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