 ,they were to      
divide the future between them4         

,unfortunately1 however1 for their      
agreement1 the division was soon seen to
 be no equal one4 ,whatever might be the
 ultimate recuperative power of ,social 
,democracy1 for the time being1 in the  
paralysis of ,liberalism1 the ,imperial 
reaction had things all to itself4 ,the 
governing classes of ,england were to   
assert themselves4 ,they were to        
consolidate the ,empire1 incidentally   
passing the steam roller over two       
obstructive republics4 ,they were to    
teach the law to the sullen new-caught  
peoples abroad4 ,they were to           
re-establish the ,church at home by the 
endowment of doctrinal education4 ,at   
the same time they were to establish the
 liquor interest--which is1 after all1  
the really potent instrument of         
government from above4 ,they were to    
bind the colonies to us by ties of      
fiscal preference1 and to establish the 
great commercial interests on the basis 
of protection4 ,their government1 as    
conceived by the best exponents of the  

new doctrine1 was by no means to be     
indifferent to the humanitarian claims  
of the social conscience4 ,they were to 
deal out factory acts1 and establish    
wages boards4 ,they were to make an     
efficient and a disciplined people4 ,in 
the idea of discipline the military     
element rapidly assumed a greater       
prominence4 ,but on this side the       
evolution of opinion passed through two 
well-marked phases4 ,the first was the  
period of optimism and expansion4 ,the  
,englishman was the born ruler of the   
world4 ,he might hold out a hand of     
friendship to the ,german and the       
,american1 whom he recognized as his    
kindred and who lived within the law4   
,the rest of the world was peopled by   
dying nations whose manifest destiny was
 to be administered by the coming races1
 and exploited by their commercial      
syndicates4 ,this mood of optimism did  
not survive the ,south ,african ,war4   
,it received its death-blow at ,colenso 
and ,magersfontein1 and within a few    

years fear had definitely taken the     
place of ambition as the mainspring of  
the movement to national and imperial   
consolidation4 ,the ,tariff ,reform     
movement was largely inspired by a sense
 of insecurity in our commercial        
position4 ,the half-patronizing         
friendship for ,germany rapidly gave    
way1 first to commercial jealousy1 and  
then to unconcealed alarm for our       
national safety4 ,all the powers of     
society were bent on lavish naval       
expenditure1 and of imposing the idea of
 compulsory service on a reluctant      
people4 ,the disciplined nation was     
needed no longer to dominate the world1 
but to maintain its own territory4      
,now1 we are not concerned here to      
follow up the devious windings of modern
 ,conservatism4 ,we have to note only   
that what modern democracy has to face  
is no mere inertia of tradition4 ,it is 
a distinct reactionary policy with a    
definite and not incoherent creed of its
 own1 an ideal which in its best        

expression--for example1 in the daily   
comments of the ,morning ,post--is      
certain to exercise a powerful          
attraction on many generous minds--the  
ideal of the efficient1 disciplined     
nation1 centre and dominating force of a
 powerful1 self-contained1 militant     
empire4 ,what concerns us more          
particularly is the reaction of         
,conservative development upon the      
fortunes of democracy4 ,but to          
understand this reaction1 and1 indeed1  
to make any sound estimate of the       
present position and prospects of       
,liberalism1 we must cast a rapid glance
 over the movement of progressive       
thought during the last generation4     
,when ,gladstone formed his second      
,government in #ahhj the old party      
system stood secure in ,great ,britain4 
,it was only a band of politicians from 
the other side of ,st4 ,george's        
,channel who disowned both the great    
allegiances4 ,for the ,british political
 mind the plain distinction of ,liberal 

and ,conservative held the field1 and   
the division was not yet a class        
distinction4 ,the great ,whig families  
held their place1 and they of the       
aristocratic houses divided the spoil4  
,but a new leaven was at work4 ,the     
prosperity which had culminated in #ahgb
 was passing away4 ,industrial progress 
slowed down2 and1 though the advance    
from the ,hungry ',forties had been     
immense1 men began to see the limit of  
what they could reasonably expect from  
retrenchment and ,free ,trade4 ,the work
 of ,mr4 ,henry ,george awakened new    
interest in problems of poverty1 and the
 idealism of ,william ,morris gave new  
inspiration to ,socialist propaganda4   
,meanwhile1 the teaching of ,green and  
the enthusiasm of ,toynbee were setting 
,liberalism free from the shackles of an
 individualist conception of liberty and
 paving the way for the legislation of  
our own time4 ,lastly1 the ,fabian      
,society brought ,socialism down from   
heaven and established a contact with   

practical politics and municipal        
government4 ,had ,great ,britain been an
 island in the mid-,pacific the onward  
movement would have been rapid and      
undeviating in its course4 ,as it was1  
the new ideas were reflected in the     
parliament and the cabinet of           
#ahhj-ahhe1 and the ,radicalism of      
,birmingham barely kept on terms with   
the ,whiggery of the clubs4 ,a          
redistribution of social forces which   
would amalgamate the interests of       
property on the one side and those of   
democracy on the other was imminent1 and
 on social questions democracy          
reinforced by the enfranchisement of the
 rural labourers in #ahhd stood to win4 
,at this stage the ,irish question came 
to a head4 ,mr4 ,gladstone declared for 
,home ,rule1 and the party fissure took 
place on false lines4 ,the upper and    
middle classes in the main went over to 
,unionism1 but they took with them a    
section of the ,radicals1 while ,mr4    
,gladstone's personal force retained on 

