Buttosupposethatoneorafewhumanbeings，
howsoeverselected，could，bywhatevermachineryofsubordinate
agency，bequalifiedtoadapteachperson’sworktohiscapacity，
andproportioneachperson’sremunerationtohismerits——tobe，
infact，thedispensersofdistributivejusticetoeverymember
ofacommunity;orthatanyusewhichtheycouldmakeofthis
powerwouldgivegeneralsatisfaction，orwouldbesubmittedto
withouttheaidofforce——isasuppositionalmosttoo
chimericaltobereasonedagainst。Afixedrule，likethatof
equality，mightbeacquiescedin，andsomightchance，oran
externalnecessity;butthatahandfulofhumanbeingsshould
weigheverybodyinthebalance，andgivemoretooneandlessto
anotherattheirsolepleasureandjudgmentwouldnotbeborne，
unlessfrompersonsbelievedtobemorethanmen，andbackedby
supernaturalterrors。
Themostskilfullycombined，andwiththegreatestforesight
ofobjections，ofalltheformsofSocialism，isthatcommonly
knownasFourierism。Thissystemdoesnotcontemplatethe
abolitionofprivateproperty，norevenofinheritance;onthe
contrary，itavowedlytakesintoconsideration，asanelementin
thedistributionoftheproduce，capitalaswellaslabour。It
proposesthattheoperationsofindustryshouldbecarriedonby
associationsofabouttwothousandmembers，combiningtheir
labouronadistrictofaboutasquareleagueinextent，under
theguidanceofchiefsselectedbythemselves。Inthe
distribution，acertainminimumisfirstassignedforthe
subsistenceofeverymemberofthecommunity，whethercapableor
notoflabour。Theremainderoftheproduceissharedincertain
proportions，tobedeterredbeforehand，amongthethreeelements，
Labour，Capital，andTalent。Thecapitalofthecommunitymaybe
ownedinunequalsharesbydifferentmembers，whowouldinthat
casereceive，asinanyotherjoint—stockcompany，proportional
dividends。Theclaimofeachpersonontheshareoftheproduce
apportionedtotalent，isestimatedbythegradeorrankwhich
theindividualoccupiesintheseveralgroupsoflabourersto
whichheorshebelongs;thesegradesbeinginallcases
conferredbythechoiceofhisorhercompanions。The
remuneration，whenreceived，wouldnotofnecessitybeexpended
orenjoyedincommon;therewouldbeseparatemenagesforallwho
preferredthem，andnoothercommunityoflivingiscontemplated，
thanthatallthemembersoftheassociationshouldresideinthe
samepileofbuildings;forsavingoflabourandexpense，not
onlyinbuilding，butineverybranchofdomesticeconomy;andin
orderthat，thewholeofthebuyingandsellingoperationsofthe
communitybeingperformedbyasingleagent，theenormousportion
oftheproduceofindustrynowcarriedoffbytheprofitsofmere
distributorsmightbereducedtothesmallestamountpossible。
Thissystem，unlikeCommunism，doesnot，intheoryatleast，
withdrawanyofthemotivestoexertionwhichexistinthe
presentstateofsociety。Onthecontrary，ifthearrangement
workedaccordingtotheintentionsofitscontrivers，itwould
evenstrengthenthosemotives;sinceeachpersonwouldhavemuch
morecertaintyofreapingindividuallythefruitsofincreased
skillorenergy，bodilyormental，thanunderthepresentsocial
arrangementscanbefeltbyanybutthosewhoareinthemost
advantageouspositions，ortowhomthechapterofaccidentsis
morethanordinarilyfavourable。TheFourierists，however，have
stillanotherresource。Theybelievethattheyhavesolvedthe
greatandfundamentalproblemofrenderinglabourattractive。
Thatthisisnotimpracticable，theycontendbyverystrong
arguments;inparticularbyonewhichtheyhaveincommonwith
theOwenites，viz。，thatscarcelyanylabour，howeversevere，
undergonebyhumanbeingsforthesakeofsubsistence，exceedsin
intensitythatwhichotherhumanbeings，whosesubsistenceis
alreadyprovidedfor，arefoundreadyandeveneagertoundergo
forpleasure。Thiscertainlyisamostsignificantfact，andone
fromwhichthestudentinsocialphilosophymaydrawimportant
instruction。Buttheargumentfoundedonitmayeasilybe
stretchedtoofar。Ifoccupationsfullofdiscomfortandfatigue
arefreelypursuedbymanypersonsasamusements，whodoesnot
seethattheyareamusementsexactlybecausetheyarepursued
freely，andmaybediscontinuedatpleasure？Thelibertyof
quittingapositionoftenmakesthewholedifferencebetweenits
beingpainfulandpleasurable。Manyapersonremainsinthesame
town，street，orhousefromJanuarytoDecember，withoutawish
orathoughttendingtowardsremoval，who，ifconfinedtothat
sameplacebythemandateofauthority，wouldfindthe
imprisonmentabsolutelyintolerable。
AccordingtotheFourierists，scarcelyanykindofuseful
labourisnaturallyandnecessarilydisagreeable，unlessitis
eitherregardedasdishonourable，orisimmoderateindegree，or
destituteofthestimulusofsympathyandemulation。Excessive
toilneedsnot，theycontend，beundergonebyanyone，ina
societyinwhichtherewouldbenoidleclass，andnolabourso
enormousanamountoflabourisnowwasted，inwashereuseless
things;fulladvantagewouldbetakenofthepowerof
association，bothinincreasingtheefficiencyofproduction，and
ineconomizingconsumption。Theotherrequisitesforrendering
labourattractivewould，theythink，befoundintheexecutionof
alllabourbysocialgroups，toanynumberofwhichthesame
individualmightsimultaneouslybelong，athisorherownchoice:
theirgradeineachbeingdeterminedbythedegreeofservice
whichtheywerefoundcapableofrendering，asappreciatedbythe
