On Liberty

To the beloved and 嘆き悲しむd memory of her who was the inspirer, and in part the author, of all that is best in my writings- the friend and wife whose exalted sense of truth and 権利 was my strongest incitement, and whose approbation was my 長，指導者 reward- I dedicate this 容積／容量. Like all that I have written for many years, it belongs as much to her as to me; but the work as it stands has had, in a very insufficient degree, the inestimable advantage of her 改正; some of the most important 部分s having been reserved for a more careful re-examination, which they are now never 運命にあるd to receive. Were I but 有能な of 解釈する／通訳するing to the world one half the 広大な／多数の／重要な thoughts and noble feelings which are buried in her 墓／厳粛／彫る／重大な, I should be the medium of a greater 利益 to it, than is ever likely to arise from anything that I can 令状, unprompted and unassisted by her all but unrivalled 知恵.

The struggle between Liberty and 当局 is the most 目だつ feature in the 部分s of history with which we are earliest familiar, 特に in that of Greece, Rome, and England. But in old times this contest was between 支配するs, or some classes of 支配するs, and the 政府. By liberty, was meant 保護 against the tyranny of the political 支配者s. The 支配者s were conceived (except in some of the popular 政府s of Greece) as in a やむを得ず antagonistic position to the people whom they 支配するd. They consisted of a 治める／統治するing One, or a 治める／統治するing tribe or caste, who derived their 当局 from 相続物件 or conquest, who, at all events, did not 持つ／拘留する it at the 楽しみ of the 治める／統治するd, and whose 最高位 men did not 投機・賭ける, perhaps did not 願望（する）, to contest, whatever 警戒s might be taken against its oppressive 演習. Their 力／強力にする was regarded as necessary, but also as 高度に dangerous; as a 武器 which they would 試みる／企てる to use against their 支配するs, no いっそう少なく than against 外部の enemies. To 妨げる the 女性 members of the community from 存在 preyed upon by innumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger than the 残り／休憩（する）, （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限d to keep them 負かす／撃墜する. But as the king of the vultures would be no いっそう少なく bent upon preying on the flock than any of the minor harpies, it was 不可欠の to be in a perpetual 態度 of defence against his beak and claws. The 目的（とする）, therefore, of 愛国者s was to 始める，決める 限界s to the 力／強力にする which the 支配者 should be 苦しむd to 演習 over the community; and this 制限 was what they meant by liberty. It was 試みる／企てるd in two ways. First, by 得るing a 承認 of 確かな 免疫s, called political liberties or 権利s, which it was to be regarded as a 違反 of 義務 in the 支配者 to （規則などを）破る／侵害する, and which if he did （規則などを）破る／侵害する, 明確な／細部 抵抗, or general 反乱, was held to be 正当と認められる. A second, and 一般に a later expedient, was the 設立 of 憲法の checks, by which the 同意 of the com munity, or of a 団体／死体 of some sort, supposed to 代表する its 利益／興味s, was made a necessary 条件 to some of the more important 行為／法令／行動するs of the 治める／統治するing 力／強力にする. To the first of these 方式s of 制限, the 判決，裁定 力／強力にする, in most European countries, was compelled, more or いっそう少なく, to 服従させる／提出する. It was not so with the second; and, to 達成する this, or when already in some degree 所有するd, to 達成する it more 完全に, became everywhere the 主要な／長／主犯 反対する of the lovers of liberty. And so long as mankind were content to 戦闘 one enemy by another, and to be 支配するd by a master, on 条件 of 存在 保証（人）d more or いっそう少なく efficaciously against his tyranny, they did not carry their aspirations beyond this point.

A time, however, （機の）カム, in the 進歩 of human 事件／事情／状勢s, when men 中止するd to think it a necessity of nature that their 知事s should be an 独立した・無所属 力／強力にする, …に反対するd in 利益／興味 to themselves. It appeared to them much better that the さまざまな 治安判事s of the 明言する／公表する should be their tenants or 委任する／代表s, revocable at their 楽しみ. In that way alone, it seemed, could they have 完全にする 安全 that the 力／強力にするs of 政府 would never be 乱用d to their disadvantage. By degrees this new 需要・要求する for elective and 一時的な 支配者s became the 目だつ 反対する of the exertions of the popular party, wherever any such party 存在するd; and superseded, to a かなりの extent, the previous 成果／努力s to 限界 the 力／強力にする of 支配者s. As the struggle proceeded for making the 判決，裁定 力／強力にする emanate from the 定期刊行物 choice of the 支配するd, some persons began to think that too much importance had been 大（公）使館員d to the 制限 of the 力／強力にする itself. That (it might seem) was a 資源 against 支配者s whose 利益／興味s were habitually …に反対するd to those of the people. What was now 手配中の，お尋ね者 was, that the 支配者s should be identified with the people; that their 利益／興味 and will should be the 利益／興味 and will of the nation. The nation did not need to be 保護するd against its own will. There was no 恐れる of its tyrannising over itself. Let the 支配者s be effectually responsible to it, 敏速に removable by it, and it could afford to 信用 them with 力／強力にする of which it could itself dictate the use to be made. Their 力／強力にする was but the nation's own 力／強力にする, concentrated, and in a form convenient for 演習. This 方式 of thought, or rather perhaps of feeling, was ありふれた の中で the last 世代 of European liberalism, in the 大陸の section of which it still 明らかに predominates. Those who 収容する／認める any 限界 to what a 政府 may do, except in the 事例／患者 of such 政府s as they think ought not to 存在する, stand out as brilliant exceptions の中で the political thinkers of the Continent. A 類似の トン of 感情 might by this time have been prev alent in our own country, if the circumstances which for a time encouraged it, had continued unaltered.

But, in political and philosophical theories, 同様に as in persons, success 公表する／暴露するs faults and infirmities which 失敗 might have 隠すd from 観察. The notion, that the people have no need to 限界 their 力／強力にする over themselves, might seem axiomatic, when popular 政府 was a thing only dreamed about, or read of as having 存在するd at some distant period of the past. Neither was that notion やむを得ず 乱すd by such 一時的な aberrations as those of the French 革命, the worst of which were the work of a usurping few, and which, in any 事例／患者, belonged, not to the 永久の working of popular 会・原則s, but to a sudden and convulsive 突発／発生 against monarchical and aristocratic 先制政治. In time, however, a democratic 共和国 （機の）カム to 占領する a large 部分 of the earth's surface, and made itself felt as one of the most powerful members of the community of nations; and elective and responsible 政府 became 支配する to the 観察s and 批評s which wait upon a 広大な／多数の／重要な 存在するing fact. It was now perceived that such phrases as "self-政府," and "the 力／強力にする of the people over themselves," do not 表明する the true 明言する／公表する of the 事例／患者. The "people" who 演習 the 力／強力にする are not always the same people with those over whom it is 演習d; and the "self-政府" spoken of is not the 政府 of each by himself, but of each by all the 残り／休憩（する）. The will of the people, moreover, 事実上 means the will of the most 非常に／多数の or the most active part of the people; the 大多数, or those who 後継する in making themselves 受託するd as the 大多数; the people, その結果 may 願望（する） to 抑圧する a part of their number; and 警戒s are as much needed against this as against any other 職権乱用. The 制限, therefore, of the 力／強力にする of 政府 over individuals loses 非，不，無 of its importance when the 支えるもの／所有者s of 力／強力にする are 定期的に accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein. This 見解（をとる） of things, recommending itself 平等に to the 知能 of thinkers and to the inclination of those important classes in European society to whose real or supposed 利益／興味s 僕主主義 is 逆の, has had no difficulty in 設立するing itself; and in political 憶測s "the tyranny of the 大多数" is now 一般に 含むd の中で the evils against which society 要求するs to be on its guard.

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the 大多数 was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, 主として as operating through the 行為／法令／行動するs of the public 当局. But 反映するing persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant- society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it- its means of tyrannising are not 制限するd to the 行為／法令／行動するs which it may do by the 手渡すs of its political functionaries. Society can and does 遂行する／発効させる its own 委任統治（領）s: and if it 問題／発行するs wrong 委任統治（領）s instead of 権利, or any 委任統治（領）s at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many 肉親，親類d of political 圧迫, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme 刑罰，罰則s, it leaves より小数の means of escape, 侵入するing much more 深く，強烈に into the 詳細（に述べる）s of life, and enslaving the soul itself. 保護, therefore, against the tyranny of the 治安判事 is not enough: there needs 保護 also against the tyranny of the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing opinion and feeling; against the 傾向 of society to 課す, by other means than civil 刑罰，罰則s, its own ideas and practices as 支配するs of 行為／行う on those who dissent from them; to fetter the 開発, and, if possible, 妨げる the 形式, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and 強要するs all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a 限界 to the 合法的 干渉，妨害 of 集団の／共同の opinion with individual independence: and to find that 限界, and 持続する it against encroachment, is as 不可欠の to a good 条件 of human 事件／事情／状勢s, as 保護 against political 先制政治.

But though this proposition is not likely to be contested in general 条件, the practical question, where to place the 限界- how to make the fitting 調整 between individual independence and social 支配（する）／統制する- is a 支配する on which nearly everything remains to be done. All that makes 存在 価値のある to any one, depends on the 施行 of 抑制s upon the 活動／戦闘s of other people. Some 支配するs of 行為／行う, therefore, must be 課すd, by 法律 in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit 支配するs for the 操作／手術 of 法律. What these 支配するs should be is the 主要な／長／主犯 question in human 事件／事情／状勢s; but if we except a few of the most obvious 事例／患者s, it is one of those which least 進歩 has been made in 解決するing. No two ages, and scarcely any two countries, have decided it alike; and the 決定／判定勝ち（する） of one age or country is a wonder to another. Yet the people of any given age and country no more 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う any difficulty in it, than if it were a 支配する on which mankind had always been agreed. The 支配するs which 得る の中で themselves appear to them self-evident and self-正当化するing.

This all but 全世界の／万国共通の illusion is one of the examples of the magical 影響（力） of custom, which is not only, as the proverb says, a second nature, but is continually mistaken for the first. The 影響 of custom, in 妨げるing any 疑惑 尊敬（する）・点ing the 支配するs of 行為／行う which mankind 課す on one another, is all the more 完全にする because the 支配する is one on which it is not 一般に considered necessary that 推論する／理由s should be given, either by one person to others or by each to himself. People are accustomed to believe, and have been encouraged in the belief by some who aspire to the character of philosophers, that their feelings, on 支配するs of this nature, are better than 推論する／理由s, and （判決などを）下す 推論する／理由s unnecessary. The practical 原則 which guides them to their opinions on the 規則 of human 行為／行う, is the feeling in each person's mind that everybody should be 要求するd to 行為／法令／行動する as he, and those with whom he sympathises, would like them to 行為／法令／行動する. No one, indeed, 認めるs to himself that his 基準 of judgment is his own liking; but an opinion on a point of 行為／行う, not supported by 推論する／理由s, can only count as one person's preference; and if the 推論する／理由s, when given, are a mere 控訴，上告 to a 類似の preference felt by other people, it is still only many people's liking instead of one. To an ordinary man, however, his own preference, thus supported, is not only a perfectly 満足な 推論する／理由, but the only one he 一般に has for any of his notions of morality, taste, or propriety, which are not expressly written in his 宗教的な creed; and his 長，指導者 guide in the 解釈／通訳 even of that. Men's opinions, accordingly, on what is laudable or blamable, are 影響する／感情d by all the multifarious 原因（となる）s which 影響（力） their wishes in regard to the 行為／行う of others, and which are as 非常に／多数の as those which 決定する their wishes on any other 支配する. いつかs their 推論する／理由- at other times their prejudices or superstitions: often their social affections, not seldom their antisocial ones, their envy or jealousy, their arrogance or contemptuousness: but most 一般的に their 願望（する）s or 恐れるs for themselves- their 合法的 or 非合法の self-利益／興味.

Wherever there is an ascendant class, a large 部分 of the morality of the country emanates from its class 利益／興味s, and its feelings of class 優越. The morality between Spartans and Helots, between planters and negroes, between princes and 支配するs, between nobles and roturiers, between men and women, has been for the most part the 創造 of these class 利益／興味s and feelings: and the 感情s thus 生成するd 反応する in turn upon the moral feelings of the members of the ascendant class, in their relations の中で themselves. Where, on the other 手渡す, a class, 以前は ascendant, has lost its ascendancy, or where its ascendancy is 人気がない, the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing moral 感情s frequently 耐える the impress of an impatient dislike of 優越. Another grand 決定するing 原則 of the 支配するs of 行為／行う, both in 行為／法令／行動する and forbearance, which have been 施行するd by 法律 or opinion, has been the servility of mankind に向かって the supposed preferences or aversions of their temporal masters or of their gods. This servility, though essentially selfish, is not hypocrisy; it gives rise to perfectly 本物の 感情s of abhorrence; it made men 燃やす magicians and 異端者s. の中で so many baser 影響（力）s, the general and obvious 利益／興味s of society have of course had a 株, and a large one, in the direction of the moral 感情s: いっそう少なく, however, as a 事柄 of 推論する／理由, and on their own account, than as a consequence of the sympathies and 反感s which grew out of them: and sympathies and 反感s which had little or nothing to do with the 利益／興味s of society, have made themselves felt in the 設立 of moralities with やめる as 広大な／多数の／重要な 軍隊.

The likings and dislikings of society, or of some powerful 部分 of it, are thus the main thing which has 事実上 決定するd the 支配するs laid 負かす／撃墜する for general observance, under the 刑罰，罰則s of 法律 or opinion. And in general, those who have been in 前進する of society in thought and feeling, have left this 条件 of things unassailed in 原則, however they may have come into 衝突 with it in some of its 詳細（に述べる）s. They have 占領するd themselves rather in 問い合わせing what things society せねばならない like or dislike, than in 尋問 whether its likings or dislikings should be a 法律 to individuals. They preferred endeavouring to alter the feelings of mankind on the particular points on which they were themselves heretical, rather than make ありふれた 原因（となる） in defence of freedom, with 異端者s 一般に. The only 事例／患者 in which the higher ground has been taken on 原則 and 持続するd with consistency, by any but an individual here and there, is that of 宗教的な belief: a 事例／患者 instructive in many ways, and not least so as forming a most striking instance of the fallibility of what is called the moral sense: for the odium theologicum, in a sincere bigot, is one of the most 明白な 事例／患者s of moral feeling. Those who first broke the yoke of what called itself the 全世界の／万国共通の Church, were in general as little willing to 許す difference of 宗教的な opinion as that church itself. But when the heat of the 衝突 was over, without giving a 完全にする victory to any party, and each church or sect was 減ずるd to 限界 its hopes to 保持するing 所有／入手 of the ground it already 占領するd; 少数，小数派s, seeing that they had no chance of becoming 大多数s, were under the necessity of pleading to those whom they could not 変える, for 許可 to 異なる. It is accordingly on this 戦う／戦い field, almost 単独で, that the 権利s of the individual against society have been 主張するd on 幅の広い grounds of 原則, and the （人命などを）奪う，主張する of society to 演習 当局 over dissentients 率直に controverted. The 広大な／多数の／重要な writers to whom th e world 借りがあるs what 宗教的な liberty it 所有するs, have mostly 主張するd freedom of 良心 as an indefeasible 権利, and 否定するd 絶対 that a human 存在 is accountable to others for his 宗教的な belief. Yet so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about, that 宗教的な freedom has hardly anywhere been 事実上 realised, except where 宗教的な 無関心／冷淡, which dislikes to have its peace 乱すd by theological quarrels, has 追加するd its 負わせる to the 規模. In the minds of almost all 宗教的な persons, even in the most tolerant countries, the 義務 of toleration is 認める with tacit reserves. One person will 耐える with dissent in 事柄s of church 政府, but not of dogma; another can 許容する everybody, short of a Papist or a Unitarian; another every one who believes in 明らかにする／漏らすd 宗教; a few 延長する their charity a little その上の, but stop at the belief in a God and in a 未来 明言する／公表する. Wherever the 感情 of the 大多数 is still 本物の and 激しい, it is 設立する to have abated little of its （人命などを）奪う，主張する to be obeyed.