the ,liberal side a number of men whose 
insight into the needs of democracy was 
by no means profound4 ,the political    
fight was for the moment shifted from   
the social question to the single       
absorbing issue of ,home ,rule1 and the 
new ,unionist party enjoyed twenty years
 of almost unbroken supremacy4 ,again1  
had the ,home ,rule issue stood alone it
 might have been settled in #ahib1 but  
meanwhile in the later 'eighties the    
social question had become insistent4   
,socialism1 ceasing to be a merely      
academic force1 had begun to influence  
organized labour1 and had inspired the  
more generous minds among the artisans  
with the determination to grapple with  
the problem of the unskilled workmen4   
,from the ,dockers' strike of #ahhi the 
,new ,unionism became a fighting force  
in public affairs1 and the idea of a    
,labour party began to take shape4 ,on  
the new problems ,liberalism1 weakened  
as it already had been1 was further     
divided1 and its failure in #ahib is to 

be ascribed far more to this larger     
cause than to the dramatic personal     
incident of the ,parnell divorce4 ,in   
office without legislative power from   
#ahib to #ahie1 the ,liberal party only 
experienced further loss of credit1 and 
the rise of ,imperialism swept the whole
 current of public interest in a new    
direction4 ,the ,labour movement itself 
was paralyzed1 and the defeat of the    
,engineers in #ahig put an end to the   
hope of achieving a great social        
transformation by the method of the     
strike4 ,but1 in the meanwhile1 opinion 
was being silently transformed4 ,the    
labours of ,mr4 ,charles ,booth and his 
associates had at length stated the     
problem of poverty in scientific terms4 
,social and economic history was        
gradually taking shape as a virtually   
new branch of knowledge4 ,the work of   
,mr4 and ,mrs4 ,sidney ,webb helped to  
clear up the relations between the      
organized efforts of workmen and the    
functions of the ,state4 ,the discerning

 observer could trace the organic       
filaments of a fuller and more concrete 
social theory4  ,on the other hand1 in  
the ,liberal ranks many of the most     
influential men had passed1 without     
consciousness of the transition1 under  
the sway of quite opposite influences4  
,they were becoming ,imperialists in    
their sleep1 and it was only as the     
implications of ,imperialism became     
evident that they were awakened4 ,it was
 with the outbreak of the ,south        
,african ,war that the new development  
of ,conservative policy first compelled 
the average ,liberal to consider his    
position4 ,it needed the shock of an    
outspoken violation of right to stir    
him2 and we may date the revival of the 
idea of justice in the party as an      
organized force from the speech in the  
summer of #aija in which ,sir ,henry    
,campbell-,bannerman set himself against
 the stream of militant sentiment and   
challenged in a classic phrase the      
methods of the war4 ,from the day of    

this speech1 which was supposed at the  
time to have irretrievably ruined his   
political career1 the name of the       
party-leader1 hitherto greeted with     
indifference1 became a recognized signal
 for the cheers of a political meeting1 
and a man with no marked genius but that
 of character and the insight which     
character gave into the minds of his    
followers acquired in his party the     
position of a ,gladstone4 ,this was the 
first and fundamental victory1 the      
reinstatement of the idea of ,right in  
the mind of ,liberalism4 ,then1 as the  
,conservative attack developed and its  
implications became apparent1 one       
interest after another of the older     
,liberalism was rudely shaken into life4
 ,the ,education ,act of #aijb brought  
the ,nonconformists into action4 ,the   
,tariff ,reform movement put ,free      
,trade on its defence1 and taught men to
 realize what the older economics of    
,liberalism had done for them4 ,the     
,socialists of practical politics1 the  

,labour ,party1 found that they could by
 no means dispense with the discipline  
of ,cobden4 ,free ,trade finance was to 
be the basis of social reform4          
,liberalism and ,labour learned to      
co-operate in resisting delusive        
promises of remedies for unemployment   
and in maintaining the right of free    
international exchange4 ,meanwhile1     
,labour itself had experienced the full 
brunt of the attack4 ,it had come not   
from the politicians but from the       
judges1 but in this country we have to  
realize that within wide limits the     
judges are in effect legislators1 and   
legislators with a certain persistent   
bent which can be held in check only by 
the constant vigilance and repeated     
efforts of the recognized organ for the 
making and repeal of law4 ,in destroying
 the old position of the ,trade ,unions1
 the judges created the modern ,labour  
party and cemented its alliance with    
,liberalism4 ,meanwhile1 the aftermath  
of ,imperialism in ,south ,africa was   

reaped1 and ,conservative               
disillusionment unlocked the floodgates 
for the advancing tide of the ,liberal  
revival4  ,the tide has by no means     
spent itself4 ,if it no longer rushes in
 an electoral torrent as in #aijf it    
flows in a steady stream towards social 
amelioration and democratic government4 
,in this movement it is now sufficiently
 clear to all parties that the          
distinctive ideas of ,liberalism have a 
permanent function4 ,the ,socialist     
recognizes with perfect clearness1 for  
example1 that popular government is not 
a meaningless shibboleth1 but a reality 
that has to be maintained and extended  
by fighting4 ,he is well aware that he  
must deal with the ,house of ,lords and 
the ,plural vote if he is to gain his   
own ends4 ,he can no longer regard these
 questions as difficulties interposed by
 half-hearted ,liberals to distract     
attention from the ,social problem4 ,he 
is aware that the problem of ,home ,rule
 and of devolution generally is an      