suffragesoftheircomrades。Itisinferredfromthediversityof
tastesandtalents，thateverymemberofthecommunitywouldbe
attachedtoseveralgroups，employingthemselvesinvariouskinds
ofoccupation，somebodily，othersmental，andwouldbecapable
ofoccupyingahighplaceinsomeoneormore;sothatareal
equality，orsomethingmorenearlyapproachingtoitthanmight
atfirstbesupposed，wouldpracticallyresult:not，fromthe
compression，but，onthecontrary，fromthelargestpossible
development，ofthevariousnaturalsuperioritiesresidingin
eachindividual。
Evenfromsobriefanoutline，itmustbeevidentthatthis
systemdoesnoviolencetoanyofthegenerallawsbywhichhuman
action，eveninthepresentimperfectstateofmoraland
intellectualcultivation，isinfluenced;andthatitwouldbe
extremelyrashtopronounceitincapableofsuccess，orunfitted
torealizeagreatpartofthehopesfoundedonitbyits
partisans。Withregardtothis，astoallothervarietiesof
Socialism，thethingtobedesired，andtowhichtheyhaveajust
claim，isopportunityoftrial。Theyareallcapableofbeing
triedonamoderatescale，andatnorisk，eitherpersonalor
pecuniary，toanyexceptthosewhotrythem。Itisforexperience
todeterminehowfarorhowsoonanyoneormoreofthepossible
systemsofcommunityofpropertywillbefittedtosubstitute
itselfforthe\"organizationofindustry\"basedonprivate
ownershipoflandandcapital。Inthemeantimewemay，without
attemptingtolimittheultimatecapabilitiesofhumannature，
affirm，thatthepoliticaleconomist，foraconsiderabletimeto
come，willbechieflyconcernedwiththeconditionsofexistence
andprogressbelongingtoasocietyfoundedonprivateproperty
andindividualcompetition;andthattheobjecttobeprincipally
aimedatinthepresentstageofhumanimprovement，isnotthe
subversionofthesystemofindividualproperty，butthe
improvementofit，andthefullparticipationofeverymemberof
thecommunityinitsbenefits。
ThePrinciplesofPoliticalEconomy
byJohnStuartMill
Book2，Chapter2
TheSameSubjectContinued
1。Itisnexttobeconsidered，whatisincludedintheidea
ofprivateproperty，andbywhatconsiderationstheapplication
oftheprincipleshouldbebounded。
Theinstitutionofproperty，whenlimitedtoitsessential
elements，consistsintherecognition，ineachperson，ofaright
totheexclusivedisposalofwhatheorshehaveproducedby
theirownexertions，orreceivedeitherbygiftorbyfair
agreement，withoutforceorfraud，fromthosewhoproducedit。
Thefoundationofthewholeis，therightofproducerstowhat
theythemselveshaveproduced。Itmaybeobjected，therefore，to
theinstitutionasitnowexists，thatitrecognisesrightsof
propertyinindividualsoverthingswhichtheyhavenotproduced。
Forexample（itmaybesaid）theoperativesinamanufactory
create，bytheirlabourandskill，thewholeproduce;yet，
insteadofitsbelongingtothem，thelawgivesthemonlytheir
stipulatedhire，andtransferstheproducetosomeonewhohas
merelysuppliedthefunds，withoutperhapscontributinganything
totheworkitself，evenintheformofsuperintendence。The
answertothisis，thatthelabourofmanufactureisonlyoneof
theconditionswhichmustcombinefortheproductionofthe
commodity。Thelabourcannotbecarriedonwithoutmaterialsand
machinery，norwithoutastockofnecessariesprovidedin
advance，tomaintainthelabourersduringtheproduction。All
thesethingsarethefruitsofpreviouslabour。Ifthelabourers
werepossessedofthem，theywouldnotneedtodividetheproduce
withanyone;butwhiletheyhavethemnot，anequivalentmustbe
giventothosewhohave，bothfortheantecedentlabour，andfor
theabstinencebywhichtheproduceofthatlabour，insteadof
beingexpendedonindulgences，hasbeenreservedforthisuse。
Thecapitalmaynothavebeen，andinmostcaseswasnot，created
bythelabourandabstinenceofthepresentpossessor;butitwas
createdbythelabourandabstinenceofsomeformerperson，who
mayindeedhavebeenwrongfullydispossessedofit，butwho，in
thepresentageoftheworld，muchmoreprobablytransferredhis
claimstothepresentcapitalistbygiftorvoluntarycontract:
andtheabstinenceatleastmusthavebeencontinuedbyeach
successiveowner，downtothepresent。Ifithesaid，asitmay
withtruth，thatthosewhohaveinheritedthesavingsofothers
haveanadvantagewhichtheymayhaveinnowaydeserved，over
theindustriouswhosepredecessorshavenotleftthemanything;I
notonlyadmit，butstrenuouslycontend，thatthisunearned
advantageshouldbecurtailed，asmuchasisconsistentwith
justicetothosewhothoughtfittodisposeoftheirsavingsby
givingthemtotheirdescendants。Butwhileitistruethatthe
labourersareatadisadvantagecomparedwiththosewhose
predecessorshavesaved，itisalsotruethatthelabourersare
farbetteroffthanifthosepredecessorshadnotsaved。They
shareintheadvantage，thoughnottoanequalextentwiththe
inheritors。Thetermsofco—operationbetweenpresentlabourand
thefruitsofpastlabourandsaving，areasubjectfor
adjustmentbetweenthetwoparties。Eachisnecessarytothe
other。Thecapitalistscandonothingwithoutlabourers，northe
labourerswithoutcapital。Ifthelabourerscompetefor
employment，thecapitalistsontheirpartcompeteforlabour，to
thefullextentofthecirculatingcapitalofthecountry。
Competitionisoftenspokenofasifitwerenecessarilyacause
ofmiseryanddegradationtothelabouringclass;asifhigh
wageswerenotpreciselyasmuchaproductofcompetitionaslow
wages。Theremunerationoflabourisasmuchtheresultofthe