In England, from the peculiar circumstances of our political history, though the yoke of opinion is perhaps heavier, that of 法律 is はしけ, than in most other countries of Europe; and there is かなりの jealousy of direct 干渉，妨害, by the 法律を制定する or the (n)役員／(a)執行力のある 力／強力にする, with 私的な 行為／行う; not so much from any just regard for the independence of the individual, as from the still subsisting habit of looking on the 政府 as 代表するing an opposite 利益／興味 to the public. The 大多数 have not yet learnt to feel the 力／強力にする of the 政府 their 力／強力にする, or its opinions their opinions. When they do so, individual liberty will probably be as much exposed to 侵略 from the 政府, as it already is from public opinion. But, as yet, there is a かなりの 量 of feeling ready to be called 前へ／外へ against any 試みる／企てる of the 法律 to 支配（する）／統制する individuals in things in which they have not hitherto been accustomed to be controlled by it; and this with very little 差別 as to whether the 事柄 is, or is not, within the 合法的 sphere of 合法的な 支配（する）／統制する; insomuch that the feeling, 高度に salutary on the whole, is perhaps やめる as often misplaced 同様に grounded in the particular instances of its 使用／適用. There is, in fact, no recognised 原則 by which the propriety or impropriety of 政府 干渉，妨害 is customarily 実験（する）d. People decide によれば their personal preferences. Some, whenever they see any good to be done, or evil to be 治療（薬）d, would willingly 扇動する the 政府 to 請け負う the 商売／仕事; while others prefer to 耐える almost any 量 of social evil, rather than 追加する one to the departments of human 利益／興味s amenable to 政治の 支配（する）／統制する. And men 範囲 themselves on one or the other 味方する in any particular 事例／患者, によれば this general direction of their 感情s; or によれば the degree of 利益／興味 which they feel in the particular thing which it is 提案するd that the 政府 should do, or によれば the belief they entertain that the governm ent would, or would not, do it in the manner they prefer; but very rarely on account of any opinion to which they 終始一貫して 固執する, as to what things are fit to be done by a 政府. And it seems to me that in consequence of this absence of 支配する or 原則, one 味方する is at 現在の as of wrong as the other; the 干渉，妨害 of 政府 is, with about equal frequency, improperly invoked and improperly 非難するd.

The 反対する of this Essay is to 主張する one very simple 原則, as する権利を与えるd to 治める／統治する 絶対 the 取引 of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and 支配（する）／統制する, whether the means used be physical 軍隊 in the form of 合法的な 刑罰，罰則s, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That 原則 is, that the 単独の end for which mankind are 令状d, 個々に or collectively, in 干渉するing with the liberty of 活動／戦闘 of any of their number, is self-保護. That the only 目的 for which 力／強力にする can be rightfully 演習d over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to 妨げる 害（を与える） to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a 十分な 令状. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even 権利. These are good 推論する／理由s for remonstrating with him, or 推論する／理由ing with him, or 説得するing him, or entreating him, but not for 説得力のある him, or visiting him with any evil in 事例／患者 he do さもなければ. To 正当化する that, the 行為／行う from which it is 願望（する）d to 阻止する him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the 行為／行う of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which 関心s others. In the part which 単に 関心s himself, his independence is, of 権利, 絶対の. Over himself, over his own 団体／死体 and mind, the individual is 君主.

It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to 適用する only to human 存在s in the 成熟 of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the 法律 may 直す／買収する，八百長をする as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a 明言する／公表する to 要求する 存在 taken care of by others, must be 保護するd against their own 活動／戦闘s 同様に as against 外部の 傷害. For the same 推論する／理由, we may leave out of consideration those backward 明言する／公表するs of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. The 早期に difficulties in the way of spontaneous 進歩 are so 広大な／多数の／重要な, that there is seldom any choice of means for 打ち勝つing them; and a 支配者 十分な of the spirit of 改良 is 令状d in the use of any expedients that will 達成する an end, perhaps さもなければ unattainable. 先制政治 is a 合法的 方式 of 政府 in 取引，協定ing with barbarians, 供給するd the end be their 改良, and the means 正当化するd by 現実に 影響ing that end. Liberty, as a 原則, has no 使用／適用 to any 明言する／公表する of things anterior to the time when mankind have become 有能な of 存在 改善するd by 解放する／自由な and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one. But as soon as mankind have 達成するd the capacity of 存在 guided to their own 改良 by 有罪の判決 or 説得／派閥 (a period long since reached in all nations with whom we need here 関心 ourselves), compulsion, either in the direct form or in that of 苦痛s and 刑罰，罰則s for 非，不，無-同意／服従, is no longer admissible as a means to their own good, and 正当と認められる only for the 安全 of others.

It is proper to 明言する／公表する that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract 権利, as a thing 独立した・無所属 of 公共事業（料金）／有用性. I regard 公共事業（料金）／有用性 as the ultimate 控訴，上告 on all 倫理的な questions; but it must be 公共事業（料金）／有用性 in the largest sense, grounded on the 永久の 利益／興味s of a man as a 進歩／革新的な 存在. Those 利益／興味s, I 競う, authorise the subjection of individual spontaneity to 外部の 支配（する）／統制する, only in 尊敬（する）・点 to those 活動／戦闘s of each, which 関心 the 利益／興味 of other people. If any one does an 行為／法令／行動する hurtful to others, there is a prima facie 事例／患者 for punishing him, by 法律, or, where 合法的な 刑罰，罰則s are not 安全に applicable, by general disapprobation. There are also many 肯定的な 行為／法令／行動するs for the 利益 of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to 成し遂げる; such as to give 証拠 in a 法廷，裁判所 of 司法（官）; to 耐える his fair 株 in the ありふれた defence, or in any other 共同の work necessary to the 利益／興味 of the society of which he enjoys the 保護; and to 成し遂げる 確かな 行為／法令／行動するs of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow creature's life, or interposing to 保護する the defenceless against ill-usage, things which whenever it is 明白に a man's 義務 to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing. A person may 原因（となる） evil to others not only by his 活動／戦闘s but by his inaction, and in either 事例／患者 he is 正確に，正当に accountable to them for the 傷害. The latter 事例／患者, it is true, 要求するs a much more 用心深い 演習 of compulsion than the former. To make any one 責任のある for doing evil to others is the 支配する; to make him 責任のある for not 妨げるing evil is, comparatively speaking, the exception. Yet there are many 事例／患者s （疑いを）晴らす enough and 墓／厳粛／彫る／重大な enough to 正当化する that exception. In all things which regard the 外部の relations of the individual, he is de jure amenable to those whose 利益／興味s are 関心d, and, if need be, to society as their protector. There are often good 推論する／理由s for not 持つ／拘留するing him to the 責任／義務; but these 推論する／理由s must aris e from the special expediencies of the 事例／患者: either because it is a 肉親，親類d of 事例／患者 in which he is on the whole likely to 行為／法令／行動する better, when left to his own discretion, than when controlled in any way in which society have it in their 力／強力にする to 支配（する）／統制する him; or because the 試みる／企てる to 演習 支配（する）／統制する would produce other evils, greater than those which it would 妨げる. When such 推論する／理由s as these 妨げる the 施行 of 責任／義務, the 良心 of the スパイ／執行官 himself should step into the 空いている judgment seat, and 保護する those 利益／興味s of others which have no 外部の 保護; 裁判官ing himself all the more rigidly, because the 事例／患者 does not 収容する／認める of his 存在 made accountable to the judgment of his fellow creatures.

But there is a sphere of 活動／戦闘 in which society, as distinguished from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect 利益／興味; comprehending all that 部分 of a person's life and 行為／行う which 影響する／感情s only himself, or if it also 影響する／感情s others, only with their 解放する／自由な, voluntary, and undeceived 同意 and 参加. When I say only himself, I mean 直接／まっすぐに, and in the first instance; for whatever 影響する／感情s himself, may 影響する／感情 others through himself; and the 反対 which may be grounded on this contingency, will receive consideration in the sequel. This, then, is the appropriate 地域 of human liberty. It 構成するs, first, the inward domain of consciousness; 需要・要求するing liberty of 良心 in the most 包括的な sense; liberty of thought and feeling; 絶対の freedom of opinion and 感情 on all 支配するs, practical or 思索的な, 科学の, moral, or theological. The liberty of 表明するing and publishing opinions may seem to 落ちる under a different 原則, since it belongs to that part of the 行為／行う of an individual which 関心s other people; but, 存在 almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and 残り／休憩（する）ing in 広大な／多数の／重要な part on the same 推論する／理由s, is 事実上 inseparable from it. Secondly, the 原則 要求するs liberty of tastes and 追跡s; of でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるing the 計画（する） of our life to 控訴 our own character; of doing as we like, 支配する to such consequences as may follow: without 妨害 from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not 害（を与える） them, even though they should think our 行為／行う foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same 限界s, of combination の中で individuals; freedom to 部隊, for any 目的 not 伴う／関わるing 害（を与える） to others: the persons 連合させるing 存在 supposed to be of 十分な age, and not 軍隊d or deceived.

No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, 尊敬（する）・点d, is 解放する／自由な, whatever may be its form of 政府; and 非，不，無 is 完全に 解放する／自由な in which they do not 存在する 絶対の and unqualified. The only freedom which deserves the 指名する, is that of 追求するing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not 試みる／企てる to 奪う others of theirs, or 妨げる their 成果／努力s to 得る it. Each is the proper 後見人 of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by 苦しむing each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by 説得力のある each to live as seems good to the 残り／休憩（する）.

Though this doctrine is anything but new, and, to some persons, may have the 空気／公表する of a truism, there is no doctrine which stands more 直接／まっすぐに …に反対するd to the general 傾向 of 存在するing opinion and practice. Society has expended fully as much 成果／努力 in the 試みる／企てる (によれば its lights) to 強要する people to 適合する to its notions of personal as of social excellence. The 古代の 連邦／共和国s thought themselves する権利を与えるd to practise, and the 古代の philosophers countenanced, the 規則 of every part of 私的な 行為／行う by public 当局, on the ground that the 明言する／公表する had a 深い 利益／興味 in the whole bodily and mental discipline of every one of its 国民s; a 方式 of thinking which may have been admissible in small 共和国s surrounded by powerful enemies, in constant 危険，危なくする of 存在 subverted by foreign attack or 内部の commotion, and to which even a short interval of relaxed energy and self-命令（する） might so easily be 致命的な that they could not afford to wait for the salutary 永久の 影響s of freedom. In the modern world, the greater size of political communities, and, above all, the 分離 between spiritual and temporal 当局 (which placed the direction of men's 良心s in other 手渡すs than those which controlled their worldly 事件／事情／状勢s), 妨げるd so 広大な／多数の／重要な an 干渉，妨害 by 法律 in the 詳細（に述べる）s of 私的な life; but the engines of moral repression have been （権力などを）行使するd more strenuously against 相違 from the 統治するing opinion in self-regarding, than even in social 事柄s; 宗教, the most powerful of the elements which have entered into the 形式 of moral feeling, having almost always been 治める／統治するd either by the ambition of a 階層制度, 捜し出すing 支配（する）／統制する over every department of human 行為／行う, or by the spirit of Puritanism. And some of those modern 改革者s who have placed themselves in strongest 対立 to the 宗教s of the past, have been noway behind either churches or sects in their 主張 of the 権利 of spiritual 支配: M. Comte, in particular, whose social system, a s 広げるd in his Systeme de Politique 肯定的な, 目的（とする）s at 設立するing (though by moral more than by 合法的な 器具s) a 先制政治 of society over the individual, より勝るing anything 熟視する／熟考するd in the political ideal of the most rigid disciplinarian の中で the 古代の philosophers.

Apart from the peculiar tenets of individual thinkers, there is also in the world 捕まらないで an 増加するing inclination to stretch unduly the 力／強力にするs of society over the individual, both by the 軍隊 of opinion and even by that of 法律制定; and as the 傾向 of all the changes taking place in the world is to 強化する society, and 減らす the 力／強力にする of the individual, this encroachment is not one of the evils which tend spontaneously to disappear, but, on the contrary, to grow more and more formidable. The disposition of mankind, whether as 支配者s or as fellow-国民s, to 課す their own opinions and inclinations as a 支配する of 行為／行う on others, is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feelings 出来事/事件 to human nature, that it is hardly ever kept under 抑制 by anything but want of 力／強力にする; and as the 力／強力にする is not 拒絶する／低下するing, but growing, unless a strong 障壁 of moral 有罪の判決 can be raised against the mischief, we must 推定する／予想する, in the 現在の circumstances of the world, to see it 増加する.

It will be convenient for the argument, if, instead of at once entering upon the general 論題／論文, we 限定する ourselves in the first instance to a 選び出す／独身 支店 of it, on which the 原則 here 明言する／公表するd is, if not fully, yet to a 確かな point, recognised by the 現在の opinions. This one 支店 is the Liberty of Thought: from which it is impossible to separate the cognate liberty of speaking and of 令状ing. Although these liberties, to some かなりの 量, form part of the political morality of all countries which profess 宗教的な toleration and 解放する／自由な 会・原則s, the grounds, both philosophical and practical, on which they 残り／休憩（する）, are perhaps not so familiar to the general mind, nor so 完全に 高く評価する／（相場などが）上がるd by many even of the leaders of opinion, as might have been 推定する／予想するd. Those grounds, when rightly understood, are of much wider 使用／適用 than to only one 分割 of the 支配する, and a 徹底的な consideration of this part of the question will be 設立する the best introduction to the 残りの人，物. Those to whom nothing which I am about to say will be new, may therefore, I hope, excuse me, if on a 支配する which for now three centuries has been so often discussed, I 投機・賭ける on one discussion more.

The time, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the "liberty of the 圧力（をかける）" as one of the 安全s against corrupt or tyrannical 政府. No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed, against permitting a 立法機関 or an (n)役員／(a)執行力のある, not identified in 利益／興味 with the people, to 定める／命ずる opinions to them, and 決定する what doctrines or what arguments they shall be 許すd to hear. This 面 of the question, besides, has been so of and so triumphantly 施行するd by 先行する writers, that it needs not be 特に 主張するd on in this place. Though the 法律 of England, on the 支配する of the 圧力（をかける）, is as servile to this day as it was in the time of the Tudors, there is little danger of its 存在 現実に put in 軍隊 against political discussion, except during some 一時的な panic, when 恐れる of insurrection 運動s 大臣s and 裁判官s from their propriety;*

[* These words had scarcely been written, when, as if to give them an emphatic contradiction, occurred the 政府 圧力（をかける） 起訴s of 1858. That ill-裁判官d 干渉，妨害 with the liberty of public discussion has not, however, induced me to alter a 選び出す／独身 word in the text, nor has it at all 弱めるd my 有罪の判決 that, moments of panic excepted, the 時代 of 苦痛s and 刑罰，罰則s for political discussion has, in our own country, passed away. For, in the first place, the 起訴s were not 固執するd in; and, in the second, they were never, 適切に speaking, political 起訴s. The offence 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金d was not that of criticising 会・原則s, or the 行為／法令／行動するs or persons of 支配者s, but of 広まる what was みなすd an immoral doctrine, the lawfulness of Tyrannicide.]

and, speaking 一般に, it is not, in 憲法の countries, to be apprehended, that the 政府, whether 完全に responsible to the people or not, will often 試みる／企てる to 支配（する）／統制する the 表現 of opinion, except when in doing so it makes itself the 組織／臓器 of the general intolerance of the public. Let us suppose, therefore, that the 政府 is 完全に at one with the people, and never thinks of 発揮するing any 力／強力にする of coercion unless in 協定 with what it conceives to be their 発言する／表明する. But I 否定する the 権利 of the people to 演習 such coercion, either by themselves or by their 政府. The 力／強力にする itself is 非合法の. The best 政府 has no more 肩書を与える to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when 発揮するd in 一致 with public opinion, than when in 対立 to it. If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more 正当化するd in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the 力／強力にする, would be 正当化するd in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal 所有／入手 of no value except to the owner; if to be 妨害するd in the enjoyment of it were 簡単に a 私的な 傷害, it would make some difference whether the 傷害 was （打撃，刑罰などを）与えるd only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the 表現 of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity 同様に as the 存在するing 世代; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who 持つ／拘留する it. If the opinion is 権利, they are 奪うd of the 適切な時期 of 交流ing error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as 広大な／多数の／重要な a 利益, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its 衝突／不一致 with error.

If the arguments of the 現在の 一時期／支部 are of any 有効性，効力, there せねばならない 存在する the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a 事柄 of 倫理的な 有罪の判決, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. It would, therefore, be irrelevant and out of place to 診察する here, whether the doctrine of Tyrannicide deserves that 肩書を与える. I shall content myself with 説 that the 支配する has been at all times one of the open questions of morals; that the 行為／法令／行動する of a 私的な 国民 in striking 負かす／撃墜する a 犯罪の, who, by raising himself above the 法律, has placed himself beyond the reach of 合法的な 罰 or 支配（する）／統制する, has been accounted by whole nations, and by some of the best and wisest of men, not a 罪，犯罪, but an 行為／法令／行動する of exalted virtue; and that, 権利 or wrong, it is not of the nature of 暗殺, but of civil war. As such, I 持つ／拘留する that the instigation to it, in a 明確な／細部 事例／患者, may be a proper 支配する of 罰, but only if an overt 行為／法令／行動する has followed, and at least a probable 関係 can be 設立するd between the 行為／法令／行動する and the instigation. Even then, it is not a foreign 政府, but the very 政府 攻撃する，非難するd, which alone, in the 演習 of self-defence, can legitimately punish attacks directed against its own 存在.

It is necessary to consider 分かれて these two hypotheses, each of which has a 際立った 支店 of the argument corresponding to it. We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a 誤った opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.