integral part of the organization of    
democracy4 ,and1 as a rule1 he not      
merely acquiesces in the demand of women
 for a purely political right1 but only 
quarrels with the ,liberal party for its
 tardiness in meeting the demand4 ,the  
old ,liberal idea of peace and          
retrenchment again is recognized by the 
,socialistic1 and indeed by the whole   
body of social reformers1 as equally    
essential for the successful prosecution
 of their aims4 ,popular budgets will   
bring no relief to human suffering if   
the revenues that they secure are all to
 go upon the most expensive ship that is
 the fashion of the moment1 nor can the 
popular mind devote itself to the       
improvement of domestic conditions while
 it is distracted either by ambitions or
 by scares4 ,on the other side1 the     
,liberal who starts from the            
,gladstonian tradition has in large     
measure realized that if he is to       
maintain the essence of his old ideas it
 must be through a process of adaptation

 and growth4 ,he has learnt that while  
,free ,trade laid the foundations of    
prosperity it did not erect the         
building4 ,he has to acknowledge that it
 has not solved the problems of         
unemployment1 of underpayment1 of       
overcrowding4 ,he has to look deeper    
into the meaning of liberty and to take 
account of the bearing of actual        
conditions on the meaning of equality4  
,as an apostle of peace and an opponent 
of swollen armaments1 he has come to    
recognize that the expenditure of the   
social surplus upon the instruments of  
progress is the real alternative to its 
expenditure on the instruments of war4  
,as a ,temperance man he is coming to   
rely more on the indirect effect of     
social improvement on the one hand and  
the elimination of monopolist profit on 
the other1 than on the uncertain chances
 of absolute prohibition4  ,there are1  
then1 among the composite forces which  
maintained the ,liberal ,government in  
power through the crisis of #aiaj1 the  

elements of such an organic view as may 
inspire and direct a genuine social     
progress4 ,liberalism has passed through
 its ,slough of ,despond1 and in the    
give and take of ideas with ,socialism  
has learnt1 and taught1 more than one   
lesson4 ,the result is a broader and    
deeper movement in which the cooler and 
clearer minds recognize below the       
differences of party names and in spite 
of certain real cross-currents a genuine
 unity of purpose4 ,what are the        
prospects of this movement8 ,will it be 
maintained8 ,is it the steady stream to 
which we have compared it1 or a wave    
which must gradually sink into the      
trough8  ,to put this question is to ask
 in effect whether democracy is in      
substance as well as in form a possible 
mode of government4 ,to answer this     
question we must ask what democracy     
really means1 and why it is the         
necessary basis of the ,liberal idea4   
,the question has already been raised   
incidentally1 and we have seen reason to

 dismiss both the individualist and the 
,benthamite argument for popular        
government as unsatisfactory4 ,we even  
admitted a doubt whether some of the    
concrete essentials of liberty and      
social justice might not1 under certain 
conditions1 be less fully realized under
 a widely-extended suffrage than under  
the rule of a superior class or a       
well-ordered despotism4 ,on what1 then1 
it may be asked1 do we found our        
conception of democracy8 ,is it on      
general principles of social philosophy1
 or on the special conditions of our own
 country or of contemporary             
civilization8 ,and how does our         
conception relate itself to our other   
ideas of the social order8 ,do we assume
 that the democracy will in the main    
accept these ideas1 or if it rejects    
them are we willing to acquiesce in its 
decision as final8 ,and in the end what 
do we expect8 ,will democracy assert    
itself1 will it find a common purpose   
and give it concrete shape8 ,or will it 

blunder on1 the passive subject of      
scares and ambitions1 frenzies of       
enthusiasm and dejection1 clay in the   
hands of those whose profession it is to
 model it to their will4  ,first as to  
the general principle4 ,democracy is not
 founded merely on the right or the     
private interest of the individual4     
,this is only one side of the shield4   
,it is founded equally on the function  
of the individual as a member of the    
community4 ,it founds the common good   
upon the common will1 in forming which  
it bids every grown-up1 intelligent     
person to take a part4 ,no doubt many   
good things may be achieved for a people
 without responsive effort on its own   
part4 ,it may be endowed with a good    
police1 with an equitable system of     
private law1 with education1 with       
personal freedom1 with a well-organized 
industry4 ,it may receive these         
blessings at the hands of a foreign     
ruler1 or from an enlightened           
bureaucracy or a benevolent monarch4    

,however obtained1 they are all very    
good things4 ,but the democratic theory 
is that1 so obtained1 they lack a       
vitalizing element4 ,a people so        
governed resembles an individual who has
 received all the external gifts of     
fortune1 good teachers1 healthy         
surroundings1 a fair breeze to fill his 
sails1 but owes his prosperous voyage to
 little or no effort of his own4 ,we do 
not rate such a man so high as one who  
struggles through adversity to a much   
less eminent position4 ,what we possess 
has its intrinsic value1 but how we came
 to possess it is also an important     
question4 ,it is so with a society4     
,good government is much1 but the good  
will is more1 and even the imperfect1   
halting1 confused utterance of the      
common will may have in it the potency  
of higher things than a perfection of   
machinery can ever attain4  ,but this   
principle makes one very large          
assumption4 ,it postulates the existence
 of a common will4 ,it assumes that the 

individuals whom it would enfranchise   
can enter into the common life and      
contribute to the formation of a common 
decision by a genuine interest in public
 transactions4 ,where and in so far as  
this assumption definitely fails1 there 
is no case for democracy4 ,progress1 in 
such a case1 is not wholly impossible1  
but it must depend on the number of     
those who do care for the things that   
are of social value1 who advance        
knowledge or civilize life through the  
discoveries of art1 or form a narrow but
 effective public opinion in support of 
liberty and order4 ,we may go further4  
,whatever the form of government        
progress always does in fact depend on  
those who so think and live1 and on the 
degree in which these common interests  
envelop their life and thought4 ,now1   
complete and wholehearted absorption in 
public interests is rare4 ,it is the    
property not of the mass but of the few1
 and the democrat is well aware that it 
is the remnant which saves the people4  