lawofcompetitionintheUnitedStates，asitisinIreland，and
muchmorecompletelysothaninEngland。
Therightofpropertyincludesthen，thefreedomofacquiring
bycontract。Therightofeachtowhathehasproduced，impliesa
righttowhathasbeenproducedbyothers，ifobtainedbytheir
freeconsent;sincetheproducersmusteitherhavegivenitfrom
goodwill，orexchangeditforwhattheyesteemedanequivalent，
andtopreventthemfromdoingsowouldbetoinfringetheir
rightofpropertyintheproductoftheirownindustry。
2。Beforeproceedingtoconsiderthethingswhichthe
principleofindividualpropertydoesnotinclude，wemust
specifyonemorethingwhichitdoesinclude:andthisisthata
title，afteracertainperiod，shouldbegivenbyprescription。
Accordingtothefundamentalideaofproperty，indeed，nothing
oughttobetreatedassuch，whichhasbeenacquiredbyforceor
fraud，orappropriatedinignoranceofapriortitlevestedin
someotherperson;butitisnecessarytothesecurityof
rightfulpossessors，thattheyshouldnotbemolestedbycharges
ofwrongfulacquisition，whenbythelapseoftimewitnessesmust
haveperishedorbeenlostsightof，andtherealcharacterof
thetransactioncannolongerbeclearedup。Possessionwhichhas
notbeenlegallyquestionedwithinamoderatenumberofyears，
oughttobe，asbythelawsofallnationsitis，acomplete
title。Evenwhentheacquisitionwaswrongful，thedispossession，
afteragenerationhaselapsed，oftheprobablybon？fide
possessors，bytherevivalofaclaimwhichhadbeenlong
dormant，wouldgenerallybeagreaterinjustice，andalmost
alwaysagreaterprivateandpublicmischief，thanleavingthe
originalwrongwithoutatonement。Itmayseemhardthataclaim，
originallyjust，shouldbedefeatedbymerelapseoftime;but
thereisatimeafterwhich（evenlookingattheindividualcase，
andwithoutregardtothegeneraleffectonthesecurityof
possessors），thebalanceofhardshipturnstheotherway。With
theinjusticesofmen，aswiththeconvulsionsanddisastersof
nature，thelongertheyremainunrepaired，thegreaterbecomethe
obstaclestorepairingthem，arisingfromtheaftergrowthswhich
wouldhavetobetornuporbrokenthrough。Innohuman
transactions，noteveninthesimplestandclearest，doesit
followthatathingisfittobedonenow，becauseitwasfitto
bedonesixtyyearsago。Itisscarcelyneedfultoremark，that
thesereasonsfornotdisturbingactsofinjusticeofolddate，
cannotapplytounjustsystemsorinstitutions;sinceabadlaw
orusageisnotonebadact，intheremotepast，butaperpetual
repetitionofbadacts，aslongasthelaworusagelasts。
Such，then，beingtheessentialsofprivateproperty，itis
nowtobeconsidered，towhatextenttheformsinwhichthe
institutionhasexistedindifferentstatesofsociety，orstill
exists，arenecessaryconsequencesofitsprinciple，orare
recommendedbythereasonsonwhichitisgrounded。
3。Nothingisimpliedinpropertybuttherightofeachto
his（orher）ownfaculties，towhathecanproducebythem，and
towhateverhecangetfortheminafairmarket;togetherwith
hisrighttogivethistoanyotherpersonifhechooses，andthe
rightofthatothertoreceiveandenjoyit。
Itfollows，therefore，thatalthoughtherightofbequest，or
giftafterdeath，formspartoftheideaofprivateproperty，the
rightofinheritance，asdistinguishedfrombequest，doesnot。
Thatthepropertyofpersonswhohavemadenodispositionofit
duringtheirlifetime，shouldpassfirsttotheirchildren，and
failingthem，tothenearestrelations，maybeaproper
arrangementornot，butisnoconsequenceoftheprincipleof
privateproperty。Althoughtherebelongtothedecisionofsuch
questionsmanyconsiderationsbesidesthoseofpoliticaleconomy，
itisnotforeigntotheplanofthisworktosuggest，forthe
judgmentofthinkers，theviewofthemwhichmostrecommends
itselftothewriter’smind。
Nopresumptioninfavourofexistingideasonthissubjectis
tobederivedfromtheirantiquity。Inearlyages，theproperty
ofadeceasedpersonpassedtohischildrenandnearestrelatives
bysonaturalandobviousanarrangement，thatnootherwas
likelytobeeventhoughtofincompetitionwithit。Inthefirst
place，theywereusuallypresentonthespot:theywerein
possession，andiftheyhadnoothertitle，hadthat，so
importantinanearlystateofsociety，offirstoccupancy。
Secondly，theywerealready，inamanner，jointownersofhis
propertyduringhislife。Ifthepropertywasinland，ithad
generallybeenconferredbytheStateonafamilyratherthanon
anindividual:ifitconsistedofcattleormoveablegoods，it
hadprobablybeenacquired，andwascertainlyprotectedand
defended，bytheunitedeffortsofallmembersofthefamilywho
wereofanagetoworkorfight。Exclusiveindividualpropertyin
themodernsense，scarcelyenteredintotheideasofthetime;
andwhenthefirstmagistrateoftheassociationdied，hereally
leftnothingvacantbuthisownshareinthedivision，which
devolvedonthememberofthefamilywhosucceededtohis
authority。Tohavedisposedofthepropertyotherwise，wouldhave
beentobreakupalittlecommonwealth，unitedbyideas，
interest，andhabits，andtocastthemadriftontheworld。These
considerations，thoughratherfeltthanreasonedabout，hadso
greataninfluenceonthemindsofmankind，astocreatetheidea
ofaninherentrightinthechildrentothepossessionsoftheir
ancestor;arightwhichitwasnotcompetenttohimselfto
defeat。Bequest，inaprimitivestateofsociety，wasseldom
recognised;aclearproof，weretherenoother，thatpropertywas