First: the opinion which it is 試みる／企てるd to 抑える by 当局 may かもしれない be true. Those who 願望（する） to 抑える it, of course 否定する its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no 当局 to decide the question for all mankind, and 除外する every other person from the means of 裁判官ing. To 辞退する a 審理，公聴会 to an opinion, because they are sure that it is 誤った, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as 絶対の certainty. All silencing of discussion is an 仮定／引き受けること of infallibility. Its 激しい非難 may be 許すd to 残り／休憩（する） on this ありふれた argument, not the worse for 存在 ありふれた.

Unfortunately for the good sense of mankind, the fact of their fallibility is far from carrying the 負わせる in their practical judgment which is always 許すd to it in theory; for while every one 井戸／弁護士席 knows himself to be fallible, few think it necessary to take any 警戒s against their own fallibility, or 収容する／認める the supposition that any opinion, of which they feel very 確かな , may be one of the examples of the error to which they 認める themselves to be liable. 絶対の princes, or others who are accustomed to 制限のない deference, usually feel this 完全にする 信用／信任 in their own opinions on nearly all 支配するs. People more happily 据えるd, who いつかs hear their opinions 論争d, and are not wholly 未使用の to be 始める，決める 権利 when they are wrong, place the same unbounded 依存 only on such of their opinions as are 株d by all who surround them, or to whom they habitually defer; for in 割合 to a man's want of 信用／信任 in his own 独房監禁 judgment, does he usually repose, with implicit 信用, on the infallibility of "the world" in general. And the world, to each individual, means the part of it with which he comes in 接触する; his party, his sect, his church, his class of society; the man may be called, by comparison, almost 自由主義の and large-minded to whom it means anything so 包括的な as his own country or his own age. Nor is his 約束 in this 集団の／共同の 当局 at all shaken by his 存在 aware that other ages, countries, sects, churches, classes, and parties have thought, and even now think, the exact 逆転する. He devolves upon his own world the 責任／義務 of 存在 in the 権利 against the dissentient worlds of other people; and it never troubles him that mere 事故 has decided which of these 非常に／多数の worlds is the 反対する of his 依存, and that the same 原因（となる）s which make him a Churchman in London, would have made him a Buddhist or a Confucian in Pekin. Yet it is as evident in itself, as any 量 of argument can make it, that ages are no more infallible than individuals; every age having held many opinions which その後の ages have みなすd not only 誤った but absurd; and it is as 確かな that many opinions now general will be 拒絶するd by 未来 ages, as it is that many, once general, are 拒絶するd by the 現在の.

The 反対 likely to be made to this argument would probably take some such form as the に引き続いて. There is no greater 仮定／引き受けること of infallibility in forbidding the propagation of error, than in any other thing which is done by public 当局 on its own judgment and 責任／義務. Judgment is given to men that they may use it. Because it may be used erroneously, are men to be told that they ought not to use it at all? To 禁じる what they think pernicious, is not （人命などを）奪う，主張するing 控除 from error, but 実行するing the 義務 現職の on them, although fallible, of 事実上の／代理 on their conscientious 有罪の判決. If we were never to 行為／法令／行動する on our opinions, because those opinions may be wrong, we should leave all our 利益／興味s uncared for, and all our 義務s unperformed. An 反対 which 適用するs to all 行為／行う can be no valid 反対 to any 行為／行う in particular. It is the 義務 of 政府s, and of individuals, to form the truest opinions they can; to form them carefully, and never 課す them upon others unless they are やめる sure of 存在 権利. But when they are sure (such reasoners may say), it is not conscientiousness but cowardice to 縮む from 事実上の／代理 on their opinions, and 許す doctrines which they honestly think dangerous to the 福利事業 of mankind, either in this life or in another, to be scattered abroad without 抑制, because other people, in いっそう少なく enlightened times, have 迫害するd opinions now believed to be true. Let us take care, it may be said, not to make the same mistake: but 政府s and nations have made mistakes in other things, which are not 否定するd to be fit 支配するs for the 演習 of 当局: they have laid on bad 税金s, made 不正な wars. Ought we therefore to lay on no 税金s, and, under whatever 誘発, make no wars? Men, and 政府s, must 行為／法令／行動する to the best of their ability. There is no such thing as 絶対の certainty, but there is 保証／確信 十分な for the 目的s of human life. We may, and must, assume our opinion to be true for the 指導／手引 of our own 行為／行う: and it i s assuming no more when we forbid bad men to pervert society by the propagation of opinions which we regard as 誤った and pernicious.

I answer, that it is assuming very much more. There is the greatest difference between 推定するing an opinion to be true, because, with every 適切な時期 for contesting it, it has not been 反駁するd, and assuming its truth for the 目的 of not permitting its refutation. 完全にする liberty of 否定するing and disproving our opinion is the very 条件 which 正当化するs us in assuming its truth for 目的s of 活動／戦闘; and on no other 条件 can a 存在 with human faculties have any 合理的な／理性的な 保証／確信 of 存在 権利.

When we consider either the history of opinion, or the ordinary 行為／行う of human life, to what is it to be ascribed that the one and the other are no worse than they are? Not certainly to the inherent 軍隊 of the human understanding; for, on any 事柄 not self-evident, there are ninety-nine persons 全く incapable of 裁判官ing of it for one who is 有能な; and the capacity of the hundredth person is only comparative; for the 大多数 of the 著名な men of every past 世代 held many opinions now known to be erroneous, and did or 認可するd 非常に／多数の things which no one will now 正当化する. Why is it, then, that there is on the whole a preponderance の中で mankind of 合理的な／理性的な opinions and 合理的な／理性的な 行為／行う? If there really is this preponderance- which there must be unless human 事件／事情／状勢s are, and have always been, in an almost desperate 明言する／公表する- it is 借りがあるing to a 質 of the human mind, the source of everything respectable in man either as an 知識人 or as a moral 存在, すなわち, that his errors are corrigible. He is 有能な of 修正するing his mistakes, by discussion and experience. Not by experience alone. There must be discussion, to show how experience is to be 解釈する／通訳するd. Wrong opinions and practices 徐々に 産する／生じる to fact and argument; but facts and arguments, to produce any 影響 on the mind, must be brought before it. Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning. The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment, depending on the one 所有物／資産／財産, that it can be 始める，決める 権利 when it is wrong, 依存 can be placed on it only when the means of setting it 権利 are kept 絶えず at 手渡す. In the 事例／患者 of any person whose judgment is really deserving of 信用／信任, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to 批評 of his opinions and 行為／行う. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to 利益（をあげる） by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was falla cious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human 存在 can make some approach to knowing the whole of a 支配する, is by 審理，公聴会 what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and 熟考する／考慮するing all 方式s in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his 知恵 in any 方式 but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner. The 安定した habit of 訂正するing and 完全にするing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from 原因（となる）ing 疑問 and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable 創立／基礎 for a just 依存 on it: for, 存在 cognisant of all that can, at least 明白に, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers- knowing that he has sought for 反対s and difficulties, instead of 避けるing them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the 支配する from any ４半期/4分の1- he has a 権利 to think his judgment better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a 類似の 過程.

It is not too much to 要求する that what the wisest of mankind, those who are best する権利を与えるd to 信用 their own judgment, find necessary to 令状 their relying on it, should be submitted to by that miscellaneous collection of a few wise and many foolish individuals, called the public. The most intolerant of churches, the Roman カトリック教徒 Church, even at the canonisation of a saint, 収容する／認めるs, and listens 根気よく to, a "devil's 支持する." The holiest of men, it appears, cannot be 認める to posthumous honours, until all that the devil could say against him is known and 重さを計るd. If even the Newtonian philosophy were not permitted to be questioned, mankind could not feel as 完全にする 保証／確信 of its truth as they now do. The beliefs which we have most 令状 for have no 保護（する）／緊急輸入制限 to 残り／休憩（する） on, but a standing 招待 to the whole world to 証明する them unfounded. If the challenge is not 受託するd, or is 受託するd and the 試みる／企てる fails, we are far enough from certainty still; but we have done the best that the 存在するing 明言する／公表する of human 推論する／理由 収容する／認めるs of; we have neglected nothing that could give the truth a chance of reaching us: if the 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる）s are kept open, we may hope that if there be a better truth, it will be 設立する when the human mind is 有能な of receiving it; and in the 合間 we may rely on having 達成するd such approach to truth as is possible in our own day. This is the 量 of certainty attainable by a fallible 存在, and this the 単独の way of 達成するing it.

Strange it is, that men should 収容する／認める the 有効性，効力 of the arguments for 解放する／自由な discussion, but 反対する to their 存在 "押し進めるd to an extreme"; not seeing that unless the 推論する／理由s are good for an extreme 事例／患者, they are not good for any 事例／患者. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they 認める that there should be 解放する／自由な discussion on all 支配するs which can かもしれない be doubtful, but think that some particular 原則 or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so 確かな , that is, because they are 確かな that it is 確かな . To call any proposition 確かな , while there is any one who would 否定する its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the 裁判官s of certainty, and 裁判官s without 審理，公聴会 the other 味方する.

In the 現在の age- which has been 述べるd as "destitute of 約束, but terrified at scepticism"- in which people feel sure, not so much that their opinions are true, as that they should not know what to do without them- the （人命などを）奪う，主張するs of an opinion to be 保護するd from public attack are 残り／休憩（する）d not so much on its truth, as on its importance to society. There are, it is 申し立てられた／疑わしい, 確かな beliefs so useful, not to say 不可欠の, to 井戸／弁護士席-存在 that it is as much the 義務 of 政府s to 支持する those beliefs, as to 保護する any other of the 利益／興味s of society. In a 事例／患者 of such necessity, and so 直接／まっすぐに in the line of their 義務, something いっそう少なく than infallibility may, it is 持続するd, 令状, and even 貯蔵所d, 政府s to 行為／法令／行動する on their own opinion, 確認するd by the general opinion of mankind. It is also often argued, and still oftener thought, that 非，不，無 but bad men would 願望（する） to 弱める these salutary beliefs; and there can be nothing wrong, it is thought, in 抑制するing bad men, and 禁じるing what only such men would wish to practise. This 方式 of thinking makes the justification of 抑制s on discussion not a question of the truth of doctrines, but of their usefulness; and flatters itself by that means to escape the 責任／義務 of （人命などを）奪う，主張するing to be an infallible 裁判官 of opinions.

But those who thus 満足させる themselves, do not perceive that the 仮定／引き受けること of infallibility is 単に 転換d from one point to another. The usefulness of an opinion is itself 事柄 of opinion: as disputable, as open to discussion, and 要求するing discussion as much as the opinion itself. There is the same need of an infallible 裁判官 of opinions to decide an opinion to be noxious, as to decide it to be 誤った, unless the opinion 非難するd has 十分な 適切な時期 of defending itself. And it will not do to say that the 異端者 may be 許すd to 持続する the 公共事業（料金）／有用性 or harmlessness of his opinion, though forbidden to 持続する its truth. The truth of an opinion is part of its 公共事業（料金）／有用性. If we would know whether or not it is 望ましい that a proposition should be believed, is it possible to 除外する the consideration of whether or not it is true? In the opinion, not of bad men, but of the best men, no belief which is contrary to truth can be really useful: and can you 妨げる such men from 勧めるing that 嘆願, when they are 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金d with culpability for 否定するing some doctrine which they are told is useful, but which they believe to be 誤った? Those who are on the 味方する of received opinions never fail to take all possible advantage of this 嘆願; you do not find them 扱うing the question of 公共事業（料金）／有用性 as if it could be 完全に abstracted from that of truth: on the contrary, it is, above all, because their doctrine is "the truth," that the knowledge or the belief of it is held to be so 不可欠の. There can be no fair discussion of the question of usefulness when an argument so 決定的な may be 雇うd on one 味方する, but not on the other. And in point of fact, when 法律 or public feeling do not 許す the truth of an opinion to be 論争d, they are just as little tolerant of a 否定 of its usefulness. The 最大の they 許す is an extenuation of its 絶対の necessity, or of the 肯定的な 犯罪 of 拒絶するing it.

In order more fully to illustrate the mischief of 否定するing a 審理，公聴会 to opinions because we, in our own judgment, have 非難するd them, it will be 望ましい to 直す／買収する，八百長をする 負かす／撃墜する the discussion to a 固める／コンクリート 事例／患者; and I choose, by preference, the 事例／患者s which are least favourable to me- in which the argument against freedom of opinion, both on the 得点する／非難する／２０ of truth and on that of 公共事業（料金）／有用性, is considered the strongest. Let the opinions impugned be the belief in a God and in a 未来 明言する／公表する, or any of the 一般的に received doctrines of morality. To fight the 戦う／戦い on such ground gives a 広大な／多数の／重要な advantage to an 不公平な antagonist; since he will be sure to say (and many who have no 願望（する） to be 不公平な will say it internally), Are these the doctrines which you do not みなす 十分に 確かな to be taken under the 保護 of 法律? Is the belief in a God one of the opinions to feel sure of which you 持つ／拘留する to be assuming infallibility? But I must be permitted to 観察する, that it is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it may) which I call an 仮定／引き受けること of infallibility. It is the 請け負うing to decide that question for others, without 許すing them to hear what can be said on the contrary 味方する. And I 公然と非難する and reprobate this pretension not the いっそう少なく, if put 前へ／外へ on the 味方する of my most solemn 有罪の判決s. However 肯定的な any one's 説得／派閥 may be, not only of the falsity but of the pernicious consequences- not only of the pernicious consequences, but (to 可決する・採択する 表現s which I altogether 非難する) the immorality and impiety of an opinion; yet if, in pursuance of that 私的な judgment, though 支援するd by the public judgment of his country or his 同時代のs, he 妨げるs the opinion from 存在 heard in its defence, he assumes infallibility. And so far from the 仮定／引き受けること 存在 いっそう少なく objectionable or いっそう少なく dangerous because the opinion is called immoral or impious, this is the 事例／患者 of all others in which it is most 致命的な. These are 正確に／まさに the occasions on which the men of one 世代 commit those dreadful mistakes which excite the astonishment and horror of posterity. It is の中で such that we find the instances memorable in history, when the arm of the 法律 has been 雇うd to root out the best men and the noblest doctrines; with deplorable success as to the men, though some of the doctrines have 生き残るd to be (as if in mockery) invoked in defence of 類似の 行為／行う に向かって those who dissent from them, or from their received 解釈／通訳.

Mankind can hardly be too often reminded, that there was once a man 指名するd Socrates, between whom and the 合法的な 当局 and public opinion of his time there took place a memorable 衝突／不一致. Born in an age and country abounding in individual greatness, this man has been 手渡すd 負かす／撃墜する to us by those who best knew both him and the age, as the most virtuous man in it; while we know him as the 長，率いる and 原型 of all その後の teachers of virtue, the source 平等に of the lofty inspiration of Plato and the judicious utilitarianism of Aristotle, "i mastri di color che sanno," the two headsprings of 倫理的な as of all other philosophy. This 定評のある master of all the 著名な thinkers who have since lived- whose fame, still growing after more than two thousand years, all but outweighs the whole 残りの人，物 of the 指名するs which make his native city illustrious- was put to death by his countrymen, after a judicial 有罪の判決, for impiety and immorality. Impiety, in 否定するing the gods recognised by the 明言する／公表する; indeed his accuser 主張するd (see the Apologia) that he believed in no gods at all. Immorality, in 存在, by his doctrines and 指示／教授／教育s, a "corruptor of 青年." Of these 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金s the 法廷, there is every ground for believing, honestly 設立する him 有罪の, and 非難するd the man who probably of all then born had deserved best of mankind to be put to death as a 犯罪の.

To pass from this to the only other instance of judicial iniquity, the について言及する of which, after the 激しい非難 of Socrates, would not be an anti-最高潮: the event which took place on Calvary rather more than eighteen hundred years ago. The man who left on the memory of those who 証言，証人／目撃するd his life and conversation such an impression of his moral grandeur that eighteen その後の centuries have done homage to him as the Almighty in person, was ignominiously put to death, as what? As a blasphemer. Men did not 単に mistake their benefactor; they mistook him for the exact contrary of what he was, and 扱う／治療するd him as that prodigy of impiety which they themselves are now held to be for their 治療 of him. The feelings with which mankind now regard these lamentable 処理／取引s, 特に the later of the two, （判決などを）下す them 極端に 不正な in their judgment of the unhappy actors. These were, to all 外見, not bad men- not worse than men 一般的に are, but rather the contrary; men who 所有するd in a 十分な, or somewhat more than a 十分な 手段, the 宗教的な, moral, and 愛国的な feelings of their time and people: the very 肉親，親類d of men who, in all times, our own 含むd, have every chance of passing through life blameless and 尊敬（する）・点d. The high-priest who rent his 衣料品s when the words were pronounced, which, によれば all the ideas of his country, 構成するd the blackest 犯罪, was in all probability やめる as sincere in his horror and indignation as the generality of respectable and pious men now are in the 宗教的な and moral 感情s they profess; and most of those who now shudder at his 行為／行う, if they had lived in his time, and been born Jews, would have 行為／法令／行動するd 正確に as he did. 正統派の Christians who are tempted to think that those who 石／投石するd to death the first 殉教者s must have been worse men than they themselves are, せねばならない remember that one of those persecutors was Saint Paul.