,he subjoins only that if their effort  
is really to succeed the people must be 
willing to be saved4 ,the masses who    
spend their toilsome days in mine or    
factory struggling for bread have not   
their heads for ever filled with the    
complex details of international policy 
or industrial law4 ,to expect this would
 be absurd4 ,what is not exaggerated is 
to expect them to respond and assent to 
the things that make for the moral and  
material welfare of the country1 and the
 position of the democrat is that the   
remnant is better occupied in convincing
 the people and carrying their minds and
 wills with it than in imposing on them 
laws which they are concerned only to   
obey and enjoy4 ,at the same time1 the  
remnant1 be it never so select1 has     
always much to learn4 ,some men are much
 better and wiser than others1 but      
experience seems to show that hardly any
 man is so much better or wiser than    
others that he can permanently stand the
 test of irresponsible power over them4 

,on the contrary1 the best and wisest is
 he who is ready to go to the humblest  
in a spirit of inquiry1 to find out what
 he wants and why he wants it before    
seeking to legislate for him4 ,admitting
 the utmost that can be said for the    
necessity of leadership1 we must at the 
same time grant that the perfection of  
leadership itself lies in securing the  
willing1 convinced1 open-eyed support of
 the mass4  ,thus individuals will      
contribute to the social will in very   
varying degrees1 but the democratic     
thesis is that the formation of such a  
will1 that is1 in effect1 the extension 
of intelligent interest in all manner of
 public things1 is in itself a good1 and
 more than that1 it is a condition      
qualifying other good things4 ,now the  
extension of interest is not to be      
created by democratic forms of          
government1 and if it neither exists nor
 can be brought into existence1         
democracy remains an empty form and may 
even be worse than useless4 ,on the     

other hand1 where the capacity exists   
the establishment of responsible        
government is the first condition of its
 development4 ,even so it is not the    
sole condition4 ,the modern ,state is a 
vast and complex organism4 ,the         
individual voter feels himself lost     
among the millions4 ,he is imperfectly  
acquainted with the devious issues and  
large problems of the day1 and is       
sensible how little his solitary vote   
can affect their decision4 ,what he     
needs to give him support and direction 
is organization with his neighbours and 
fellow workers4 ,he can understand1 for 
example1 the affairs of his trade union1
 or1 again1 of his chapel4 ,they are    
near to him4 ,they affect him1 and he   
feels that he can affect them4 ,through 
these interests1 again1 he comes into   
touch with wider questions--with a      
,factory ,bill or an ,education         
,bill--and in dealing with these        
questions he will now act as one of an  
organized body1 whose combined voting   

strength will be no negligible quantity4
 ,responsibility comes home to him1 and 
to bring home responsibility is the     
problem of all government4 ,the         
development of social interest--and that
 is democracy--depends not only on adult
 suffrage and the supremacy of the      
elected legislature1 but on all the     
intermediate organizations which link   
the individual to the whole4 ,this is   
one among the reasons why devolution and
 the revival of local government1 at    
present crushed in this country by a    
centralized bureaucracy1 are of the     
essence of democratic progress4  ,the   
success of democracy depends on the     
response of the voters to the           
opportunities given them4 ,but1         
conversely1 the opportunities must be   
given in order to call forth the        
response4 ,the exercise of popular      
government is itself an education4 ,in  
considering whether any class or sex or 
race should be brought into the circle  
of enfranchisement1 the determining     

consideration is the response which that
 class or sex or race would be likely to
 make to the trust4 ,would it enter     
effectively into the questions of public
 life1 or would it be so much passive   
voting material1 wax in the hands of the
 less scrupulous politicians8 ,the      
question is a fair one1 but people are  
too ready to answer it in the less      
favourable sense on the ground of the   
actual indifference or ignorance which  
they find or think they find among the  
unenfranchised4 ,they forget that in    
that regard enfranchisement itself may  
be precisely the stimulus needed to     
awaken interest1 and while they are     
impressed with the danger of admitting  
ignorant and irresponsible1 and perhaps 
corruptible voters to a voice in the    
government1 they are apt to overlook the
 counterbalancing danger of leaving a   
section of the community outside the    
circle of civic responsibility4 ,the    
actual work of government must affect1  
and also it must be affected by1 its    

relation to all who live within the     
realm4 ,to secure good adaptation it    
ought1 ,i will not say to reflect1 but  
at least to take account of1 the        
dispositions and circumstances of every 
class in the population4 ,if any one    
class is dumb1 the result is that       
,government is to that extent           
uninformed4 ,it is not merely that the  
interests of that class may suffer1 but 
that1 even with the best will1 mistakes 
may be made in handling it1 because it  
cannot speak for itself4 ,officious     
spokesmen will pretend to represent its 
views1 and will obtain1 perhaps1 undue  
authority merely because there is no way
 of bringing them to book4 ,so among    
ourselves does the press constantly     
represent public opinion to be one thing
 while the cold arithmetic of the polls 
conclusively declares it to be another4 
,the ballot alone effectively liberates 
the quiet citizen from the tyranny of   
the shouter and the wire-puller4  ,i    
conclude that an impression of existing 