conceivedinamannertotallydifferentfromtheconceptionofit
inthepresenttime。（1*）
Butthefeudalfamily，thelasthistoricalformof
patriarchallife，haslongperished，andtheunitofsocietyis
notnowthefamilyorclan，composedofallthereputed
descendantsofacommonancestor，buttheindividual;oratmost
apairofindividuals，withtheirunemancipatedchildren。
Propertyisnowinherentinindividuals，notinfamilies:the
childrenwhengrownupdonotfollowtheoccupationsorfortunes
oftheparent:iftheyparticipateintheparent’specuniary
meansitisathisorherpleasure，andnotbyavoiceinthe
ownershipandgovernmentofthewhole，butgenerallybythe
exclusiveenjoymentofapart;andinthiscountryatleast
（exceptasfarasentailsorsettlementsareanobstacle）itis
inthepowerofparentstodisinheriteventheirchildren，and
leavetheirfortunetostrangers。Moredistantrelativesarein
generalalmostascompletelydetachedfromthefamilyandits
interestsasiftheywereinnowayconnectedwithit。Theonly
claimtheyaresupposedtohaveontheirricherrelations，isto
apreference，caeterisparibus，ingoodoffices，andsomeaidin
caseofactualnecessity。
Sogreatachangeintheconstitutionofsocietymustmakea
considerabledifferenceinthegroundsonwhichthedisposalof
propertybyinheritanceshouldrest。Thereasonsusuallyassigned
bymodernwritersforgivingthepropertyofapersonwhodies
intestate，tothechildren，ornearestrelatives，are，first，the
suppositionthatinsodisposingofit，thelawismorelikely
thaninanyothermodetodowhattheproprietorwouldhavedone，
ifhehaddoneanything;andsecondly，thehardship，tothosewho
livedwiththeirparentsandpartookintheiropulence，ofbeing
castdownfromtheenjoymentsofwealthintopovertyand
privation。
Thereissomeforceinboththesearguments。Thelawought，
nodoubt，todoforthechildrenordependentsofanintestate，
whateveritwasthedutyoftheparentorprotectortohavedone，
sofarasthiscanbeknownbyanyonebesideshimself。Since，
however，thelawcannotdecideonindividualclaims，butmust
proceedbygeneralrules，itisnexttobeconsideredwhatthese
rulesshouldbe。
Wemayfirstremark，thatinregardtocollateralrelatives，
itisnot，unlessongroundspersonaltotheparticular
individual，thedutyofanyonetomakeapecuniaryprovisionfor
them。Noonenowexpectsit，unlesstherehappentobenodirect
heirs;norwoulditbeexpectedeventhen，iftheexpectation
werenotcreatedbytheprovisionsofthelawincaseof
intestacy。Isee，therefore，noreasonwhycollateralinheritance
shouldexistatall。MrBenthamlongagoproposed，andotherhigh
authoritieshaveagreedintheopinion，thatifthereareno
heirseitherinthedescendingorintheascendingline，the
property，incaseofintestacy，shouldescheattotheState。With
respecttothemoreremotedegreesofcollateralrelationship，
thepointisnotverylikelytobedisputed。Fewwillmaintain
thatthereisanygoodreasonwhytheaccumulationsofsome
childlessmisershouldonhisdeath（aseverynowandthen
happens）gotoenrichadistantrelativewhoneversawhim，who
perhapsneverknewhimselftoberelatedtohimuntiltherewas
somethingtobegainedbyit，andwhohadnomoralclaimuponhim
ofanykind，morethanthemostentirestranger。Butthereason
ofthecaseappliesaliketoallcollaterals，eveninthenearest
degree。Collateralshavenorealclaims，butsuchasmaybe
equallystronginthecaseofnon—relatives;andintheonecase
asintheother，wherevalidclaimsexist，thepropermodeof
payingregardtothemisbybequest。
Theclaimsofchildrenareofadifferentnature:theyare
real，andindefeasible。Butevenofthese，Iventuretothink
thatthemeasureusuallytakenisanerroneousone:whatisdue
tochildrenisinsomerespectsunderrated，inothers，asit
appearstome，exaggerated。Oneofthemostbindingofall
obligations，thatofnotbringingchildrenintotheworldunless
theycanbemaintainedincomfortduringchildhood，andbrought
upwithalikelihoodofsupportingthemselveswhenoffullage，
isbothdisregardedinpracticeandmadelightofintheoryina
mannerdisgracefultohumanintelligence。Ontheotherhand，when
theparentpossessesproperty，theclaimsofthechildrenuponit
seemtometobethesubjectofanoppositeerror。Whatever
fortuneaparentmayhaveinherited，orstillmore，mayhave
acquired，Icannotadmitthatheowestohischildren，merely
becausetheyarehischildren，toleavethemrich，withoutthe
necessityofanyexertion。Icouldnotadmitit，eveniftobeso
leftwerealways，andcertainly，forthegoodofthechildren
themselves。Butthisisinthehighestdegreeuncertain。It
dependsonindividualcharacter。Withoutsupposingextremecases，
itmaybeaffirmedthatinamajorityofinstancesthegoodnot
onlyofsocietybutoftheindividualswouldbebetterconsulted
bybequeathingtothemamoderate，thanalargeprovision。This，
whichisacommonplaceofmoralistsancientandmodern，isfelt
tobetruebymanyintelligentparents，andwouldbeactedupon
muchmorefrequently，iftheydidnotallowthemselvesto
considerlesswhatreallyis，thanwhatwillbethoughtbyothers
tobe，advantageoustothechildren。
Thedutiesofparentstotheirchildrenarethosewhichare
indissolublytothefactofcausingtheexistenceofahuman
being。Theparentowestosocietytoendeavourtomakethechild
agoodandvaluablememberofit，andowestothechildrento
provide，sofarasdependsonhim，sucheducation，andsuch
appliancesandmeans，aswillenablethemtostartwithafair
chanceofachievingbytheirownexertionsasuccessfullife。To