Let us 追加する one more example, the most striking of all, if the impressiveness of an error is 手段d by the 知恵 and virtue of him who 落ちるs into it. If ever any one, 所有するd of 力／強力にする, had grounds for thinking himself the best and most enlightened の中で his 同時代のs, it was the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. 絶対の 君主 of the whole civilised world, he 保存するd through life not only the most unblemished 司法（官）, but what was いっそう少なく to be 推定する／予想するd from his Stoical 産む／飼育するing, the tenderest heart. The few failings which are せいにするd to him were all on the 味方する of indulgence: while his writings, the highest 倫理的な 製品 of the 古代の mind, 異なる scarcely perceptibly, if they 異なる at all, from the most characteristic teachings of Christ. This man, a better Christian in all but the dogmatic sense of the word than almost any of the 表面上は Christian 君主s who have since 統治するd, 迫害するd Christianity. Placed at the 首脳会議 of all the previous attainments of humanity, with an open, unfettered intellect, and a character which led him of himself to 具体的に表現する in his moral writings the Christian ideal, he yet failed to see that Christianity was to be a good and not an evil to the world, with his 義務s to which he was so 深く，強烈に 侵入するd. 存在するing society he knew to be in a deplorable 明言する／公表する. But such as it was, he saw, or thought he saw, that it was held together, and 妨げるd from 存在 worse, by belief and reverence of the received divinities. As a 支配者 of mankind, he みなすd it his 義務 not to 苦しむ society to 落ちる in pieces; and saw not how, if its 存在するing 関係 were 除去するd, any others could be formed which could again knit it together. The new 宗教 率直に 目的（とする）d at 解散させるing these 関係: unless, therefore, it was his 義務 to 可決する・採択する that 宗教, it seemed to be his 義務 to put it 負かす／撃墜する. Inasmuch then as the theology of Christianity did not appear to him true or of divine origin; inasmuch as this strange history of a crucified God was not 信頼できる to him, and a system which 趣旨d to 残り／休憩（する） 完全に upon a 創立／基礎 to him so wholly unbelievable, could not be foreseen by him to be that renovating 機関 which, after all abatements, it has in fact 証明するd to be; the gentlest and most amiable of philosophers and 支配者s, under a solemn sense of 義務, authorised the 迫害 of Christianity.

To my mind this is one of the most tragical facts in all history. It is a bitter thought, how different a thing the Christianity of the world might have been, if the Christian 約束 had been 可決する・採択するd as the 宗教 of the empire under the 後援 of Marcus Aurelius instead of those of Constantine. But it would be 平等に 不正な to him and 誤った to truth to 否定する, that no one 嘆願 which can be 勧めるd for punishing anti-Christian teaching was wanting to Marcus Aurelius for punishing, as he did, the propagation of Christianity. No Christian more 堅固に believes that Atheism is 誤った, and tends to the 解散 of society, than Marcus Aurelius believed the same things of Christianity; he who, of all men then living, might have been thought the most 有能な of 高く評価する／（相場などが）上がるing it. Unless any one who 認可するs of 罰 for the promulgation of opinions, flatters himself that he is a wiser and better man than Marcus Aurelius- more 深く，強烈に 詩（を作る）d in the 知恵 of his time, more elevated in his intellect above it- more earnest in his search for truth, or more 選び出す／独身-minded in his devotion to it when 設立する; let him 棄権する from that 仮定／引き受けること of the 共同の infallibility of himself and the multitude, which the 広大な／多数の／重要な Antoninus made with so unfortunate a result.

Aware of the impossibility of defending the use of 罰 for 抑制するing irreligious opinions by any argument which will not 正当化する Marcus Antoninus, the enemies of 宗教的な freedom, when hard 圧力（をかける）d, occasionally 受託する this consequence, and say, with Dr. Johnson, that the persecutors of Christianity were in the 権利; that 迫害 is an ordeal through which truth せねばならない pass, and always passes 首尾よく, 合法的な 刑罰，罰則s 存在, in the end, 権力のない against truth, though いつかs beneficially 効果的な against mischievous errors. This is a form of the argument for 宗教的な intolerance 十分に remarkable not to be passed without notice.

A theory which 持続するs that truth may justifiably be 迫害するd because 迫害 cannot かもしれない do it any 害（を与える）, cannot be 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金d with 存在 故意に 敵意を持った to the 歓迎会 of new truths; but we cannot commend the generosity of its 取引，協定ing with the persons to whom mankind are indebted for them. To discover to the world something which 深く，強烈に 関心s it, and of which it was 以前 ignorant; to 証明する to it that it had been mistaken on some 決定的な point of temporal or spiritual 利益／興味, is as important a service as a human 存在 can （判決などを）下す to his fellow creatures, and in 確かな 事例／患者s, as in those of the 早期に Christians and of the 改革者s, those who think with Dr. Johnson believe it to have been the most precious gift which could be bestowed on mankind. That the authors of such splendid 利益s should be requited by 殉教／苦難; that their reward should be to be dealt with as the vilest of 犯罪のs, is not, upon this theory, a deplorable error and misfortune, for which humanity should 嘆く／悼む in sackcloth and ashes, but the normal and 正当と認められる 明言する／公表する of things. The propounder of a new truth, によれば this doctrine, should stand as stood, in the 法律制定 of the Locrians, the proposer of a new 法律, with a halter 一連の会議、交渉／完成する his neck, to be 即時に 強化するd if the public 議会 did not, on 審理，公聴会 his 推論する／理由s, then and there 可決する・採択する his proposition. People who defend this 方式 of 扱う／治療するing benefactors cannot be supposed to 始める，決める much value on the 利益; and I believe this 見解（をとる） of the 支配する is mostly 限定するd to the sort of persons who think that new truths may have been 望ましい once, but that we have had enough of them now.

But, indeed, the dictum that truth always 勝利s over 迫害 is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience 反駁するs. History teems with instances of truth put 負かす／撃墜する by 迫害. If not 抑えるd for ever, it may be thrown 支援する for centuries. To speak only of 宗教的な opinions: the Reformation broke out at least twenty times before Luther, and was put 負かす／撃墜する. Arnold of Brescia was put 負かす／撃墜する. Fra Dolcino was put 負かす／撃墜する. Savonarola was put 負かす／撃墜する. The Albigeois were put 負かす／撃墜する. The Vaudois were put 負かす／撃墜する. The Lollards were put 負かす／撃墜する. The Hussites were put 負かす／撃墜する. Even after the 時代 of Luther, wherever 迫害 was 固執するd in, it was successful. In Spain, Italy, Flanders, the Austrian empire, Protestantism was rooted out; and, most likely, would have been so in England, had Queen Mary lived, or Queen Elizabeth died. 迫害 has always 後継するd, save where the 異端者s were too strong a party to be effectually 迫害するd. No reasonable person can 疑問 that Christianity might have been extirpated in the Roman Empire. It spread, and became predominant, because the 迫害s were only 時折の, 継続している but a short time, and separated by long intervals of almost undisturbed propagandism. It is a piece of idle sentimentality that truth, 単に as truth, has any inherent 力／強力にする 否定するd to error of 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing against the dungeon and the 火刑／賭ける. Men are not more 熱心な for truth than they often are for error, and a 十分な 使用／適用 of 合法的な or even of social 刑罰，罰則s will 一般に 後継する in stopping the propagation of either. The real advantage which truth has consists in this, that when an opinion is true, it may be 消滅させるd once, twice, or many times, but in the course of ages there will 一般に be 設立する persons to rediscover it, until some one of its reappearances 落ちるs on a time when from favourable circumstances it escapes 迫害 until it has made such 長，率いる as to withstand all その後の 試みる／企てるs to suppres s it.

It will be said, that we do not now put to death the introducers of new opinions: we are not like our fathers who slew the prophets, we even build sepulchres to them. It is true we no longer put 異端者s to death; and the 量 of penal infliction which modern feeling would probably 許容する, even against the most obnoxious opinions, is not 十分な to extirpate them. But let us not flatter ourselves that we are yet 解放する／自由な from the stain even of 合法的な 迫害. 刑罰，罰則s for opinion, or at least for its 表現, still 存在する by 法律; and their 施行 is not, even in these times, so unexampled as to make it at all incredible that they may some day be 生き返らせるd in 十分な 軍隊. In the year 1857, at the summer assizes of the 郡 of Cornwall, an unfortunate man,* said to be of unexceptionable 行為／行う in all relations of life, was 宣告，判決d to twenty-one months' 監禁，拘置, for uttering, and 令状ing on a gate, some 不快な／攻撃 words 関心ing Christianity. Within a month of the same time, at the Old Bailey, two persons, on two separate occasions,** were 拒絶するd as jurymen, and one of them grossly 侮辱d by the 裁判官 and by one of the counsel, because they honestly 宣言するd that they had no theological belief; and a third, a foreigner,*** for the same 推論する／理由, was 否定するd 司法（官） against a どろぼう.

[* Thomas Pooley, Bodmin Assizes, July 31, 1857. In December に引き続いて, he received a 解放する／自由な 容赦 from the 栄冠を与える.]
[** George Jacob Holyoake, August 17, 1857; Edward Truelove, July, 1857.]
[*** Baron de Gleichen, Marlborough Street Police 法廷，裁判所, August 4, 1857. ]

This 拒絶 of 是正する took place in virtue of the 合法的な doctrine, that no person can be 許すd to give 証拠 in a 法廷，裁判所 of 司法（官） who does not profess belief in a God (any god is 十分な) and in a 未来 明言する／公表する; which is 同等（の） to 宣言するing such persons to be 無法者s, 除外するd from the 保護 of the 法廷s; who may not only be robbed or 強襲，強姦d with impunity, if no one but themselves, or persons of 類似の opinions, be 現在の, but any one else may be robbed or 強襲，強姦d with impunity, if the proof of the fact depends on their 証拠. The 仮定／引き受けること on which this is grounded is that the 誓い is worthless of a person who does not believe in a 未来 明言する／公表する; a proposition which betokens much ignorance of history in those who assent to it (since it is 歴史的に true that a large 割合 of infidels in all ages have been persons of distinguished 正直さ and honour); and would be 持続するd by no one who had the smallest conception how many of the persons in greatest repute with the world, both for virtues and attainments, are 井戸／弁護士席 known, at least to their intimates, to be unbelievers. The 支配する, besides, is suicidal, and 削減（する）s away its own 創立／基礎. Under pretence that atheists must be liars, it 収容する／認めるs the 証言 of all atheists who are willing to 嘘（をつく）, and 拒絶するs only those who 勇敢に立ち向かう the obloquy of 公然と 自白するing a detested creed rather than 断言する a falsehood. A 支配する thus self-罪人／有罪を宣告するd of absurdity so far as regards its professed 目的, can be kept in 軍隊 only as a badge of 憎悪, a 遺物 of 迫害; a 迫害, too, having the peculiarity that the 資格 for を受けるing it is the 存在 明確に 証明するd not to deserve it. The 支配する, and the theory it 暗示するs, are hardly いっそう少なく 侮辱ing to 信奉者s than to infidels. For if he who does not believe in a 未来 明言する／公表する やむを得ず lies, it follows that they who do believe are only 妨げるd from lying, if 妨げるd they are, by the 恐れる of hell. We will not do the authors and 教唆犯s of the 支配する the 傷害 of suppo sing that the conception which they have formed of Christian virtue is drawn from their own consciousness.

These, indeed, are but rags and 残余s of 迫害, and may be thought to be not so much an 指示，表示する物 of the wish to 迫害する, as an example of that very たびたび（訪れる） infirmity of English minds, which makes them take a preposterous 楽しみ in the 主張 of a bad 原則, when they are no longer bad enough to 願望（する） to carry it really into practice. But unhappily there is no 安全 in the 明言する／公表する of the public mind that the 中断 of worse forms of 合法的な 迫害, which has lasted for about the space of a 世代, will continue. In this age the 静かな surface of 決まりきった仕事 is as often ruffled by 試みる／企てるs to resuscitate past evils, as to introduce new 利益s. What is 誇るd of at the 現在の time as the 復活 of 宗教, is always, in 狭くする and uncultivated minds, at least as much the 復活 of bigotry; and where there is the strong 永久の leaven of intolerance in the feelings of a people, which at all times がまんするs in the middle classes of this country, it needs but little to 刺激する them into 活発に 迫害するing those whom they have never 中止するd to think proper 反対するs of 迫害.* For it is this- it is the opinions men entertain, and the feelings they 心にいだく, 尊敬（する）・点ing those who disown the beliefs they みなす important, which makes this country not a place of mental freedom.

[* Ample 警告 may be drawn from the large infusion of the passions of a persecutor, which mingled with the general 陳列する，発揮する of the worst parts of our 国家の character on the occasion of the Sepoy insurrection. The ravings of fanatics or charlatans from the pulpit may be unworthy of notice; but the 長，率いるs of the Evangelical party have 発表するd as their 原則 for the 政府 of Hindoos and Mahometans, that no schools be supported by public money in which the Bible is not taught, and by necessary consequence that no public 雇用 be given to any but real or pretended Christians. An Under-国務長官, in a speech 配達するd to his 選挙権を持つ／選挙人s on the 12th of November, 1857, is 報告（する）／憶測d to have said: "Toleration of their 約束" (the 約束 of a hundred millions of British 支配するs), "the superstition which they called 宗教, by the British 政府, had had the 影響 of retarding the ascendancy of the British 指名する, and 妨げるing the salutary growth of Christianity.... Toleration was the 広大な／多数の／重要な corner-石／投石する of the 宗教的な liberties of of this country; but do not let them 乱用 that precious word toleration. As he understood it, it meant the 完全にする liberty to all, freedom of worship, の中で Christians, who worshipped upon the same 創立／基礎. It meant toleration of all sects and denominations of Christians who believed in the one 介入." I 願望（する） to call attention to the fact, that a man who has been みなすd fit to fill a high office in the 政府 of this country under a 自由主義の 省, 持続するs the doctrine that all who do not believe in the divinity of Christ are beyond the pale of toleration. Who, after this imbecile 陳列する，発揮する, can indulge the illusion that 宗教的な 迫害 has passed away, never to return?]

For a long time past, the 長，指導者 mischief of the 合法的な 刑罰，罰則s is that they 強化する the social stigma. It is that stigma which is really 効果的な, and so 効果的な is it, that the profession of opinions which are under the 禁止（する） of society is much いっそう少なく ありふれた in England than is, in many other countries, the avowal of those which 背負い込む 危険 of judicial 罰. In 尊敬（する）・点 to all persons but those whose pecuniary circumstances make them 独立した・無所属 of the good will of other people, opinion, on this 支配する, is as efficacious as 法律; men might 同様に be 拘留するd, as 除外するd from the means of 収入 their bread. Those whose bread is already 安全な・保証するd, and who 願望（する） no favours from men in 力／強力にする, or from 団体／死体s of men, or from the public, have nothing to 恐れる from the open avowal of any opinions, but to be ill-thought of and ill-spoken of, and this it ought not to 要求する a very heroic mould to enable them to 耐える. There is no room for any 控訴，上告 広告 misericordiam in に代わって of such persons. But though we do not now （打撃，刑罰などを）与える so much evil on those who think 異なって from us as it was 以前は our custom to do, it may be that we do ourselves as much evil as ever by our 治療 of them. Socrates was put to death, but the Socratic philosophy rose like the sun in heaven, and spread its 照明 over the whole 知識人 firmament. Christians were cast to the lions, but the Christian church grew up a stately and spreading tree, overtopping the older and いっそう少なく vigorous growths, and stifling them by its shade. Our 単に social intolerance kills no one, roots out no opinions, but induces men to disguise them, or to 棄権する from any active 成果／努力 for their diffusion. With us, heretical opinions do not perceptibly 伸び（る）, or even lose, ground in each １０年間 or 世代; they never 炎 out far and wide, but continue to smoulder in the 狭くする circles of thinking and studious persons の中で whom they 起こる／始まる, without ever lighting up the general 事件／事情／状勢s of mankind with either a true or a deceptive light.