inertness or ignorance is not a         
sufficient reason for withholding       
responsible government or restricting   
the area of the suffrage4 ,there must be
 a well-grounded view that political    
incapacity is so deep-rooted that the   
extension of political rights would tend
 only to facilitate undue influence by  
the less scrupulous sections of the more
 capable part of the people4 ,thus where
 we have an oligarchy of white planters 
in the midst of a coloured population1  
it is always open to doubt whether a    
general colour-franchise will be a sound
 method of securing even-handed justice4
 ,the economic and social conditions may
 be such that the coloured man would    
just have to vote as his master told    
him1 and if the elementary rights are to
 be secured for all it may be that a    
semi-despotic system like that of some  
of our ,crown colonies is the best that 
can be devised4 ,on the other side1 that
 which is most apt to frighten a        
governing class or race1 a clamour on   

the part of an unenfranchised people for
 political rights1 is to the democrat   
precisely the strongest reason that he  
can have in the absence of direct       
experience for believing them fit for   
the exercise of civic responsibility4   
,he welcomes signs of dissatisfaction   
among the disfranchised as the best     
proof of awakening interest in public   
affairs1 and he has none of those fears 
of ultimate social disruption which are 
a nightmare to bureaucracies because    
experience has sufficiently proved to   
him the healing power of freedom1 of    
responsibility1 and of the sense of     
justice4 ,moreover1 a democrat cannot be
 a democrat for his own country alone4  
,he cannot but recognize the complex and
 subtle interactions of nation upon     
nation which make every local success or
 failure of democracy tell upon other   
countries4 ,nothing has been more       
encouraging to the ,liberalism of       
,western ,europe in recent years than   
the signs of political awakening in the 

,east4 ,until yesterday it seemed as    
though it would in the end be impossible
 to resist the ultimate destiny of the  
white races to be masters of the rest of
 the world4 ,the result would have been 
that1 however far democracy might       
develop within any ,western ,state1 it  
would always be confronted with a       
contrary principle in the relation of   
that ,state to dependencies1 and this   
contradiction1 as may easily be seen by 
the attentive student of our own        
political constitutions1 is a standing  
menace to domestic freedom4 ,the        
awakening of the ,orient1 from          
,constantinople to ,pekin1 is the       
greatest and most hopeful political fact
 of our time1 and it is with the deepest
 shame that ,english ,liberals have been
 compelled to look on while our ,foreign
 ,office has made itself the accomplice 
in the attempt to nip ,persian freedom  
in the bud1 and that in the interest of 
the most ruthless tyranny that has ever 
crushed the liberties of a white people4

  ,the cause of democracy is bound up   
with that of internationalism4 ,the     
relation is many-sided4 ,it is national 
pride1 resentment1 or ambition one day  
that sweeps the public mind and diverts 
it from all interest in domestic        
progress4 ,the next day the same        
function is performed no less adequately
 by a scare4 ,the practice of playing on
 popular emotions has been reduced to a 
fine art which neither of the great     
parties is ashamed to employ4 ,military 
ideals possess the mind1 and military   
expenditure eats up the public          
resources4 ,on the other side1 the      
political economic and social progress  
of other nations reacts on our own4 ,the
 backwardness of our commercial rivals  
in industrial legislation was long made 
an argument against further advances    
among ourselves4 ,conversely1 when they 
go beyond us1 as now they often do1 we  
can learn from them4 ,physically the    
world is rapidly becoming one1 and its  
unity must ultimately be reflected in   

political institutions4 ,the old        
doctrine of absolute sovereignty is     
dead4 ,the greater ,states of the day   
exhibit a complex system of government  
within government1 authority limited by 
authority1 and the world-state of the   
not impossible future must be based on a
 free national self-direction as full   
and satisfying as that enjoyed by       
,canada or ,australia within the        
,british ,empire at this moment4        
,national emulation will express itself 
less in the desire to extend territory  
or to count up ships and guns1 and more 
in the endeavour to magnify the         
contribution of our own country to      
civilized life4 ,just as in the rebirth 
of our municipal life we find a civic   
patriotism which takes interest in the  
local university1 which feels pride in  
the magnitude of the local industry1    
which parades the lowest death rate in  
the country1 which is honestly ashamed  
of a bad record for crime or pauperism1 
so as ,englishmen we shall concern      

ourselves less with the question whether
 two of our ,dreadnoughts might not be  
pitted against one ,german1 and more    
with the question whether we cannot     
equal ,germany in the development of    
science1 of education1 and of industrial
 technique4 ,perhaps even1 recovering   
from our present artificially induced   
and radically insincere mood of national
 self-abasement1 we shall learn to take 
some pride in our own characteristic    
contributions as a nation to the arts of
 government1 to the thought1 the        
literature1 the art1 the mechanical     
inventions which have made and are      
re-making modern civilization4          
,standing by national autonomy and      
international equality1 ,liberalism is  
necessarily in conflict with the        
,imperial idea as it is ordinarily      
presented4 ,but this is not to say that 
it is indifferent to the interests of   
the ,empire as a whole1 to the sentiment
 of unity pervading its white           
population1 to all the possibilities    

involved in the bare fact that a fourth 
part of the human race recognizes one   
flag and one supreme authority4 ,in     
relation to the self-governing colonies 
the ,liberal of today has to face a     
change in the situation since ,cobden's 
time not unlike that which we have      
traced in other departments4 ,the       
,colonial ,empire as it stands is in    
substance the creation of the older     
,liberalism4 ,it is founded on          
self-government1 and self-government is 
the root from which the existing        
sentiment of unity has sprung4 ,the     
problem of our time is to devise means  
for the more concrete and living        
expression of this sentiment without    
impairing the rights of self-government 
on which it depends4 ,hitherto the      
,imperialist has had matters all his own
 way and has cleverly exploited         
,colonial opinion1 or an appearance of  
,colonial opinion1 in favour of class   
ascendancy and reactionary legislation  
in the mother country4 ,but the colonies