thiseverychildhasaclaim;andIcannotadmit，thatasachild
hehasaclaimtomore。Thereisacaseinwhichthese
obligationspresentthemselvesintheirtruelight，withoutany
extrinsiccircumstancestodisguiseorconfusethem:itisthat
ofanillegitimatechild。Tosuchachilditisgenerallyfelt
thatthereisduefromtheparent，theamountofprovisionfor
hiswelfarewhichwillenablehimtomakehislifeonthewholea
desirableone。Iholdthattonochild，merelyassuch，anything
moreisdue，thanwhatisadmittedtobeduetoanillegitimate
child:andthatnochildforwhomthusmuchhasbeendone，has，
unlessonthescoreofpreviouslyraisedexpectations，any
grievance，iftheremainderoftheparent’sfortuneisdevotedto
publicuses，ortothebenefitofindividualsonwhominthe
parent’sopinionitisbetterbestowed。
Inordertogivethechildrenthatfairchanceofadesirable
existence，towhichtheyareentitled，itisgenerallynecessary
thattheyshouldnotbebroughtupfromchildhoodinhabitsof
luxurywhichtheywillnothavethemeansofindulgingin
after—life。This，again，isadutyoftenflagrantlyviolatedby
possessorsofterminableincomes，whohavelittlepropertyto
leave。Whenthechildrenofrichparentshavelived，asitis
naturaltheyshoulddo，inhabits，correspondingtothescaleof
expenditureinwhichtheparentsindulge，itisgenerallythe
dutyoftheparentstomakeagreaterprovisionforthemthan
wouldsufficeforchildrenotherwisebroughtup。Isaygenerally，
becauseevenherethereisanothersidetothequestion。Itisa
propositionquitecapableofbeingmaintained，thattoastrong
naturewhichhastomakeitswayagainstnarrowcircumstances，to
haveknownearlysomeofthefeelingsandexperiencesofwealth，
isanadvantagebothintheformationofcharacterandinthe
happinessoflife。Butallowingthatchildrenhaveajustground
ofcomplaint，whohavebeenbroughtuptorequireluxurieswhich
theyarenotafterwardslikelytoobtain，andthattheirclaim，
therefore，isgoodtoaprovisionbaringsomerelationtothe
modeoftheirbringingup;this，too，isaclaimwhichis
particularlyliabletobestretchedfurtherthanitsreasons
warrant。Thecaseisexactlythatoftheyoungerchildrenofthe
nobilityandlandedgentry，thebulkofwhosefortunepassesto
theeldestson。Theothersons，whoareusuallynumerous，are
broughtupinthesamehabitsofluxuryasthefutureheir，and
theyreceiveasayoungerbrother’sportion，generallywhatthe
reasonofthecasedictates，namely，enoughtosupport，inthe
habitsoflifetowhichtheyareaccustomed，themselves，butnot
awifeorchildren。Itreallyisnogrievancetoanyman，that
forthemeansofmarryingandofsupportingafamily，hehasto
dependonhisownexertions。
Aprovision，then，suchasisadmittedtobereasonablein
thecaseofillegitimatechildren，foryoungerchildren，wherever
inshortthejusticeofthecase，andtherealinterestsofthe
individualsandofsociety，aretheonlythingsconsidered，is，I
conceive，allthatparentsowetotheirchildren，andall，
therefore，whichtheStateowestothechildrenofthosewhodie
intestate。Thesurplus，ifany，Iholdthatitmayrightfully
appropriatetothegeneralpurposesofthecommunity。Iwould
not，however，besupposedtorecommendthatparentsshouldnever
domorefortheirchildrenthanwhat，merelyaschildren，they
haveamoralrightto。Insomecasesitisimperative，inmany
laudable，andinallallowable，todomuchmore。Forthis，
however，themeansareaffordedbythelibertyofbequest。Itis
due，nottothechildrenbuttotheparents，thattheyshould
havethepowerofshowingmarksofaffection，ofrequiting
servicesandsacrifices，andofbestowingtheirwealthaccording
totheirownpreferences，ortheirownjudgmentoffitness。
4。Whetherthepowerofbequestshoulditselfbesubjectto
limitation，isanulteriorquestionofgreatimportance。Unlike
inheritanceabintestato，bequestisoneoftheattributesof
property:theownershipofathingcannotbelookeduponas
completewithoutthepowerofbestowingit，atdeathorduring
life，attheowner’spleasure:andallthereasons，which
recommendthatprivatepropertyshouldexist，recommendprotanto
thisextensionofit。Butpropertyisonlyameanstoanend，not
itselftheend。Likeallotherproprietaryrights，andevenina
greaterdegreethanmost，thepowerofbequestmaybeso
exercisedastoconflictwiththepermanentinterestsofthe
humanrace。Itdoesso，when，notcontentwithbequeathingan
estatetoA，thetestatorprescribesthatonA’sdeathitshall
passtohiseldestson，andtothatson’sson，andsoonfor
ever。Nodoubt，personshaveoccasionallyexertedthemselvesmore
strenuouslytoacquireafortunefromthehopeoffoundinga
familyinperpetuity;hutthemischiefstosocietyofsuch
perpetuitiesoutweighthevalueofthisincentivetoexertion，
andtheincentivesinthecaseofthosewhohavetheopportunity
ofmakinglargefortunesarestrongenoughwithoutit。Asimilar
abuseofthepowerofbequestiscommittedwhenapersonwhodoes
themeritoriousactofleavingpropertyforpublicuses，attempts
toprescribethedetailsofitsapplicationinperpetuity;when
infoundingaplaceofeducation（forinstance）hedictates，for
ever，whatdoctrinesshallbetaught。Itbeingimpossiblethat
anyoneshouldknowwhatdoctrineswillbefittobetaughtafter
hehasbeendeadforcenturies，thelawoughtnottogiveeffect
tosuchdispositionsofproperty，unlesssubjecttotheperpetual
revision（afteracertainintervalhaselapsed）ofafitting
authority。
Theseareobviouslimitations。Buteventhesimplestexercise