And thus is kept up a 明言する／公表する of things very 満足な to some minds, because, without the unpleasant 過程 of 罰金ing or 拘留するing anybody, it 持続するs all 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing opinions outwardly undisturbed, while it does not 絶対 interdict the 演習 of 推論する／理由 by dissentients afflicted with the malady of thought. A convenient 計画（する） for having peace in the 知識人 world, and keeping all things going on therein very much as they do already. But the price paid for this sort of 知識人 pacification is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind. A 明言する／公表する of things in which a large 部分 of the most active and 問い合わせing intellects find it advisable to keep the general 原則s and grounds of their 有罪の判決s within their own breasts, and 試みる／企てる, in what they 演説（する）／住所 to the public, to fit as much as they can of their own 結論s to 前提s which they have internally 放棄するd, cannot send 前へ／外へ the open, fearless characters, and 論理（学）の, 一貫した intellects who once adorned the thinking world. The sort of men who can be looked for under it, are either mere conformers to commonplace, or time-servers for truth, whose arguments on all 広大な／多数の／重要な 支配するs are meant for their hearers, and are not those which have 納得させるd themselves. Those who 避ける this 代案／選択肢, do so by 狭くするing their thoughts and 利益／興味s to things which can be spoken of without 投機・賭けるing within the 地域 of 原則s, that is, to small practical 事柄s, which would come 権利 of themselves, if but the minds of mankind were 強化するd and 大きくするd, and which will never be made effectually 権利 until then: while that which would 強化する and 大きくする men's minds, 解放する／自由な and daring 憶測 on the highest 支配するs, is abandoned.

Those in whose 注目する，もくろむs this reticence on the part of 異端者s is no evil should consider, in the first place, that in consequence of it there is never any fair and 徹底的な discussion of heretical opinions; and that such of them as could not stand such a discussion, though they may be 妨げるd from spreading, do not disappear. But it is not the minds of 異端者s that are 悪化するd most by the 禁止（する） placed on all 調査 which does not end in the 正統派の 結論s. The greatest 害（を与える） done is to those who are not 異端者s, and whose whole mental 開発 is cramped, and their 推論する／理由 cowed, by the 恐れる of heresy. Who can 計算する what the world loses in the multitude of 約束ing intellects 連合させるd with timid characters, who dare not follow out any bold, vigorous, 独立した・無所属 train of thought, lest it should land them in something which would 収容する／認める of 存在 considered irreligious or immoral? の中で them we may occasionally see some man of 深い conscientiousness, and subtle and 精製するd understanding, who spends a life in sophisticating with an intellect which he cannot silence, and exhausts the 資源s of ingenuity in 試みる／企てるing to reconcile the promptings of his 良心 and 推論する／理由 with orthodoxy, which yet he does not, perhaps, to the end 後継する in doing.

No one can be a 広大な／多数の／重要な thinker who does not recognise, that as a thinker it is his first 義務 to follow his intellect to whatever 結論s it may lead. Truth 伸び（る）s more even by the errors of one who, with 予定 熟考する／考慮する and 準備, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only 持つ／拘留する them because they do not 苦しむ themselves to think. Not that it is 単独で, or 主として, to form 広大な／多数の／重要な thinkers, that freedom of thinking is 要求するd. On the contrary, it is as much and even more 不可欠の to enable 普通の／平均（する） human 存在s to 達成する the mental stature which they are 有能な of. There have been, and may again be, 広大な／多数の／重要な individual thinkers in a general atmosphere of mental slavery. But there never has been, nor ever will be, in that atmosphere an intellectually active people. Where any people has made a 一時的な approach to such a character, it has been because the dread of heterodox 憶測 was for a time 一時停止するd. Where there is a tacit 条約 that 原則s are not to be 論争d; where the discussion of the greatest questions which can 占領する humanity is considered to be の近くにd, we cannot hope to find that 一般に high 規模 of mental activity which has made some periods of history so remarkable. Never when 論争 避けるd the 支配するs which are large and important enough to kindle enthusiasm, was the mind of a people stirred up from its 創立／基礎s, and the impulse given which raised even persons of the most ordinary intellect to something of the dignity of thinking 存在s. Of such we have had an example in the 条件 of Europe during the times すぐに に引き続いて the Reformation; another, though 限られた／立憲的な to the Continent and to a more cultivated class, in the 思索的な movement of the latter half of the eighteenth century; and a third, of still briefer duration, in the 知識人 fermentation of Germany during the Goethian and Fichtean period. These periods 異なるd 広範囲にわたって in the particular opinions which they developed; but were alike in this, that during all three the yoke of 当局 was broken. In each, an old mental 先制政治 had been thrown off, and no new one had yet taken its place. The impulse given at these three periods has made Europe what it now is. Every 選び出す／独身 改良 which has taken place either in the human mind or in 会・原則s, may be traced distinctly to one or other of them. 外見s have for some time 示すd that all three impulses are 井戸／弁護士席 nigh spent; and we can 推定する／予想する no fresh start until we again 主張する our mental freedom.

Let us now pass to the second 分割 of the argument, and 解任するing the supposition that any of the received opinions may be 誤った, let us assume them to be true, and 診察する into the 価値（がある） of the manner in which they are likely to be held, when their truth is not 自由に and 率直に canvassed. However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may 収容する／認める the 可能性 that his opinion may be 誤った, he せねばならない be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.

There is a class of persons (happily not やめる so 非常に／多数の as 以前は) who think it enough if a person assents undoubtingly to what they think true, though he has no knowledge whatever of the grounds of the opinion, and could not make a tenable defence of it against the most superficial 反対s. Such persons, if they can once get their creed taught from 当局, 自然に think that no good, and some 害（を与える）, comes of its 存在 許すd to be questioned. Where their 影響（力） 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるs, they make it nearly impossible for the received opinion to be 拒絶するd wisely and considerately, though it may still be 拒絶するd rashly and ignorantly; for to shut out discussion 完全に is seldom possible, and when it once gets in, beliefs not grounded on 有罪の判決 are apt to give way before the slightest 外見 of an argument. Waiving, however, this 可能性- assuming that the true opinion がまんするs in the mind, but がまんするs as a prejudice, a belief 独立した・無所属 of, and proof against, argument- this is not the way in which truth せねばならない be held by a 合理的な／理性的な 存在. This is not knowing the truth. Truth, thus held, is but one superstition the more, accidentally 粘着するing to the words which enunciate a truth.

If the intellect and judgment of mankind せねばならない be cultivated, a thing which Protestants at least do not 否定する, on what can these faculties be more 適切な 演習d by any one, than on the things which 関心 him so much that it is considered necessary for him to 持つ／拘留する opinions on them? If the cultivation of the understanding consists in one thing more than in another, it is surely in learning the grounds of one's own opinions. Whatever people believe, on 支配するs on which it is of the first importance to believe rightly, they せねばならない be able to defend against at least the ありふれた 反対s. But, some one may say, "Let them be taught the grounds of their opinions. It does not follow that opinions must be 単に parroted because they are never heard controverted. Persons who learn geometry do not 簡単に commit the theorems to memory, but understand and learn likewise the demonstrations; and it would be absurd to say that they remain ignorant of the grounds of geometrical truths, because they never hear any one 否定する, and 試みる／企てる to disprove them." Undoubtedly: and such teaching 十分であるs on a 支配する like mathematics, where there is nothing at all to be said on the wrong 味方する of the question. The peculiarity of the 証拠 of mathematical truths is that all the argument is on one 味方する. There are no 反対s, and no answers to 反対s. But on every 支配する on which difference of opinion is possible, the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two 始める，決めるs of 相反する 推論する／理由s. Even in natural philosophy, there is always some other explanation possible of the same facts; some geocentric theory instead of heliocentric, some phlogiston instead of oxygen; and it has to be shown why that other theory cannot be the true one: and until this is shown, and until we know how it is shown, we do not understand the grounds of our opinion.

But when we turn to 支配するs infinitely more 複雑にするd, to morals, 宗教, politics, social relations, and the 商売／仕事 of life, three-fourths of the arguments for every 論争d opinion consist in dispelling the 外見s which favour some opinion different from it. The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on 記録，記録的な／記録する that he always 熟考する／考慮するd his adversary's 事例／患者 with as 広大な／多数の／重要な, if not still greater, intensity than even his own. What Cicero practised as the means of 法廷の success 要求するs to be imitated by all who 熟考する／考慮する any 支配する ーするために arrive at the truth. He who knows only his own 味方する of the 事例／患者, knows little of that. His 推論する／理由s may be good, and no one may have been able to 反駁する them. But if he is 平等に unable to 反駁する the 推論する／理由s on the opposite 味方する; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The 合理的な／理性的な position for him would be 中断 of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by 当局, or 可決する・採択するs, like the generality of the world, the 味方する to which he feels most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, 現在のd as they 明言する／公表する them, and …を伴ってd by what they 申し込む／申し出 as refutations. That is not the way to do 司法（官） to the arguments, or bring them into real 接触する with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who 現実に believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very 最大の for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole 軍隊 of the difficulty which the true 見解（をとる） of the 支配する has to 遭遇（する） and 配置する／処分する／したい気持ちにさせる of; else he will never really 所有する himself of the 部分 of truth which 会合，会うs and 除去するs that difficulty.

Ninety-nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this 条件; even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their 結論 may be true, but it might be 誤った for anything they know: they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think 異なって from them, and considered what such persons may have to say; and その結果 they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess. They do not know those parts of it which explain and 正当化する the 残りの人，物; the considerations which show that a fact which seemingly 衝突s with another is reconcilable with it, or that, of two 明らかに strong 推論する／理由s, one and not the other せねばならない be preferred. All that part of the truth which turns the 規模, and decides the judgment of a 完全に 知らせるd mind, they are strangers to; nor is it ever really known, but to those who have …に出席するd 平等に and impartially to both 味方するs, and endeavoured to see the 推論する／理由s of both in the strongest light. So 必須の is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human 支配するs, that if 対抗者s of all important truths do not 存在する, it is 不可欠の to imagine them, and 供給（する） them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil's 支持する can conjure up.

To abate the 軍隊 of these considerations, an enemy of 解放する／自由な discussion may be supposed to say, that there is no necessity for mankind in general to know and understand all that can be said against or for their opinions by philosophers and theologians. That it is not needful for ありふれた men to be able to expose all the misstatements or fallacies of an ingenious 対抗者. That it is enough if there is always somebody 有能な of answering them, so that nothing likely to 誤って導く uninstructed persons remains unrefuted. That simple minds, having been taught the obvious grounds of the truths inculcated on them, may 信用 to 当局 for the 残り／休憩（する）, and 存在 aware that they have neither knowledge nor talent to 解決する every difficulty which can be raised, may repose in the 保証／確信 that all those which have been raised have been or can be answered, by those who are 特に trained to the 仕事.

譲歩するing to this 見解（をとる） of the 支配する the 最大の that can be （人命などを）奪う，主張するd for it by those most easily 満足させるd with the 量 of understanding of truth which せねばならない …を伴って the belief of it; even so, the argument for 解放する／自由な discussion is no way 弱めるd. For even this doctrine 認めるs that mankind せねばならない have a 合理的な／理性的な 保証／確信 that all 反対s have been satisfactorily answered; and how are they to be answered if that which 要求するs to be answered is not spoken? or how can the answer be known to be 満足な, if the objectors have no 適切な時期 of showing that it is unsatisfactory? If not the public, at least the philosophers and theologians who are to 解決する the difficulties, must make themselves familiar with those difficulties in their most puzzling form; and this cannot be 遂行するd unless they are 自由に 明言する／公表するd, and placed in the most advantageous light which they 収容する／認める of. The カトリック教徒 Church has its own way of 取引，協定ing with this embarrassing problem. It makes a 幅の広い 分離 between those who can be permitted to receive its doctrines on 有罪の判決, and those who must 受託する them on 信用. Neither, indeed, are 許すd any choice as to what they will 受託する; but the clergy, such at least as can be fully confided in, may admissibly and meritoriously make themselves 熟知させるd with the arguments of 対抗者s, ーするために answer them, and may, therefore, read heretical 調書をとる／予約するs; the laity, not unless by special 許可, hard to be 得るd. This discipline recognises a knowledge of the enemy's 事例／患者 as 有益な to the teachers, but finds means, 一貫した with this, of 否定するing it to the 残り／休憩（する） of the world: thus giving to the エリート more mental culture, though not more mental freedom, than it 許すs to the 集まり. By this 装置 it 後継するs in 得るing the 肉親，親類d of mental 優越 which its 目的s 要求する; for though culture without freedom never made a large and 自由主義の mind, it can make a clever nisi prius 支持する of a 原因（となる）. But in countries professing Protestantism, this 資源 is 否定するd; since Protestants 持つ／拘留する, at least in theory, that the 責任／義務 for the choice of a 宗教 must be borne by each for himself, and cannot be thrown off upon teachers. Besides, in the 現在の 明言する／公表する of the world, it is 事実上 impossible that writings which are read by the 教えるd can be kept from the uninstructed. If the teachers of mankind are to be cognisant of all that they せねばならない know, everything must be 解放する／自由な to be written and published without 抑制.

If, however, the mischievous 操作／手術 of the absence of 解放する／自由な discussion, when the received opinions are true, were 限定するd to leaving men ignorant of the grounds of those opinions, it might be thought that this, if an 知識人, is no moral evil, and does not 影響する／感情 the 価値（がある） of the opinions, regarded in their 影響（力） on the character. The fact, however, is, that not only the grounds of the opinion are forgotten in the absence of discussion, but too often the meaning of the opinion itself. The words which 伝える it 中止する to 示唆する ideas, or 示唆する only a small 部分 of those they were 初めは 雇うd to communicate. Instead of a vivid conception and a living belief, there remain only a few phrases 保持するd by rote; or, if any part, the 爆撃する and husk only of the meaning is 保持するd, the finer essence 存在 lost. The 広大な／多数の／重要な 一時期／支部 in human history which this fact 占領するs and fills, cannot be too 真面目に 熟考する／考慮するd and meditated on.

It is illustrated in the experience of almost all 倫理的な doctrines and 宗教的な creeds. They are all 十分な of meaning and vitality to those who 起こる／始まる them, and to the direct disciples of the originators. Their meaning continues to be felt in 衰えていない strength, and is perhaps brought out into even fuller consciousness, so long as the struggle lasts to give the doctrine or creed an ascendancy over other creeds. At last it either 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるs, and becomes the general opinion, or its 進歩 stops; it keeps 所有／入手 of the ground it has 伸び（る）d, but 中止するs to spread その上の. When either of these results has become 明らかな, 論争 on the 支配する 旗s, and 徐々に dies away. The doctrine has taken its place, if not as a received opinion, as one of the 認める sects or 分割s of opinion: those who 持つ／拘留する it have 一般に 相続するd, not 可決する・採択するd it; and 転換 from one of these doctrines to another, 存在 now an exceptional fact, 占領するs little place in the thoughts of their professors. Instead of 存在, as at first, 絶えず on the 警報 either to defend themselves against the world, or to bring the world over to them, they have 沈下するd into acquiescence, and neither listen, when they can help it, to arguments against their creed, nor trouble dissentients (if there be such) with arguments in its favour. From this time may usually be 時代遅れの the 拒絶する／低下する in the living 力／強力にする of the doctrine.

We often hear the teachers of all creeds lamenting the difficulty of keeping up in the minds of 信奉者s a lively 逮捕 of the truth which they 名目上 recognise, so that it may 侵入する the feelings, and acquire a real mastery over the 行為／行う. No such difficulty is complained of while the creed is still fighting for its 存在: even the 女性 combatants then know and feel what they are fighting for, and the difference between it and other doctrines; and in that period of every creed's 存在, not a few persons may be 設立する, who have realised its 根底となる 原則s in all the forms of thought, have 重さを計るd and considered them in all their important bearings, and have experienced the 十分な 影響 on the character which belief in that creed せねばならない produce in a mind 完全に imbued with it. But when it has come to be an hereditary creed, and to be received passively, not 活発に- when the mind is no longer compelled, in the same degree as at first, to 演習 its 決定的な 力／強力にするs on the questions which its belief 現在のs to it, there is a 進歩／革新的な 傾向 to forget all of the belief except the formularies, or to give it a dull and torpid assent, as if 受託するing it on 信用 dispensed with the necessity of realising it in consciousness, or 実験（する）ing it by personal experience, until it almost 中止するs to connect itself at all with the inner life of the human 存在. Then are seen the 事例／患者s, so たびたび（訪れる） in this age of the world as almost to form the 大多数, in which the creed remains as it were outside the mind, incrusting and petrifying it against all other 影響（力）s 演説（する）／住所d to the higher parts of our nature; manifesting its 力／強力にする by not 苦しむing any fresh and living 有罪の判決 to get in, but itself doing nothing for the mind or heart, except standing sentinel over them to keep them 空いている.