 include the most democratic communities
 in the world4 ,their natural sympathies
 are not with the ,conservatives1 but   
with the most ,progressive parties in   
the ,united ,kingdom4 ,they favour ,home
 ,rule1 they set the pace in social     
legislation4 ,there exist accordingly   
the political conditions of a democratic
 alliance which it is the business of   
the ,british ,liberal to turn to        
account4 ,he may hope to make his       
country the centre of a group of        
self-governing1 democratic communities1 
one of which1 moreover1 serves as a     
natural link with the other great       
commonwealth of ,english-speaking       
people4 ,the constitutional mechanism of
 the new unity begins to take shape in  
the ,imperial ,council1 and its work    
begins to define itself as the          
adjustment of interests as between      
different portions of the ,empire and   
the organization of common defence4     
,such a union is no menace to the       
world's peace or to the cause of        

freedom4 ,on the contrary1 as a natural 
outgrowth of a common sentiment1 it is  
one of the steps towards a wider unity  
which involves no backstroke against the
 ideal of self-government4 ,it is a     
model1 and that on no mean scale1 of the
 ,international ,state4                 
,internationalism on the one side1      
national self-government on the other1  
are the radical conditions of the growth
 of a social mind which is the essence1 
as opposed to the form1 of democracy4   
,but as to form itself a word must1 in  
conclusion1 be said4 ,if the forms are  
unsuitable the will cannot express      
itself1 and if it fails of adequate     
expression it is in the end thwarted1   
repressed and paralyzed4 ,in the matter 
of form the inherent difficulty of      
democratic government1 whether direct or
 representative1 is that it is          
government by majority1 not government  
by universal consent4 ,its decisions are
 those of the larger part of the people1
 not of the whole4 ,this defect is an   

unavoidable consequence of the          
necessities of decision and the         
impossibility of securing universal     
agreement4 ,statesmen have sought to    
remedy it by applying something of the  
nature of a brake upon the process of   
change4 ,they have felt that to justify 
a new departure of any magnitude there  
must be something more than a bare      
majority4 ,there must either be a large 
majority1 two-thirds or three-fourths of
 the electorate1 or there must be some  
friction to be overcome which will serve
 to test the depth and force as well as 
the numerical extent of the feeling     
behind the new proposal4 ,in the ,united
 ,kingdom we have one official brake1   
the ,house of ,lords1 and several       
unofficial ones1 the civil service1 the 
permanent determined opposition of the  
,bench to democratic measures1 the      
,press1 and all that we call ,society4  
,all these brakes act in one way only4  
,there is no brake upon reaction--a lack
 which becomes more serious in          

proportion as the ,conservative party   
acquires a definite and constructive    
policy of its own4 ,in this situation   
the ,liberal party set itself to deal   
with the official brake by the simple   
method of reducing its effective        
strength1 but1 to be honest1 without    
having made up its mind as to the nature
 of the brake which it would like to    
substitute4 ,on this question a few     
general remarks would seem to be in     
place4 ,the function of a check on the  
,house of ,commons is to secure         
reconsideration4 ,conservative leaders  
are in the right when they point to the 
accidental elements that go to the      
constitution of parliamentary           
majorities4 ,the programme of any       
general election is always composite1   
and a man finds himself compelled1 for  
example1 to choose between a ,tariff    
,reformer whose views on education he   
approves1 and a ,free ,trader whose     
educational policy he detests4 ,in part 
this defect might be remedied by the    

,proportional system to which1 whether  
against the grain or not1 ,liberals will
 find themselves driven the more they   
insist on the genuinely representative  
character of the ,house of ,commons4    
,but even a ,proportional system would  
not wholly clear the issues before the  
electorate4 ,the average man gives his  
vote on the question which he takes to  
be most important in itself1 and which  
he supposes to be most likely to come up
 for immediate settlement4 ,but he is   
always liable to find his expectations  
defeated1 and a ,parliament which is in 
reality elected on one issue may proceed
 to deal with quite another4 ,the remedy
 proposed by the ,parliament ,bill was a
 two years' delay1 which1 it was held1  
would secure full discussion and        
considerable opportunity for the        
manifestation of opinion should it be   
adverse4 ,this proposal had been put to 
the constituencies twice over1 and had  
been ratified by them if any legislative
 proposal ever was ratified4 ,it should 

enable the ,house of ,commons1 as the   
representatives of the people1 to decide
 freely on the permanent constitution of
 the country4 ,the ,bill itself1        
however1 does not lay down the lines of 
a permanent settlement4 ,for1 to begin  
with1 in leaving the constitution of the
 ,house of ,lords unaltered it provides 
a one-sided check1 operating only on    
democratic measures which in any case   
have to run the gauntlet of the         
permanent officials1 the judges1 the    
,press1 and ,society4 ,for permanent use
 the brake must be two-sided4 ,secondly1
 it is to be feared that the principle  
of delay would be an insufficient check 
upon a large and headstrong majority4   
,what is really needed is that the      
people should have the opportunity of   
considering a proposal afresh4 ,this    
could be secured in either of two ways3 
7#a7 by allowing the suspensory veto of 
the ,second ,chamber to hold a measure  
over to a new ,parliament2 7#b7 by      
allowing the ,house of ,commons to      

submit a bill in the form in which it   
finally leaves the ,house to a direct   
popular vote4 ,it is to my mind         
regrettable that so many ,liberals      
should have closed the door on the      
,referendum4 ,it is true that there are 
many measures to which it would be ill  
suited4 ,for example1 measures affecting
 a particular class or a particular     
locality would be apt to go by the      
board4 ,they might command a large and  
enthusiastic majority among those       
primarily affected by them1 but only    
receive a languid assent elsewhere1 and 
they might be defeated by a majority    
beaten up for extraneous purposes among 
those without first-hand knowledge of   
the problems with which they are        
intended to deal4 ,again1 if a          
referendum were to work at all it would 
only be in relation to measures of the  
first class1 and only1 if the public    
convenience is to be consulted1 on very 
rare occasions4 ,in all ordinary cases  
of insuperable difference between the   