oftherightofbequest，thatofdeterminingthepersontowhom
propertyshallpassimmediatelyonthedeathofthetestator，has
alwaysbeenreckonedamongtheprivilegeswhichmightbelimited
orvaried，accordingtoviewsofexpediency。Thelimitations，
hitherto，havebeenalmostsolelyinfavourofchildren。In
Englandtherightisinprincipleunlimited，almosttheonly
impedimentbeingthatarisingfromasettlementbyaformer
proprietor，inwhichcasetheholderforthetimebeingcannot
indeedbequeathhispossessions，butonlybecausethereis
nothingtobequeath，hehavingmerelyalifeinterest。Bythe
Romanlaw，onwhichthecivillegislationoftheContinentof
Europeisprincipallyfounded，bequestoriginallywasnot
permittedatall，andevenafteritwasintroduced，alegitima
portiowascompulsorilyreservedforeachchild;andsuchis
stillthelawinsomeoftheContinentalnations。BytheFrench
lawsincetheRevolution，theparentcanonlydisposebywill，of
aportionequaltotheshareofonechild，eachofthechildren
takinganequalportion。Thisentail，asitmaybecalled，ofthe
bulkofeveryone’spropertyuponthechildrencollectively，
seemstomeaslittledefensibleinprincipleasanentailin
favourofonechild，thoughitdoesnotshocksodirectlythe
ideaofjustice。Icannotadmitthatparentsshouldbecompelled
toleavetotheirchildreneventhatprovisionwhich，as
children，Ihavecontendedthattheyhaveamoralclaimto。
Childrenmayforfeitthatclaimbygeneralunworthiness，or
particularill—conducttotheparents:theymayhaveother
resourcesorprospects:whathasbeenpreviouslydoneforthem，
inthewayofeducationandadvancementinlife，mayfully
satisfytheirmoralclaim;orothersmayhaveclaimssuperiorto
theirs。
TheextremerestrictionofthepowerofbequestinFrench
law，wasadoptedasademocraticexpedient，tobreakdownthe
customofprimogeniture，andcounteractthetendencyofinherited
propertytocollectinlargemasses。Iagreeinthinkingthese
objectseminentlydesirable;butthemeansusedarenot，Ithink，
themostjudicious。WereIframingacodeoflawsaccordingto
whatseemstomebestinitself，withoutregardtoexisting
opinionsandsentiments，Ishouldprefertorestrict，notwhat
anyonemightbequeath，butwhatanyoneshouldbepermittedto
acquire，bybequestorinheritance。Eachpersonshouldhavepower
todisposebywillofhisorherwholeproperty;butnotto
lavishitinenrichingsomeoneindividual，beyondacertain
maximum，whichshouldbefixedsufficientlyhightoaffordthe
meansofcomfortableindependence。Theinequalitiesofproperty
whicharisefromunequalindustry，frugality，perseverance，
talents，andtoacertainextentevenopportunities，are
inseparablefromtheprincipleofprivateproperty，andifwe
accepttheprinciple，wemustbearwiththeseconsequencesofit:
butIseenothingobjectionableinfixingalimittowhatanyone
mayacquirebythemerefavourofothers，withoutanyexerciseof
hisfaculties，andinrequiringthatifhedesiresanyfurther
accessionoffortune，heshallworkforit。（2*）Idonotconceive
thatthedegreeoflimitationwhichthiswouldimposeonthe
rightofbequest，wouldbefeltasaburthensomerestraintbyany
testatorwhoestimatedalargefortuneatitstruevalue，thatof
thepleasuresandadvantagesthatcanbepurchasedwithit:on
eventhemostextravagantestimateofwhich，itmustbeapparent
toeveryone，thatthedifferencetothehappinessofthe
possessorbetweenamoderateindependenceandfivetimesasmuch，
isinsignificantwhenweighedagainsttheenjoymentthatmightbe
given，andthepermanentbenefitsdiffused，bysomeother
disposalofthefour—fifths。Solongindeedastheopinion
practicallyprevails，thatthebestthingwhichcanbedonefor
objectsofaffectionistoheaponthemtosatietythose
intrinsicallyworthlessthingsonwhichlargefortunesaremostly
expended，theremightbelittleuseinenactingsuchalaw，even
ifitwerepossibletogetitpassed，therewouldgenerallybe
thepowerofevadingit。Thelawwouldbeunavailingunlessthe
popularsentimentwentenergeticallylongwithit;which（judging
fromthetenaciousadherenceofpublicopinioninFrancetothe
lawofcompulsorydivision）itwouldinsomestatesofsociety
andgovernmentbeverylikelytodo，howevermuchthecontrary
maybethefactinEnglandandatthepresenttime。Ifthe
restrictioncouldbemadepracticallyeffectual，thebenefit
wouldbegreat。Wealthwhichcouldnolongerbeemployedin
over—enrichingafew，wouldeitherbedevotedtoobjectsof
publicusefulness，orifbestowedonindividuals，wouldbe
distributedamongalargernumber。Whilethoseenormousfortunes
whichnooneneedsforanypersonalpurposebutostentationor
improperpower，wouldbecomemuchlessnumerous，therewouldbea
greatmultiplicationofpersonsineasycircumstances，withthe
advantagesofleisure，andalltherealenjoymentswhichwealth
canthoseofvanity;aclassbywhomtheserviceswhichanation
havingleisuredclassesisentitledtoexpectfromthem，either
bytheirdirectexertionsorbythetonetheygivetothe
feelingsandtastesofthepublic，wouldberenderedinamuch
morebeneficialmannerthanatpresent。Alargeportionalsoof
theaccumulationsofsuccessfulindustrywouldprobablybe
devotedtopublicuses，eitherbydirectbequeststotheState，
orbytheendowmentofinstitutions;asisalreadydonevery
largelyintheUnitedStates，wheretheideasandpracticeinthe
matterofinheritanceseemtobeunusuallyrationaland
beneficial。（3*）
5。Thenextpointtobeconsideredis，whetherthereasonson
institutionofpropertyrests，areapplicabletoallthingsin