To what an extent doctrines intrinsically fitted to make the deepest impression upon the mind may remain in it as dead beliefs, without 存在 ever realised in the imagination, the feelings, or the understanding, is exemplified by the manner in which the 大多数 of 信奉者s 持つ／拘留する the doctrines of Christianity. By Christianity I here mean what is accounted such by all churches and sects- the maxims and precepts 含む／封じ込めるd in the New Testament. These are considered sacred, and 受託するd as 法律s, by all professing Christians. Yet it is scarcely too much to say that not one Christian in a thousand guides or 実験（する）s his individual 行為／行う by 言及／関連 to those 法律s. The 基準 to which he does 言及する it, is the custom of his nation, his class, or his 宗教的な profession. He has thus, on the one 手渡す, a collection of 倫理的な maxims, which he believes to have been vouchsafed to him by infallible 知恵 as 支配するs for his 政府; and on the other a 始める，決める of every-day judgments and practices, which go a 確かな length with some of those maxims, not so 広大な／多数の／重要な a length with others, stand in direct 対立 to some, and are, on the whole, a 妥協 between the Christian creed and the 利益／興味s and suggestions of worldly life. To the first of these 基準s he gives his homage; to the other his real 忠誠.

All Christians believe that the blessed are the poor and humble, and those who are ill-used by the world; that it is easier for a camel to pass through the 注目する，もくろむ of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; that they should 裁判官 not, lest they be 裁判官d; that they should 断言する not at all; that they should love their 隣人 as themselves; that if one take their cloak, they should give him their coat also; that they should take no thought for the morrow; that if they would be perfect they should sell all that they have and give it to the poor. They are not insincere when they say that they believe these things. They do believe them, as people believe what they have always heard 称讃するd and never discussed. But in the sense of that living belief which 規制するs 行為／行う, they believe these doctrines just up to the point to which it is usual to 行為／法令／行動する upon them. The doctrines in their 正直さ are serviceable to pelt adversaries with; and it is understood that they are to be put 今後 (when possible) as the 推論する／理由s for whatever people do that they think laudable. But any one who reminded them that the maxims 要求する an infinity of things which they never even think of doing, would 伸び（る） nothing but to be classed の中で those very 人気がない characters who 影響する／感情 to be better than other people. The doctrines have no 持つ／拘留する on ordinary 信奉者s- are not a 力／強力にする in their minds. They have an habitual 尊敬（する）・点 for the sound of them, but no feeling which spreads from the words to the things 示す, and 軍隊s the mind to take them in, and make them 適合する to the 決まり文句／製法. Whenever 行為／行う is 関心d, they look 一連の会議、交渉／完成する for Mr. A and B to direct them how far to go in obeying Christ.

Now we may be 井戸／弁護士席 保証するd that the 事例／患者 was not thus, but far さもなければ, with the 早期に Christians. Had it been thus, Christianity never would have 拡大するd from an obscure sect of the despised Hebrews into the 宗教 of the Roman empire. When their enemies said, "See how these Christians love one another" (a 発言／述べる not likely to be made by anybody now), they assuredly had a much livelier feeling of the meaning of their creed than they have ever had since. And to this 原因（となる）, probably, it is 主として 借りがあるing that Christianity now makes so little 進歩 in 延長するing its domain, and after eighteen centuries is still nearly 限定するd to Europeans and the 子孫s of Europeans. Even with the 厳密に 宗教的な, who are much in earnest about their doctrines, and attach a greater 量 of meaning to many of them than people in general, it 一般的に happens that the part which is thus comparatively active in their minds is that which was made by Calvin, or Knox, or some such person much nearer in character to themselves. The 説s of Christ coexist passively in their minds, producing hardly any 影響 beyond what is 原因（となる）d by mere listening to words so amiable and bland. There are many 推論する／理由s, doubtless, why doctrines which are the badge of a sect 保持する more of their vitality than those ありふれた to all recognised sects, and why more 苦痛s are taken by teachers to keep their meaning alive; but one 推論する／理由 certainly is, that the peculiar doctrines are more questioned, and have to be oftener defended against open gainsayers. Both teachers and learners go to sleep at their 地位，任命する, as soon as there is no enemy in the field.

The same thing 持つ／拘留するs true, 一般に speaking, of all 伝統的な doctrines- those of prudence and knowledge of life, 同様に as of morals or 宗教. All languages and literatures are 十分な of general 観察s on life, both as to what it is, and how to 行為／行う oneself in it; 観察s which everybody knows, which everybody repeats, or hears with acquiescence, which are received as truisms, yet of which most people first truly learn the meaning when experience, 一般に of a painful 肉親，親類d, has made it a reality to them. How often, when smarting under some unforeseen misfortune or 失望, does a person call to mind some proverb or ありふれた 説, familiar to him all his life, the meaning of which, if he had ever before felt it as he does now, would have saved him from the calamity. There are indeed 推論する／理由s for this, other than the absence of discussion; there are many truths of which the 十分な meaning cannot be realised until personal experience has brought it home. But much more of the meaning even of these would have been understood, and what was understood would have been far more 深く，強烈に impressed on the mind, if the man had been accustomed to hear it argued プロの／賛成の and 反対／詐欺 by people who did understand it. The 致命的な 傾向 of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is no longer doubtful, is the 原因（となる） of half their errors. A 同時代の author has 井戸／弁護士席 spoken of "the 深い slumber of a decided opinion."

But what! (it may be asked) Is the absence of unanimity an 不可欠の 条件 of true knowledge? Is it necessary that some part of mankind should 固執する in error to enable any to realise the truth? Does a belief 中止する to be real and 決定的な as soon as it is 一般に received- and is a proposition never 完全に understood and felt unless some 疑問 of it remains? As soon as mankind have 全員一致で 受託するd a truth, does the truth 死なせる／死ぬ within them? The highest 目的（とする） and best result of 改善するd 知能, it has hitherto been thought, is to 部隊 mankind more and more in the acknowledgment of all important truths; and does the 知能 only last as long as it has not 達成するd its 反対する? Do the fruits of conquest 死なせる／死ぬ by the very completeness of the victory?

I 断言する no such thing. As mankind 改善する, the number of doctrines which are no longer 論争d or 疑問d will be 絶えず on the 増加する: and the 井戸／弁護士席-存在 of mankind may almost be 手段d by the number and gravity of the truths which have reached the point of 存在 uncontested. The 停止, on one question after another, of serious 論争, is one of the necessary 出来事/事件s of the consolidation of opinion; a consolidation as salutary in the 事例／患者 of true opinions, as it is dangerous and noxious when the opinions are erroneous. But though this 漸進的な 狭くするing of the bounds of 多様制 of opinion is necessary in both senses of the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語, 存在 at once 必然的な and 不可欠の, we are not therefore 強いるd to 結論する that all its consequences must be 有益な. The loss of so important an 援助（する） to the intelligent and living 逮捕 of a truth, as is afforded by the necessity of explaining it to, or defending it against, 対抗者s, though not 十分な to outweigh, is no trifling drawback from, the 利益 of its 全世界の／万国共通の 承認. Where this advantage can no longer be had, I 自白する I should like to see the teachers of mankind endeavouring to 供給する a 代用品，人 for it; some contrivance for making the difficulties of the question as 現在の to the learner's consciousness, as if they were 圧力（をかける）d upon him by a dissentient 支持する／優勝者, eager for his 転換.

But instead of 捜し出すing contrivances for this 目的, they have lost those they 以前は had. The Socratic dialectics, so magnificently exemplified in the 対話s of Plato, were a contrivance of this description. They were essentially a 消極的な discussion of the 広大な／多数の／重要な question of philosophy and life, directed with consummate 技術 to the 目的 of 納得させるing any one who had 単に 可決する・採択するd the commonplaces of received opinion that he did not understand the 支配する- that he as yet 大（公）使館員d no 限定された meaning to the doctrines he professed; in order that, becoming aware of his ignorance, he might be put in the way to 得る a stable belief, 残り／休憩（する）ing on a （疑いを）晴らす 逮捕 both of the meaning of doctrines and of their 証拠. The school disputations of the Middle Ages had a somewhat 類似の 反対する. They were ーするつもりであるd to make sure that the pupil understood his own opinion, and (by necessary correlation) the opinion …に反対するd to it, and could 施行する the grounds of the one and confute those of the other. These last-について言及するd contests had indeed the incurable defect, that the 前提s 控訴，上告d to were taken from 当局, not from 推論する／理由; and, as a discipline to the mind, they were in every 尊敬（する）・点 inferior to the powerful dialectics which formed the intellects of the "Socratici viri"; but the modern mind 借りがあるs far more to both than it is 一般に willing to 収容する／認める, and the 現在の 方式s of education 含む／封じ込める nothing which in the smallest degree 供給（する）s the place either of the one or of the other. A person who derives all his 指示／教授／教育 from teachers or 調書をとる／予約するs, even if he escape the besetting 誘惑 of contenting himself with cram, is under no compulsion to hear both 味方するs; accordingly it is far from a たびたび（訪れる） 業績／成就, even の中で thinkers, to know both 味方するs; and the weakest part of what everybody says in defence of his opinion is what he ーするつもりであるs as a reply to antagonists.

It is the fashion of the 現在の time to disparage 消極的な logic- that which points out 証拠不十分s in theory or errors in practice, without 設立するing 肯定的な truths. Such 消極的な 批評 would indeed be poor enough as an ultimate result; but as a means to 達成するing any 肯定的な knowledge or 有罪の判決 worthy the 指名する, it cannot be valued too 高度に; and until people are again systematically trained to it, there will be few 広大な／多数の／重要な thinkers, and a low general 普通の／平均（する） of intellect, in any but the mathematical and physical departments of 憶測. On any other 支配する no one's opinions deserve the 指名する of knowledge, except so far as he has either had 軍隊d upon him by others, or gone through of himself, the same mental 過程 which would have been 要求するd of him in carrying on an active 論争 with 対抗者s. That, therefore, which when absent, it is so 不可欠の, but so difficult, to create, how worse than absurd it is to forego, when spontaneously 申し込む／申し出ing itself! If there are any persons who contest a received opinion, or who will do so if 法律 or opinion will let them, let us thank them for it, open our minds to listen to them, and rejoice that there is some one to do for us what we さもなければ ought, if we have any regard for either the certainty or the vitality of our 有罪の判決s, to do with much greater 労働 for ourselves.

It still remains to speak of one of the 主要な／長／主犯 原因（となる）s which make 多様制 of opinion advantageous, and will continue to do so until mankind shall have entered a 行う／開催する／段階 of 知識人 進歩 which at 現在の seems at an incalculable distance. We have hitherto considered only two 可能性s: that the received opinion may be 誤った, and some other opinion, その結果, true; or that, the received opinion 存在 true, a 衝突 with the opposite error is 必須の to a （疑いを）晴らす 逮捕 and 深い feeling of its truth. But there is a commoner 事例／患者 than either of these; when the 相反する doctrines, instead of 存在 one true and the other 誤った, 株 the truth between them; and the nonconforming opinion is needed to 供給（する） the 残りの人，物 of the truth, of which the received doctrine 具体的に表現するs only a part. Popular opinions, on 支配するs not palpable to sense, are often true, but seldom or never the whole truth. They are a part of the truth; いつかs a greater, いつかs a smaller part, but 誇張するd, distorted, and disjointed from the truths by which they せねばならない be …を伴ってd and 限られた／立憲的な. Heretical opinions, on the other 手渡す, are 一般に some of these 抑えるd and neglected truths, bursting the 社債s which kept them 負かす／撃墜する, and either 捜し出すing 仲直り with the truth 含む／封じ込めるd in the ありふれた opinion, or 前線ing it as enemies, and setting themselves up, with 類似の exclusiveness, as the whole truth. The latter 事例／患者 is hitherto the most たびたび（訪れる）, as, in the human mind, one-sidedness has always been the 支配する, and many-sidedness the exception. Hence, even in 革命s of opinion, one part of the truth usually 始める，決めるs while another rises. Even 進歩, which せねばならない superadd, for the most part only 代用品，人s, one 部分的な／不平等な and incomplete truth for another; 改良 consisting 主として in this, that the new fragment of truth is more 手配中の，お尋ね者, more adapted to the needs of the time, than that which it 追い出すs. S Thus, in the eighteenth century, when nearly all the 教えるd, and all those of the uninstructed who were led by them, were lost in 賞賛 of what is called civilisation, and of the marvels of modern science, literature, and philosophy, and while 大いに overrating the 量 of unlikeness between the men of modern and those of 古代の times, indulged the belief that the whole of the difference was in their own favour; with what a salutary shock did the paradoxes of Rousseau 爆発する like bombshells in the 中央, dislocating the compact 集まり of one-味方するd opinion, and 軍隊ing its elements to recombine in a better form and with 付加 成分s. Not that the 現在の opinions were on the whole さらに先に from the truth than Rousseau's were; on the contrary, they were nearer to it; they 含む／封じ込めるd more of 肯定的な truth, and very much いっそう少なく of error. にもかかわらず there lay in Rousseau's doctrine, and has floated 負かす／撃墜する the stream of opinion along with it, a かなりの 量 of 正確に／まさに those truths which the popular opinion 手配中の，お尋ね者; and these are the deposit which was left behind when the flood 沈下するd. The superior 価値（がある） of 簡単 of life, the enervating and demoralising 影響 of the trammels and hypocrisies of 人工的な society, are ideas which have never been 完全に absent from cultivated minds since Rousseau wrote; and they will in time produce their 予定 影響, though at 現在の needing to be 主張するd as much as ever, and to be 主張するd by 行為s, for words, on this 支配する, have nearly exhausted their 力／強力にする.

In politics, again, it is almost a commonplace, that a party of order or 安定, and a party of 進歩 or 改革（する）, are both necessary elements of a healthy 明言する／公表する of political life; until the one or the other shall have so 大きくするd its mental しっかり掴む as to be a party 平等に of order and of 進歩, knowing and distinguishing what is fit to be 保存するd from what せねばならない be swept away. Each of these 方式s of thinking derives its 公共事業（料金）／有用性 from the 欠陥／不足s of the other; but it is in a 広大な／多数の／重要な 手段 the 対立 of the other that keeps each within the 限界s of 推論する／理由 and sanity. Unless opinions favourable to 僕主主義 and to aristocracy, to 所有物／資産／財産 and to equality, to 協調 and to 競争, to 高級な and to abstinence, to sociality and individuality, to liberty and discipline, and all the other standing antagonisms of practical life, are 表明するd with equal freedom, and 施行するd and defended with equal talent and energy, there is no chance of both elements 得るing their 予定; one 規模 is sure to go up, and the other 負かす／撃墜する. Truth, in the 広大な／多数の／重要な practical 関心s of life, is so much a question of the reconciling and 連合させるing of opposites, that very few have minds 十分に capacious and impartial to make the 調整 with an approach to correctness, and it has to be made by the rough 過程 of a struggle between combatants fighting under 敵意を持った 旗，新聞一面トップの大見出し／大々的に報道するs. On any of the 広大な／多数の／重要な open questions just enumerated, if either of the two opinions has a better （人命などを）奪う，主張する than the other, not 単に to be 許容するd, but to be encouraged and countenanced, it is the one which happens at the particular time and place to be in a 少数，小数派. That is the opinion which, for the time 存在, 代表するs the neglected 利益／興味s, the 味方する of human 井戸／弁護士席-存在 which is in danger of 得るing いっそう少なく than its 株. I am aware that there is not, in this country, any intolerance of differences of opinion on most of these topics. They are adduced to show, by 認める and multiplied examples, the universality of the fact, that onl y through 多様制 of opinion is there, in the 存在するing 明言する／公表する of human intellect, a chance of fair play to all 味方するs of the truth. When there are persons to be 設立する who form an exception to the 明らかな unanimity of the world on any 支配する, even if the world is in the 権利, it is always probable that dissentients have something 価値（がある） 審理，公聴会 to say for themselves, and that truth would lose something by their silence.

It may be 反対するd, "But some received 原則s, 特に on the highest and most 決定的な 支配するs, are more than half-truths. The Christian morality, for instance, is the whole truth on that 支配する, and if any one teaches a morality which 変化させるs from it, he is wholly in error." As this is of all 事例／患者s the most important in practice, 非，不，無 can be fitter to 実験（する） the general maxim. But before pronouncing what Christian morality is or is not, it would be 望ましい to decide what is meant by Christian morality. If it means the morality of the New Testament, I wonder that any one who derives his knowledge of this from the 調書をとる／予約する itself, can suppose that it was 発表するd, or ーするつもりであるd, as a 完全にする doctrine of morals. The Gospel always 言及するs to a pre-存在するing morality, and 限定するs its precepts to the particulars in which that morality was to be 訂正するd, or superseded by a wider and higher; 表明するing itself, moreover, ーに関して／ーの点でs most general, often impossible to be 解釈する／通訳するd literally, and 所有するing rather the impressiveness of poetry or eloquence than the precision of 法律制定. To 抽出する from it a 団体／死体 of 倫理的な doctrine, has never been possible without eking it out from the Old Testament, that is, from a system (a)手の込んだ／(v)詳述する indeed, but in many 尊敬（する）・点s barbarous, and ーするつもりであるd only for a barbarous people. St. Paul, a 宣言するd enemy to this Judaical 方式 of 解釈する／通訳するing the doctrine and filling up the 計画／陰謀 of his Master, 平等に assumes a preexisting morality, すなわち that of the Greeks and Romans; and his advice to Christians is in a 広大な／多数の／重要な 手段 a system of accommodation to that; even to the extent of giving an 明らかな 許可／制裁 to slavery. What is called Christian, but should rather be 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語d theological, morality, was not the work of Christ or the Apostles, but is of much later origin, having been 徐々に built up by the カトリック教徒 church of the first five centuries, and though not 暗黙に 可決する・採択するd by moderns and Protestants, has been much いっそう少なく 修正するd by them than might have been 推定する／予想するd. For the mos t part, indeed, they have contented themselves with cutting off the 新規加入s which had been made to it in the Middle Ages, each sect 供給（する）ing the place by fresh 新規加入s, adapted to its own character and 傾向s.