,houses1 the government of the day would
 accept the postponement of the measure 
till the new ,parliament4 ,but there are
 measures of urgency1 measures of       
fundamental import1 above all1 measures 
which cut across the ordinary lines of  
party1 and with which1 in consequence1  
our system is impotent to deal1 and on  
these the direct consultation of the    
people would be the most suitable method
 of solution4#ac  ,what we need1 then1  
is an impartial second chamber          
distinctly subordinate to the ,house of 
,commons1 incapable of touching finance 
and therefore of overthrowing a         
ministry1 but able to secure the        
submission of a measure either to the   
direct vote of the people or to the     
verdict of a second election--the       
government of the day having the choice 
between the alternatives4 ,such a       
chamber might be instituted by direct   
popular election4 ,but the              
multiplication of elections is not good 
for the working of democracy1 and it    

would be difficult to reconcile a       
directly elected house to a subordinate 
position4 ,it might1 therefore1 as an   
alternative1 be elected on a            
proportional system by the ,house of    
,commons itself1 its members retaining  
their seat for two ,parliaments4 ,to    
bridge over the change half of the      
chamber for the present ,parliament     
might be elected by the existing ,house 
of ,lords1 and their representatives    
retiring at the end of this ,parliament 
would leave the next ,house of ,commons 
and every future ,house of ,commons with
 one-half of the chamber to elect4 ,this
 ,second ,chamber would then reflect in 
equal proportions the existing and the  
last ,house of ,commons1 and the balance
 between parties should be fairly       
held4#ad ,this chamber would have ample 
power of securing reasonable amendments 
and would also have good ground for     
exercising moderation in pressing its   
views4 ,if the public were behind the   
measure it would know that in the end   

the ,house of ,commons could carry it in
 its teeth1 whether by referendum or by 
a renewed vote of confidence at a       
general election4 ,the ,commons1 on     
their side1 would have reasons for      
exhibiting a conciliatory temper4 ,they 
would not wish to be forced either to   
postpone or to appeal4 ,as to which     
method they would choose they would have
 absolute discretion1 and if they went  
to the country with a series of popular 
measures hung up and awaiting their     
return for ratification1 they would     
justly feel themselves in a strong      
position4  ,so far as to forms4 ,the    
actual future of democracy1 however1    
rests upon deeper issues4 ,it is bound  
up with the general advance of          
civilization4 ,the organic character of 
society is1 we have seen1 in one sense1 
an ideal4 ,in another sense it is an    
actuality4 ,that is to say1 nothing of  
any import affects the social life on   
one side without setting up reactions   
all through the tissue4 ,hence1 for     

example1 we cannot maintain great       
political progress without some         
corresponding advance on other sides4   
,people are not fully free in their     
political capacity when they are subject
 industrially to conditions which take  
the life and heart out of them4 ,a      
nation as a whole cannot be in the full 
sense free while it fears another or    
gives cause of fear to another4 ,the    
social problem must be viewed as a      
whole4 ,we touch here the greatest      
weakness in modern reform movements4    
,the spirit of specialism has invaded   
political and social activity1 and in   
greater and greater degree men          
consecrate their whole energy to a      
particular cause to the almost cynical  
disregard of all other considerations4  
,not such the help1 nor these the       
defenders which this moment of the      
world's progress needs4 ,rather we want 
to learn our supreme lesson from the    
school of ,cobden4 ,for them the        
political problem was one1 manifold in  

its ramifications but undivided in its  
essence4 ,it was a problem of realizing 
liberty4 ,we have seen reason to think  
that their conception of liberty was too
 thin1 and that to appreciate its       
concrete content we must understand it  
as resting upon mutual restraint and    
value it as a basis of mutual aid4 ,for 
us1 therefore1 harmony serves better as 
a unifying conception4 ,it remains for  
us to carry it through with the same    
logical cogency1 the same practical     
resourcefulness1 the same driving force 
that inspired the earlier ,radicals1    
that gave fire to ,cobden's statistics1 
and lent compelling power to the        
eloquence of ,bright4 ,we need less of  
the fanatics of sectarianism and more of
 the unifying mind4 ,our reformers must 
learn to rely less on the advertising   
value of immediate success and more on  
the deeper but less striking changes of 
practice or of feeling1 to think less of
 catching votes and more of convincing  
opinion4 ,we need a fuller co-operation 

among those of genuine democratic       
feeling and more agreement as to the    
order of reform4 ,at present progress is
 blocked by the very competition of many
 causes for the first place in the      
advance4 ,here1 again1 devolution will  
help us1 but what would help still more 
would be a clearer sense of the         
necessity of co-operation between all   
who profess and call themselves         
democrats1 based on a fuller            
appreciation of the breadth and the     
depth of their own meaning4 ,the advice 
seems cold to the fiery spirits1 but    
they may come to learn that the vision  
of justice in the wholeness of her      
beauty kindles a passion that may not   
flare up into moments of dramatic       
scintillation1 but burns with the       
enduring glow of the central heat4      
,,footnotes3  #ac ,i need hardly add    
that financial measures are entirely    
unsuited to a referendum4 ,financial and
 executive control go together1 and to  
take either of them out of the hands of 