whicharightofexclusiveownershipisatpresentrecognised;
andifnot，onwhatothergroundstherecognitionisdefensible。
Theessentialprincipleofpropertybeingtoassuretoall
personswhattheyhaveproducedbytheirlabourandaccumulated
bytheirabstinence，thisprinciplecannotapplytowhatisnot
theproduceoflabour，therawmaterialoftheearth。Iftheland
deriveditsproductivepowerwhollyfromnature，andnotatall
fromindustry，oriftherewereanymeansofdiscriminatingwhat
isderivedfromeachsource，itnotonlywouldnotbenecessary，
butitwouldbetheheightofinjustice，toletthegiftof
naturebeengrossedbyindividuals。Theuseofthelandin
agriculturemustindeed，forthetimebeing，henecessity
exclusive;thesamepersonwhohasploughedandsownmustbe
permittedtoreap:butthelandmightbeoccupiedforoneseason
only，asamongtheancientGermans;ormightbeperiodically
redividedaspopulationincreased:ortheStatemighthethe
universallandlord，andthecultivatorstenantsunderit，either
onleaseoratwill。
Butthoughlandisnottheproduceofindustry，mostofits
valuablequalitiesareso。Labourisnotonlyrequisitefor
using，butalmostequallysoforfashioning，theinstrument。
Considerablelabourisoftenrequiredatthecommencement，to
clearthelandforcultivation。Inmanycases，evenwhencleared，
itsproductivenessiswhollytheeffectoflabourandart。The
BedfordLevelproducedlittleornothinguntilartificially
drained。ThebogsofIreland，untilthesamethingisdoneto
them，canproducelittlebesidesfuel。Oneofthebarrenestsoils
intheworld，composedofthematerialoftheGoodwinSands，the
PaysdeWaesinFlanders，hasbeensofertilizedbyindustry，as
tohavebecomeoneofthemostproductiveinEurope。Cultivation
alsorequiresbuildingsandfences，whicharewhollytheproduce
oflabour。Thefruitsofthisindustrycannotbereapedina
shortperiod。Thelabourandoutlayareimmediate，thebenefitis
spreadovermanyyears，perhapsoverallfuturetime。Aholder
willnotincurthislabourandoutlaywhenstrangersandnot
himselfwillhebenefitedbyit。Ifheundertakessuch
improvements，hemusthaveasufficientperiodbeforehimin
whichtoprofitbythem:andheisinnowaysosureofhaving
alwaysasufficientperiodaswhenhistenureisperpetual。（4*）
6。Thesearethereasonswhichformthejustificationinan
economicalpointofview，ofpropertyinland。Itisseen，that
theyareonlyvalid，insofarastheproprietoroflandisits
improver。Whenever，inanycountry，theproprietor，generally
speaking，ceasestobetheimprover，politicaleconomyhas
nothingtosayindefenceoflandedproperty，asthere
established。Innosoundtheoryofprivatepropertywasitever
contemplatedthattheproprietoroflandshouldbemerelya
sinecuristquarteredonit。
InGreatBritain，thelandedproprietorisnotunfrequently
animprover。Butitcannotbesaidthatheisgenerallyso。And
inthemajorityofcaseshegrantsthelibertyofcultivationon
suchterms，astopreventimprovementsfrombeingmadebyanyone
else。Inthesouthernpartsoftheisland，asthereareusually
noleases，permanentimprovementscanscarcelyhemadeexceptby
thelandlord’scapital;accordinglytheSouth，compiledwiththe
NorthofEngland，andwiththeLowlandsofScotland，isstill
extremelybackwardinagriculturalimprovement。Thetruthis，
thatanyverygeneralimprovementoflandbythelandlords，is
hardlycompatiblewithalaworcustomofprimogeniture。Whenthe
landgoeswhollytotheheir，itgenerallygoestohimsevered
fromthepecuniaryresourceswhichwouldenablehimtoimprove
it，thepersonalpropertybeingabsorbedbytheprovisionfor
youngerchildren，andthelanditselfoftenheavilyburthenedfor
thesamepurpose。Thereisthereforebutasmallproportionof
landlordswhohavethemeansofmakingexpensiveimprovements，
unlesstheydoitwithborrowedmoney，andbyaddingtothe
mortgageswithwhichinmostcasesthelandwasalreadyburthened
whentheyreceivedit。Butthepositionoftheownerofadeeply
mortgagedestateissoprecarious;economyissounwelcometoone
whoseapparentfortunegreatlyexceedshisrealmeans，andthe
vicissitudesofrentandpricewhichonlytrenchuponthemargin
ofhisincome，aresoformidabletoonewhocancalllittlemore
thanthemarginhisown，thatitisnowonderiffewlandlords
findthemselvesinaconditiontomakeimmediatesacrificesfor
thesakeoffutureprofit。Weretheyeversomuchinclined，those
alonecanprudentlydoit，whohaveseriouslystudiedthe
principlesofscientificagriculture:andgreatlandlordshave
seldomseriouslystudiedanything。Theymightatleastholdout
inducementstothefarmerstodowhattheywillnotorcannotdo
themselves;buteveningrantingleases，itisinEnglanda
generalcomplaintthattheytieuptheirtenantsbycovenants
groundedonthepracticesofanobsoleteandexploded
agriculture;whilemostofthem，bywithholdingleases
altogether，andgivingthefarmernoguaranteeofpossession
beyondasingleharvest，keepthelandonafootinglittlemore
favourabletoimprovementthaninthetimeofourbarbarous
ancestors，
——immetataquibusjugeraliberas
FrugesetCereremferunt，
Necculturaplacetlongiorannu？
LandedpropertyinEnglandisthusveryfarfromcompletely
fulfillingtheconditionswhichrenderitsexistenceeconomically
justifiable。ButifinsufficientlyrealizedeveninEngland，in
Irelandthoseconditionsarenotcompliedwithatall。With
individualexceptions（someofthemveryhonourableones），the
ownersofIrishestatesdonothingforthelandbutdrainitof