That mankind 借りがある a 広大な／多数の／重要な 負債 to this morality, and to its 早期に teachers, I should be the last person to 否定する; but I do not scruple to say of it that it is, in many important points, incomplete and one-味方するd, and that unless ideas and feelings, not 許可／制裁d by it, had 与える／捧げるd to the 形式 of European life and character, human 事件／事情／状勢s would have been in a worse 条件 than they now are. Christian morality (so called) has all the characters of a reaction; it is, in 広大な／多数の／重要な part, a 抗議する against Paganism. Its ideal is 消極的な rather than 肯定的な; passive rather than active; Innocence rather than Nobleness; Abstinence from Evil, rather than energetic 追跡 of Good; in its precepts (as has been 井戸／弁護士席 said) "thou shalt not" predominates unduly over "thou shalt." In its horror of sensuality, it made an idol of asceticism, which has been 徐々に 妥協d away into one of 合法性. It 持つ／拘留するs out the hope of heaven and the 脅し of hell, as the 任命するd and appropriate 動機s to a virtuous life: in this 落ちるing far below the best of the 古代のs, and doing what lies in it to give to human morality an essentially selfish character, by disconnecting each man's feelings of 義務 from the 利益／興味s of his fellow creatures, except so far as a self-利益／興味d 誘導 is 申し込む／申し出d to him for 協議するing them. It is essentially a doctrine of passive obedience; it inculcates submission to all 当局 設立する 設立するd; who indeed are not to be 活発に obeyed when they 命令（する） what 宗教 forbids, but who are not to be resisted, far いっそう少なく rebelled against, for any 量 of wrong to ourselves. And while, in the morality of the best Pagan nations, 義務 to the 明言する／公表する 持つ／拘留するs even a disproportionate place, （規則などを）破る／侵害するing on the just liberty of the individual; in 純粋に Christian 倫理学, that grand department of 義務 is scarcely noticed or 定評のある. It is in the Koran, not the New Testament, that we read the maxim- "A 支配者 who 任命するs any man to an office, when there is in his dominions another man better qu alified for it, sins against God and against the 明言する／公表する." What little 承認 the idea of 義務 to the public 得るs in modern morality is derived from Greek and Roman sources, not from Christian; as, even in the morality of 私的な life, whatever 存在するs of magnanimity, highmindedness, personal dignity, even the sense of honour, is derived from the 純粋に human, not the 宗教的な part of our education, and never could have grown out of a 基準 of 倫理学 in which the only 価値（がある）, professedly recognised, is that of obedience.

I am as far as any one from pretending that these defects are やむを得ず inherent in the Christian 倫理学 in every manner in which it can be conceived, or that the many requisites of a 完全にする moral doctrine which it does not 含む／封じ込める do not 収容する／認める of 存在 reconciled with it. Far いっそう少なく would I insinuate this of the doctrines and precepts of Christ himself. I believe that the 説s of Christ are all that I can see any 証拠 of their having been ーするつもりであるd to be; that they are irreconcilable with nothing which a 包括的な morality 要求するs; that everything which is excellent in 倫理学 may be brought within them, with no greater 暴力／激しさ to their language than has been done to it by all who have 試みる／企てるd to deduce from them any practical system of 行為／行う whatever. But it is やめる 一貫した with this to believe that they 含む／封じ込める, and were meant to 含む／封じ込める, only a part of the truth; that many 必須の elements of the highest morality are の中で the things which are not 供給するd for, nor ーするつもりであるd to be 供給するd for, in the 記録，記録的な／記録するd deliverances of the 創立者 of Christianity, and which have been 完全に thrown aside in the system of 倫理学 築くd on the basis of those deliverances by the Christian Church. And this 存在 so, I think it a 広大な／多数の／重要な error to 固執する in 試みる／企てるing to find in the Christian doctrine that 完全にする 支配する for our 指導／手引 which its author ーするつもりであるd it to 許可／制裁 and 施行する, but only 部分的に／不公平に to 供給する. I believe, too, that this 狭くする theory is becoming a 墓／厳粛／彫る／重大な practical evil, detracting 大いに from the moral training and 指示／教授／教育 which so many 井戸／弁護士席-meaning persons are now at length 発揮するing themselves to 促進する. I much 恐れる that by 試みる／企てるing to form the mind and feelings on an 排他的に 宗教的な type, and discarding those 世俗的な 基準s (as for want of a better 指名する they may be called) which heretofore coexisted with and 補足（する）d the Christian 倫理学, receiving some of its spirit, and infusing into it some of theirs, there will result, and is even now resulting, a lo w, abject, servile type of character, which, 服従させる／提出する itself as it may to what it みなすs the 最高の Will, is incapable of rising to or sympathising in the conception of 最高の Goodness. I believe that other 倫理学 than any which can be 発展させるd from 排他的に Christian sources, must 存在する 味方する by 味方する with Christian 倫理学 to produce the moral regeneration of mankind; and that the Christian system is no exception to the 支配する, that in an imperfect 明言する／公表する of the human mind the 利益／興味s of truth 要求する a 多様制 of opinions.

It is not necessary that in 中止するing to ignore the moral truths not 含む／封じ込めるd in Christianity men should ignore any of those which it does 含む／封じ込める. Such prejudice, or oversight, when it occurs, is altogether an evil; but it is one from which we cannot hope to be always 免除された, and must be regarded as the price paid for an inestimable good. The 排除的 pretension made by a part of the truth to be the whole, must and せねばならない be 抗議するd against; and if a reactionary impulse should make the protestors 不正な in their turn, this one-sidedness, like the other, may be lamented, but must be 許容するd. If Christians would teach infidels to be just to Christianity, they should themselves be just to infidelity. It can do truth no service to blink the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary 知識 with literary history, that a large 部分 of the noblest and most 価値のある moral teaching has been the work, not only of men who did not know, but of men who knew and 拒絶するd, the Christian 約束.

I do not pretend that the most 制限のない use of the freedom of enunciating all possible opinions would put an end to the evils of 宗教的な or philosophical sectarianism. Every truth which men of 狭くする capacity are in earnest about, is sure to be 主張するd, inculcated, and in many ways even 行為／法令／行動するd on, as if no other truth 存在するd in the world, or at all events 非，不，無 that could 限界 or qualify the first. I 認める that the 傾向 of all opinions to become sectarian is not cured by the freest discussion, but is often 高くする，増すd and 悪化させるd その為に; the truth which せねばならない have been, but was not, seen, 存在 拒絶するd all the more violently because 布告するd by persons regarded as 対抗者s. But it is not on the 情熱的な 同志／支持者, it is on the calmer and more disinterested bystander, that this 衝突／不一致 of opinions 作品 its salutary 影響. Not the violent 衝突 between parts of the truth, but the 静かな 鎮圧 of half of it, is the formidable evil; there is always hope when people are 軍隊d to listen to both 味方するs; it is when they …に出席する only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself 中止するs to have the 影響 of truth, by 存在 誇張するd into falsehood. And since there are few mental せいにするs more rare than that judicial faculty which can sit in intelligent judgment between two 味方するs of a question, of which only one is 代表するd by an 支持する before it, truth has no chance but in 割合 as every 味方する of it, every opinion which 具体的に表現するs any fraction of the truth, not only finds 支持するs, but is so 支持するd as to be listened to.

We have now recognised the necessity to the mental 井戸／弁護士席-存在 of mankind (on which all their other 井戸／弁護士席-存在 depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the 表現 of opinion, on four 際立った grounds; which we will now 簡潔に recapitulate.

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To 否定する this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very 一般的に does, 含む／封じ込める a 部分 of truth; and since the general or 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing opinion on any 支配する is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the 衝突／不一致 of 逆の opinions that the 残りの人，物 of the truth has any chance of 存在 供給（する）d.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is 苦しむd to be, and 現実に is, vigorously and 真面目に contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its 合理的な／理性的な grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of 存在 lost, or enfeebled, and 奪うd of its 決定的な 影響 on the character and 行為／行う: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and 妨げるing the growth of any real and 深く心に感じた 有罪の判決, from 推論する／理由 or personal experience.

Before quitting the 支配する of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take some notice of those who say that the 解放する／自由な 表現 of all opinions should be permitted, on 条件 that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of 直す／買収する，八百長をするing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the 実験（する） be offence to those whose opinions are attacked, I think experience 証言するs that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every 対抗者 who 押し進めるs them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the 支配する, an intemperate 対抗者.

But this, though an important consideration in a practical point of 見解（をとる）, 合併するs in a more 根底となる 反対. Undoubtedly the manner of 主張するing an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may 正確に，正当に 背負い込む 厳しい 非難. But the 主要な／長／主犯 offences of the 肉親，親類d are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by 偶発の self-betrayal, to bring home to 有罪の判決. The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically, to 抑える facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the 事例／患者, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most 悪化させるd degree, is so continually done in perfect good 約束, by persons who are not considered, and in many other 尊敬（する）・点s may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible, on 適する grounds, conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable; and still いっそう少なく could 法律 推定する to 干渉する with this 肉親，親類d of 議論の的になる 不品行／姦通. With regard to what is 一般的に meant by intemperate discussion, すなわち 悪口雑言, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these 武器s would deserve more sympathy if it were ever 提案するd to interdict them 平等に to both 味方するs; but it is only 願望（する）d to 抑制する the 雇用 of them against the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general 不賛成, but will be likely to 得る for him who uses them the 賞賛する of honest zeal and righteous indignation. Yet whatever mischief arises from their use is greatest when they are 雇うd against the comparatively defenceless; and whatever 不公平な advantage can be derived by any opinion from this 方式 of 主張するing it, accrues almost 排他的に to received opinions. The worst offence of this 肉親，親類d which can be committed by a polemic is to stigmatise those who 持つ／拘留する the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men. To calumny of this sort, those who 持つ／拘留する any 人気がない opinion are peculiarly exposed, because they are in general few and uninfluential, and nobod y but themselves feels much 利益／興味d in seeing 司法（官） done them; but this 武器 is, from the nature of the 事例／患者, 否定するd to those who attack a 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing opinion: they can neither use it with safety to themselves, nor, if they could, would it do anything but recoil on their own 原因（となる）. In general, opinions contrary to those 一般的に received can only 得る a 審理，公聴会 by 熟考する／考慮するd moderation of language, and the most 用心深い avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation 雇うd on the 味方する of the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing opinion really does 阻止する people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them.

For the 利益／興味, therefore, of truth and 司法（官）, it is far more important to 抑制する this 雇用 of vituperative language than the other; and, for example, if it were necessary to choose, there would be much more need to discourage 不快な／攻撃 attacks on infidelity than on 宗教. It is, however, obvious that 法律 and 当局 have no 商売／仕事 with 抑制するing either, while opinion ought, in every instance, to 決定する its 判決 by the circumstances of the individual 事例／患者; 非難するing every one, on whichever 味方する of the argument he places himself, in whose 方式 of advocacy either want of candour, or malignity, bigotry, or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves; but not inferring these 副／悪徳行為s from the 味方する which a person takes, though it be the contrary 味方する of the question to our own; and giving 長所d honour to every one, whatever opinion he may 持つ／拘留する, who has calmness to see and honesty to 明言する／公表する what his 対抗者s and their opinions really are, 誇張するing nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing 支援する which tells, or can be supposed to tell, in their favour. This is the real morality of public discussion: and if often 侵害する／違反するd, I am happy to think that there are many controversialists who to a 広大な／多数の／重要な extent 観察する it, and a still greater number who conscientiously 努力する／競う に向かって it.

Such 存在 the 推論する／理由s which make it imperative that human 存在s should be 解放する／自由な to form opinions, and to 表明する their opinions without reserve; and such the baneful consequences to the 知識人, and through that to the moral nature of man, unless this liberty is either 譲歩するd, or 主張するd in spite of 禁止; let us next 診察する whether the same 推論する／理由s do not 要求する that men should be 解放する／自由な to 行為／法令／行動する upon their opinions- to carry these out in their lives, without hindrance, either physical or moral, from their fellow-men, so long as it is at their own 危険 and 危険，危なくする.

This last proviso is of course 不可欠の. No one pretends that 活動／戦闘s should be as 解放する／自由な as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their 免疫 when the circumstances in which they are 表明するd are such as to 構成する their 表現 a 肯定的な instigation to some mischievous 行為／法令／行動する. An opinion that corn-売買業者s are starvers of the poor, or that 私的な 所有物／資産／財産 is 強盗, せねばならない be unmolested when 簡単に 循環させるd through the 圧力（をかける）, but may 正確に，正当に 背負い込む 罰 when 配達するd orally to an excited 暴徒 組み立てる／集結するd before the house of a corn-売買業者, or when 手渡すd about の中で the same 暴徒 in the form of a 掲示. 行為／法令／行動するs, of whatever 肉親，親類d, which, without 正当と認められる 原因（となる）, do 害（を与える） to others, may be, and in the more important 事例／患者s 絶対 要求する to be, controlled by the unfavourable 感情s, and, when needful, by the active 干渉，妨害 of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far 限られた／立憲的な; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he 差し控えるs from （性的に）いたずらするing others in what 関心s them, and 単に 行為／法令／行動するs によれば his own inclination and judgment in things which 関心 himself, the same 推論する／理由s which show that opinion should be 解放する／自由な, 証明する also that he should be 許すd, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost. That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that まとまり of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not 望ましい, and 多様制 not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more 有能な than at 現在の of recognising all 味方するs of the truth, are 原則s applicable to men's 方式s of 活動／戦闘, not いっそう少なく than to their opinions. As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so it is that there should be different 実験s of living; that 解放する／自由な 範囲 should be given to varieties of character, short of 傷害 to others; and that the 価値（がある） of different 方式s of life should be 証明するd pra ctically, when any one thinks fit to try them. It is 望ましい, in short, that in things which do not まず第一に／本来 関心 others, individuality should 主張する itself. Where, not the person's own character, but the traditions or customs of other people are the 支配する of 行為／行う, there is wanting one of the 主要な／長／主犯 成分s of human happiness, and やめる the 長，指導者 成分 of individual and social 進歩.

In 持続するing this 原則, the greatest difficulty to be 遭遇（する）d does not 嘘（をつく） in the 評価 of means に向かって an 定評のある end, but in the 無関心／冷淡 of persons in general to the end itself. If it were felt that the 解放する／自由な 開発 of individuality is one of the 主要な 必須のs of 井戸／弁護士席-存在; that it is not only a co-ordinate element with all that is 指定するd by the 条件 civilisation, 指示／教授／教育, education, culture, but is itself a necessary part and 条件 of all those things; there would be no danger that liberty should be undervalued, and the 調整 of the 境界s between it and social 支配（する）／統制する would 現在の no 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の difficulty. But the evil is, that individual spontaneity is hardly recognised by the ありふれた 方式s of thinking as having any intrinsic 価値（がある）, or deserving any regard on its own account. The 大多数, 存在 満足させるd with the ways of mankind as they now are (for it is they who make them what they are), cannot comprehend why those ways should not be good enough for everybody; and what is more, spontaneity forms no part of the ideal of the 大多数 of moral and social 改革者s, but is rather looked on with jealousy, as a troublesome and perhaps 反抗的な obstruction to the general 受託 of what these 改革者s, in their own judgment, think would be best for mankind. Few persons, out of Germany, even comprehend the meaning of the doctrine which Wilhelm 出身の Humboldt, so 著名な both as a savant and as a 政治家，政治屋, made the text of a treatise- that "the end of man, or that which is 定める／命ずるd by the eternal or immutable dictates of 推論する／理由, and not 示唆するd by vague and transient 願望（する）s, is the highest and most harmonious 開発 of his 力／強力にするs to a 完全にする and 一貫した whole"; that, therefore, the 反対する "に向かって which every human 存在 must ceaselessly direct his 成果／努力s, and on which 特に those who design to 影響（力） their fellow-men must ever keep their 注目する，もくろむs, is the individuality of 力／強力にする and 開発"; that for this there are two r equisites, "freedom, and variety of 状況／情勢s"; and that from the union of these arise "individual vigour and manifold 多様制," which 連合させる themselves in "originality."*

[* The Sphere and 義務s of 政府, from the German of Baron Wilhelm 出身の Humboldt, pp. 11-13.]