the majority in the ,house of ,commons  
is not to reform our system but to      
destroy it root and branch4 ,the same is
 not true of legislative control4 ,there
 are cases in which a government might  
fairly submit a legislative measure to  
the people without electing to stand or 
fall by it4  #ad ,probably the best     
alternative to these proposals is that  
of a small directly elected ,second     
,chamber1 with a provision for a joint  
session in case of insuperable          
disagreement1 but with no provision for 
delay4 ,this proposal has the advantage1
 apparently1 of commanding a measure of 
,conservative support4                  
,,bibliography   ,,locke4--,second      
,treatise on ,civil ,government 7#afhi74
  ,,paine4--,the ,rights of ,man        
7#agib74  ,,bentham4--,principles of    
,morals and ,legislation 7#aghi674  ,j4 
,s4 ,,mill4--,principles of ,political  
,economy 7,books ,,iv and ,v74     ,on  
,liberty4     ,representative           
,government4     ,the ,subjection of    

,women4     ,autobiography4             
,,cobden4--,political ,writings4        
,,bright4--,speeches4  ,,mazzini4--,the 
,duties of ,man4     ,thoughts on       
,democracy in ,europe4  ,,jevons4--,the 
,state in ,relation to ,labour4  ,t4 ,h4
 ,,green4--,principles of ,political    
,obligation4 ,liberal ,legislation and  
,freedom of ,contract 7,works1 vol4     
iii74  ,,morley4--,life of ,cobden4     
,life of ,gladstone4  ,f4 ,w4           
,,hirst4--,the ,manchester ,school4  ,g4
 ,,lowes ,,dickinson4--,liberty and     
,justice4  ,,prof4 ,h4 ,,jones4--,the   
,working ,faith of the ,social          
,reformer4  ,,prof4 ,mc,c,u,n,n4--,six  
,radical ,thinkers4     ,,index         
,association1 right of1 #cg-h           
,authoritarian rule1 #h-aj1 #ah1 #ba1   
#dg1 #ed   ,birth rate1 #aha   ,charity1
 ,state1 and ,justice1 #ahb  ,church and
 ,state1 #ab  ,city ,states1 #aj-ac1 #af
  ,civil liberty1 #ba  ,coercion1 where 
justified1 #aci-aed  ,colonies1 #da-d1  
#ajf1 #baf1 #bdj  ,conservatism1 #hh1   

#agf1 #bag   ,democracy1 future of1     
#bbg-bcf1 #bdb-ea   ,economic liberty1  
#cd-h1 #aeg  ,education1 #cb1 #dj1 #aed 
,feudalism1 #ae-ah  ,fiscal liberty1    
#be-f1 #cd1 #gh-ha  ,foreign policy1    
#da1 #ajd-e  ,freedom1 conditions of1   
#bc-d1 #bh1 #ca1 #eh1 #ia-b1 #adj1 #adf 
,gladstone1 ,w4 ,e41 #ajb-f  ,greece1   
ancient1 #aj-ac   ,habeas ,corpus ,act1 
#bc   ,imperialism1 #bae1 #bba-d1 #bci  
,industry1 regulation of1 #ce-f1 #hb-h1 
#ic  ,inequality1 the defence of1 #aca  
,inherited wealth1 #aig-i  ,ireland1    
#da1 #ajc1 #bai1 #bbd   ,laissez-faire1 
#gh-aja  ,land question1 #hb1 #ie-h1    
#age-f1 #aib-c  ,liberalism1 beginning  
of1 #ai1 #ea   ,manchester school1 #eg  
,militarism1 #h1 #de1 #hj1 #adh1 #bcg-i 
,mill1 ,j4 ,s41 #ajg-ae1 #aaf           
,monopolies1 #ig-ajj   ,national        
liberty1 #dj-d  ,natural order1 theory  
of1 #ed-fd   ,old ,age ,pensions1 #aef1 
#agg  ,opinion1 ,liberty and1 #aaf-bc   
,organic ,concept of ,society1 #abe-cj1 
#ace   ,peace1 ,international1 #hj-a1   

#bbe1 #bcg  ,personal liberty1 #bf-ca   
,petition of ,right1 #bb  ,poor ,law1   
#aee1 #agg-i1 #ahd  ,popular            
sovereignty1 #de-h1 #fd1 #aab  ,poverty 
line1 #afb  ,progress1 nature of1 #acg  
,property1 rights of1 #id-e1 #ajj1 #afh1
 #ahf1 #ahh  ,proportional              
representation1 #aad1 #bdc              
,referendum1 #bde-f  ,religions liberty1
 #bi-ca  ,revolutionary ,declarations1  
#fj-b  ,rome1 ancient1 #ac-ad   ,second 
,chamber1 the1 #bdb-h  ,socialism1 #afe1
 #afg-gb1 #aia1 #baa1 #bae1 #bai        
,social liberty1 #ca-c1 #adj            
,speculation1 #aie  ,super-tax1 #aii-bja
   ,temperance1 #ahj1 #bbf  ,trade      
unions1 #ch1 #hd1 #afa1 #bbj1 #bbc      
,unemployed1 #afj  ,utilitarianism1 #eg1
 #fe-gg1 #ajg   ,wage1 living1 #aei1    
#afc-d1 #agg1 #bje-h  ,wealth1 social   
basis of1 #ahg-ia1 #aid  ,women1 rights 
of1 #cc1 #ci1 #hf1 #aab1 #aad1 #agi     
,work1 right to1 #aei   ,printed by ,the
 ,riverside ,press1 ,edinburgh