itsproduce。Whathasbeenepigrammaticallysaidinthe
discussionson\"peculiarburthens\"isliterallytruewhenapplied
tothem;thatthegreatest\"burthenonland\"isthelandlords。
Returningnothingtothesoil，theyconsumeitswholeproduce，
minusthepotatoesstrictlynecessarytokeeptheinhabitants
fromdyingoffamine;andwhentheyhaveanypurposeof
improvement，thepreparatorystepusuallyconsistsinnotleaving
eventhispittance，butturningoutthepeopletobeggaryifnot
tostarvation。（5*）Whenlandedpropertyhasplaceditselfupon
thisfootingitceasestobedefensible，andthetimehascome
formakingsomenewarrangementofthematter。
Whenthe\"sacrednessofproperty\"istalkedof，itshould
alwaysberemembered，thatanysuchsacrednessdoesnotbelongin
thesamedegreetolandedproperty。Nomanmadetheland。Itis
theoriginalinheritanceofthewholespecies。itsappropriation
iswhollyaquestionofgeneralexpediency。Whenprivateproperty
inlandisnotexpedient，itisunjust。Itisnohardshiptoany
one，tobeexcludedfromwhatothershaveproduced:theywerenot
boundtoproduceitforhisuse，andhelosesnothingbynot
sharinginwhatotherwisewouldnothaveexistedatall。Butit
issomehardshiptobebornintotheworldandtofindall
nature’sgiftspreviouslyengrossed，andnoplaceleftforthe
new—comer。Toreconcilepeopletothis，aftertheyhaveonce
admittedintotheirmindstheideathatanymoralrightsbelong
tothemashumanbeings，itwillalwaysbenecessarytoconvince
themthattheexclusiveappropriationisgoodformankindonthe
whole，themselvesincluded。Butthisiswhatnosanehumanbeing
couldbepersuadedof，iftherelationbetweenthelandownerand
thecultivatorwerethesameeverywhereasithasbeenin
Ireland。
Landedpropertyisfelt，evenbythosemosttenaciousofits
rights，tobeadifferentthingfromotherproperty;andwhere
thebulkofthecommunityhavebeendisinheritedoftheirshare
ofit，andithasbecometheexclusiveattributeofasmall
minority，menhavegenerallytriedtoreconcileit，atleastin
theory，totheirsenseofjustice，byendeavouringtoattach
dutiestoit，anderectingitintoasortofmagistracy，either
moralorlegal。Butifthestateisatlibertytotreatthe
possessorsoflandaspublicfunctionaries，itisonlygoingone
stepfurthertosay，thatitisatlibertytodiscardthem。The
claimofthelandownerstothelandisaltogethersubordinateto
thegeneralpolicyofthestate。Theprincipleofpropertygives
themnorighttotheland，butonlyarighttocompensationfor
whateverportionoftheirinterestinthelanditmaybethe
policyofthestatetodeprivethemof。Tothat，theirclaimis
indefeasible。itisduetolandowners，andtoownersofany
propertywhatever，recognisedassuchbythestate，thatthey
shouldnotbedispossessedofitwithoutreceivingitspecuniary
value，oranannualincomeequaltowhattheyderivedfromit。
Thisisdueonthegeneralprinciplesonwhichpropertyrests。If
thelandwasboughtwiththecompensationisduetothemoneven
ifotherwise，itisstilldueonthatground;evenifotherwise，
itisstilldueonthegroundofprescription。Norcaniteverbe
necessaryforaccomplishedanobjectbywhichcommunityshouldbe
immolated。Whenthepropertyisofakindtowhichpeculiar
affectionsattachthemselves，thecompensationoughttoexceeda
barepecuniaryequivalent。But，subjecttotheproviso，thestate
isatlibertytodealwithlandedpropertyasthegeneral
interestsofthecommunitymayrequire，eventotheextent，ifit
sohappen，ofdoingwiththewhole，whatisdonewithapart
wheneverabillispassedforarailroadoranewstreet。The
communityhastoomuchatstakeinthepropercultivationofthe
land，andintheconditionsannexedtotheoccupancyofit，to
leavethesethingstothediscretionofaclassofpersonscalled
landlords，whentheyhaveshownthemselvesunfitforthetrust。
Thelegislature，whichifitpleasedmightconvertthewholebody
oflandlordsintofundholdersorpensioners，might，？fortiori，
commutetheaveragereceiptsofIrishlandownersintoafixed
rentcharge，andraisethetenantsintoproprietors;supposing
alwaysthatthefullmarketvalueofthelandwastenderedtothe
landlords，incasetheypreferredthattoacceptingthe
conditionsproposed。
Therewillbeanotherplacefordiscussingthevariousmodes
oflandedpropertyandtenure，andtheadvantagesand
inconveniencesofeach;inthischapterourconcerniswiththe
rightitself，thegroundswhichjustifyit，and（asacorollary
fromthese）theconditionsbywhichitshouldbelimited。Tome
itseemsalmostanaxiomthatpropertyinlandshouldbe
interpretedstrictly，andthatthebalanceinallcasesofdoubt
shouldinclineagainsttheproprietor。Thereverseisthecase
withpropertyinmoveables，andinallthingstheproductof
labour:overthese，theowner’spowerbothofuseandof
exclusionshouldbeabsolute，exceptwherepositiveevilto
otherswouldresultfromit:butinthecaseofland，no
exclusiverightshouldbepermittedinanyindividual，which
cannotbeshowntobeproductiveofpositivegood。Tobeallowed
anyexclusiverightatall，overaportionofthecommon
inheritance，whilethereareotherswhohavenoportion，is
alreadyaprivilege。Noquantityofmoveablegoodswhichaperson
canacquirebyhislabour，preventsothersfromacquiringthe
likebythesamemeans;butfromtheverynatureofthecase，
whoeverownsland，keepsmothersoutoftheenjoymentofit。The
privilege，ormonopoly，isonlydefensibleasanecessaryevil;
itbecomesaninjusticewhencarriedtoanypointtowhichthe
compensatinggooddoesnotfollowit。