Little, however, as people are accustomed to a doctrine like that of 出身の Humboldt, and surprising as it may be to them to find so high a value 大（公）使館員d to individuality, the question, one must にもかかわらず think, can only be one of degree. No one's idea of excellence in 行為／行う is that people should do 絶対 nothing but copy one another. No one would 主張する that people ought not to put into their 方式 of life, and into the 行為／行う of their 関心s, any impress whatever of their own judgment, or of their own individual character. On the other 手渡す, it would be absurd to pretend that people せねばならない live as if nothing whatever had been known in the world before they （機の）カム into it; as if experience had as yet done nothing に向かって showing that one 方式 of 存在 or of 行為／行う, is より望ましい to another. Nobody 否定するs that people should be so taught and trained in 青年 as to know and 利益 by the ascertained results of human experience. But it is the 特権 and proper 条件 of a human 存在, arrived at the 成熟 of his faculties, to use and 解釈する／通訳する experience in his own way. It is for him to find out what part of 記録，記録的な／記録するd experience is 適切に applicable to his own circumstances and character. The traditions and customs of other people are, to a 確かな extent, 証拠 of what their experience has taught them; presumptive 証拠, and as such, have a （人命などを）奪う，主張する to his deference: but, in the first place, their experience may be too 狭くする; or they may not have 解釈する／通訳するd it rightly. Secondly, their 解釈／通訳 of experience may be 訂正する, but unsuitable to him. Customs are made for customary circumstances and customary characters; and his circumstances or his character may be uncustomary. Thirdly, though the customs be both good as customs, and suitable to him, yet to 適合する to custom, 単に as custom, does not educate or develop in him any of the 質s which are the 独特の endowment of a human 存在. The human faculties of perception, judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activi ty, and even moral preference, are 演習d only in making a choice. He who does anything because it is the custom makes no choice. He 伸び（る）s no practice either in discerning or in 願望（する）ing what is best. The mental and moral, like the muscular 力／強力にするs, are 改善するd only by 存在 used. The faculties are called into no 演習 by doing a thing 単に because others do it, no more than by believing a thing only because others believe it. If the grounds of an opinion are not conclusive to the person's own 推論する／理由, his 推論する／理由 cannot be 強化するd, but is likely to be 弱めるd, by his 可決する・採択するing it: and if the 誘導s to an 行為／法令／行動する are not such as are consentaneous to his own feelings and character (where affection, or the 権利s of others, are not 関心d) it is so much done に向かって （判決などを）下すing his feelings and character inert and torpid, instead of active and energetic.

He who lets the world, or his own 部分 of it, choose his 計画（する） of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his 計画（する） for himself, 雇うs all his faculties. He must use 観察 to see, 推論する／理由ing and judgment to 予知する, activity to gather 構成要素s for 決定／判定勝ち（する）, 差別 to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-支配（する）／統制する to 持つ／拘留する to his 審議する／熟考する 決定／判定勝ち（する）. And these 質s he 要求するs and 演習s 正確に／まさに in 割合 as the part of his 行為／行う which he 決定するs によれば his own judgment and feelings is a large one. It is possible that he might be guided in some good path, and kept out of 害（を与える）'s way, without any of these things. But what will be his comparative 価値（がある） as a human 存在? It really is of importance, not only what men do, but also what manner of men they are that do it. の中で the 作品 of man, which human life is rightly 雇うd in perfecting and beautifying, the first in importance surely is man himself. Supposing it were possible to get houses built, corn grown, 戦う／戦いs fought, 原因（となる）s tried, and even churches 築くd and 祈りs said, by 機械／機構- by automatons in human form- it would be a かなりの loss to 交流 for these automatons even the men and women who at 現在の 住む the more civilised parts of the world, and who assuredly are but 餓死するd 見本／標本s of what nature can and will produce. Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and 始める，決める to do 正確に／まさに the work 定める／命ずるd for it, but a tree, which 要求するs to grow and develop itself on all 味方するs, によれば the 傾向 of the inward 軍隊s which make it a living thing.

It will probably be 譲歩するd that it is 望ましい people should 演習 their understandings, and that an intelligent に引き続いて of custom, or even occasionally an intelligent deviation from custom, is better than a blind and 簡単に mechanical adhesion to it. To a 確かな extent it is 認める that our understanding should be our own: but there is not the same 乗り気 to 収容する／認める that our 願望（する）s and impulses should be our own likewise; or that to 所有する impulses of our own, and of any strength, is anything but a 危険，危なくする and a snare. Yet 願望（する）s and impulses are as much a part of a perfect human 存在 as beliefs and 抑制s: and strong impulses are only perilous when not 適切に balanced; when one 始める，決める of 目的（とする）s and inclinations is developed into strength, while others, which せねばならない co-存在する with them, remain weak and inactive. It is not because men's 願望（する）s are strong that they 行為／法令／行動する ill; it is because their 良心s are weak. There is no natural 関係 between strong impulses and a weak 良心. The natural 関係 is the other way. To say that one person's 願望（する）s and feelings are stronger and more さまざまな than those of another, is 単に to say that he has more of the raw 構成要素 of human nature, and is therefore 有能な, perhaps of more evil, but certainly of more good. Strong impulses are but another 指名する for energy. Energy may be turned to bad uses; but more good may always be made of an energetic nature, than of an indolent and impassive one. Those who have most natural feeling are always those whose cultivated feelings may be made the strongest. The same strong susceptibilities which make the personal impulses vivid and powerful, are also the source from whence are 生成するd the most 熱烈な love of virtue, and the sternest self-支配（する）／統制する. It is through the cultivation of these that society both does its 義務 and 保護するs its 利益／興味s: not by 拒絶するing the stuff of which heroes are made, because it knows not how to make them. A person whose 願望（する）s and impulses are his own- are the exp ression of his own nature, as it has been developed and 修正するd by his own culture- is said to have a character. One whose 願望（する）s and impulses are not his own, has no character, no more than a steam-engine has a character. If, in 新規加入 to 存在 his own, his impulses are strong, and are under the 政府 of a strong will, he has an energetic character. Whoever thinks that individuality of 願望（する）s and impulses should not be encouraged to 広げる itself, must 持続する that society has no need of strong natures-is not the better for 含む／封じ込めるing many persons who have much character-and that a high general 普通の／平均（する） of energy is not 望ましい.

In some 早期に 明言する／公表するs of society, these 軍隊s might be, and were, too much ahead of the 力／強力にする which society then 所有するd of disciplining and controlling them. There has been a time when the element of spontaneity and individuality was in 超過, and the social 原則 had a hard struggle with it. The difficulty then was to induce men of strong 団体／死体s or minds to 支払う／賃金 obedience to any 支配するs which 要求するd them to 支配（する）／統制する their impulses. To 打ち勝つ this difficulty, 法律 and discipline, like the ローマ法王s struggling against the Emperors, 主張するd a 力／強力にする over the whole man, （人命などを）奪う，主張するing to 支配（する）／統制する all his life ーするために 支配（する）／統制する his character-which society had not 設立する any other 十分な means of binding. But society has now 公正に／かなり got the better of individuality; and the danger which 脅すs human nature is not the 超過, but the 欠陥／不足, of personal impulses and preferences. Things are vastly changed since the passions of those who were strong by 駅／配置する or by personal endowment were in a 明言する／公表する of habitual 反乱 against 法律s and 法令／条例s, and 要求するd to be rigorously chained up to enable the persons within their reach to enjoy any 粒子 of 安全. In our times, from the highest class of society 負かす／撃墜する to the lowest, every one lives as under the 注目する，もくろむ of a 敵意を持った and dreaded 検閲. Not only in what 関心s others, but in what 関心s only themselves, the individual or the family do not ask themselves- what do I prefer? or, what would 控訴 my character and disposition? or, what would 許す the best and highest in me to have fair play, and enable it to grow and 栄える? They ask themselves, what is suitable to my position? what is usually done by persons of my 駅／配置する and pecuniary circumstances? or (worse still) what is usually done by persons of a 駅／配置する and circumstances superior to 地雷? I do not mean that they choose what is customary in preference to what 控訴s their own inclination. It does not occur to them to have any inclination, except for what is customary. Thus the mind itself is bo 結婚する to the yoke: even in what people do for 楽しみ, 順応／服従 is the first thing thought of; they like in （人が）群がるs; they 演習 choice only の中で things 一般的に done: peculiarity of taste, eccentricity of 行為／行う, are shunned 平等に with 罪，犯罪s: until by dint of not に引き続いて their own nature they have no nature to follow: their human capacities are withered and 餓死するd: they become incapable of any strong wishes or native 楽しみs, and are 一般に without either opinions or feelings of home growth, or 適切に their own. Now is this, or is it not, the 望ましい 条件 of human nature?

It is so, on the Calvinistic theory. によれば that, the one 広大な／多数の／重要な offence of man is self-will. All the good of which humanity is 有能な is 構成するd in obedience. You have no choice; thus you must do, and no さもなければ: "whatever is not a 義務, is a sin." Human nature 存在 radically corrupt, there is no redemption for any one until human nature is killed within him. To one 持つ／拘留するing this theory of life, 鎮圧するing out any of the human faculties, capacities, and susceptibilities, is no evil: man needs no capacity, but that of 降伏するing himself to the will of God: and if he uses any of his faculties for any other 目的 but to do that supposed will more effectually, he is better without them. This is the theory of Calvinism; and it is held, in a mitigated form, by many who do not consider themselves Calvinists; the mitigation consisting in giving a いっそう少なく ascetic 解釈／通訳 to the 申し立てられた／疑わしい will of God; 主張するing it to be his will that mankind should gratify some of their inclinations; of course not in the manner they themselves prefer, but in the way of obedience, that is, in a way 定める／命ずるd to them by 当局; and, therefore, by the necessary 条件 of the 事例／患者, the same for all.

In some such insidious form there is at 現在の a strong 傾向 to this 狭くする theory of life, and to the pinched and hidebound type of human character which it patronises. Many persons, no 疑問, 心から think that human 存在s thus cramped and dwarfed are as their 製造者 designed them to be; just as many have thought that trees are a much finer thing when clipped into pollards, or 削減（する） out into 人物／姿／数字s of animals, than as nature made them. But if it be any part of 宗教 to believe that man was made by a good 存在, it is more 一貫した with that 約束 to believe that this 存在 gave all human faculties that they might be cultivated and 広げるd, not rooted out and 消費するd, and that he takes delight in every nearer approach made by his creatures to the ideal conception 具体的に表現するd in them, every 増加する in any of their 能力s of comprehension, of 活動／戦闘, or of enjoyment. There is a different type of human excellence from the Calvinistic: a conception of humanity as having its nature bestowed on it for other 目的s than 単に to be abnegated. "Pagan self-主張" is one of the elements of human 価値（がある）, 同様に as "Christian self-否定."* There is a Greek ideal of self-開発, which the Platonic and Christian ideal of self-政府 blends with, but does not supersede. It may be better to be a John Knox than an Alcibiades, but it is better to be a Pericles than either; nor would a Pericles, if we had one in these days, be without anything good which belonged to John Knox.

[* 英貨の／純銀の's Essays.]

It is not by wearing 負かす／撃墜する into uniformity all that is individual in themselves, but by cultivating it, and calling it 前へ／外へ, within the 限界s 課すd by the 権利s and 利益／興味s of others, that human 存在s become a noble and beautiful 反対する of contemplation; and as the 作品 partake the character of those who do them, by the same 過程 human life also becomes rich, diversified, and animating, furnishing more abundant aliment to high thoughts and elevating feelings, and 強化するing the tie which 貯蔵所d every individual to the race, by making the race infinitely better 価値（がある） belonging to. In 割合 to the 開発 of his individuality, each person becomes more 価値のある to himself, and is therefore 有能な of 存在 more 価値のある to others. There is a greater fulness of life about his own 存在, and when there is more life in the 部隊s there is more in the 集まり which is composed of them. As much compression as is necessary to 妨げる the stronger 見本／標本s of human nature from encroaching on the 権利s of others cannot be dispensed with; but for this there is ample 補償（金） even in the point of 見解（をとる） of human 開発. The means of 開発 which the individual loses by 存在 妨げるd from gratifying his inclinations to the 傷害 of others, are 主として 得るd at the expense of the 開発 of other people. And even to himself there is a 十分な 同等（の） in the better 開発 of the social part of his nature, （判決などを）下すd possible by the 抑制 put upon the selfish part. To be held to rigid 支配するs of 司法（官） for the sake of others, develops the feelings and capacities which have the good of others for their 反対する. But to be 抑制するd in things not 影響する／感情ing their good, by their mere displeasure, develops nothing 価値のある, except such 軍隊 of character as may 広げる itself in resisting the 抑制. If acquiesced in, it dulls and blunts the whole nature. To give any fair play to the nature of each, it is 必須の that different persons should be 許すd to lead different lives. I n 割合 as this latitude has been 演習d in any age, has that age been noteworthy to posterity. Even 先制政治 does not produce its worst 影響s, so long as individuality 存在するs under it; and whatever 鎮圧するs individuality is 先制政治, by whatever 指名する it may be called, and whether it professes to be 施行するing the will of God or the （裁判所の）禁止（強制）命令s of men.

Having said that the individuality is the same thing with 開発, and that it is only the cultivation of individuality which produces, or can produce, 井戸／弁護士席-developed human 存在s, I might here の近くに the argument: for what more or better can be said of any 条件 of human 事件／事情／状勢s than that it brings human 存在s themselves nearer to the best thing they can be? or what worse can be said of any obstruction to good than that it 妨げるs this? Doubtless, however, these considerations will not 十分である to 納得させる those who most need 納得させるing; and it is necessary その上の to show, that these developed human 存在s are of some use to the 未開発の- to point out to those who do not 願望（する） liberty, and would not avail themselves of it, that they may be in some intelligible manner rewarded for 許すing other people to make use of it without hindrance.

In the first place, then, I would 示唆する that they might かもしれない learn something from them. It will not be 否定するd by anybody, that originality is a 価値のある element in human 事件／事情／状勢s. There is always need of persons not only to discover new truths, and point out when what were once truths are true no longer, but also to 開始する new practices, and 始める，決める the example of more enlightened 行為／行う, and better taste and sense in human life. This cannot 井戸／弁護士席 be gainsaid by anybody who does not believe that the world has already 達成するd perfection in all its ways and practices. It is true that this 利益 is not 有能な of 存在 （判決などを）下すd by everybody alike: there are but few persons, in comparison with the whole of mankind, whose 実験s, if 可決する・採択するd by others, would be likely to be any 改良 on 設立するd practice. But these few are the salt of the earth; without them, human life would become a 沈滞した pool. Not only is it they who introduce good things which did not before 存在する; it is they who keep the life in those which already 存在する. If there were nothing new to be done, would human intellect 中止する to be necessary? Would it be a 推論する／理由 why those who do the old things should forget why they are done, and do them like cattle, not like human 存在s? There is only too 広大な／多数の／重要な a 傾向 in the best beliefs and practices to degenerate into the mechanical; and unless there were a succession of persons whose everrecurring originality 妨げるs the grounds of those beliefs and practices from becoming 単に 伝統的な, such dead 事柄 would not resist the smallest shock from anything really alive, and there would be no 推論する／理由 why civilisation should not die out, as in the Byzantine Empire. Persons of genius, it is true, are, and are always likely to be, a small 少数，小数派; but ーするために have them, it is necessary to 保存する the 国／地域 in which they grow. Genius can only breathe 自由に in an atmosphere of freedom. Persons of genius are, ex vi termini, more individual than any other people- いっそう少なく 有能な, consequen tly, of fitting themselves, without hurtful compression, into any of the small number of moulds which society 供給するs ーするために save its members the trouble of forming their own character. If from timidity they 同意 to be 軍隊d into one of these moulds, and to let all that part of themselves which cannot 拡大する under the 圧力 remain unexpanded, society will be little the better for their genius. If they are of a strong character, and break their fetters, they become a 示す for the society which has not 後継するd in 減ずるing them to commonplace, to point out with solemn 警告 as "wild," "erratic," and the like; much as if one should complain of the Niagara river for not flowing 滑らかに between its banks like a Dutch canal.

I 主張する thus emphatically on the importance of genius, and the necessity of 許すing it to 広げる itself 自由に both in thought and in practice, 存在 井戸／弁護士席 aware that no one will 否定する the position in theory, but knowing also that almost every one, in reality, is 全く indifferent to it. People think genius a 罰金 thing if it enables a man to 令状 an exciting poem, or paint a picture. But in its true sense, that of originality in thought and 活動／戦闘, though no one says that it is not a thing to be admired, nearly all, at heart, think that they can do very 井戸／弁護士席 without it. Unhappily this is too natural to be wondered at. Originality is the one thing which unoriginal minds cannot feel the use of. They cannot see what it is to do for them: how should they? If they could see what it would do for them, it would not be originality. The first service which originality has to （判決などを）下す them, is that of 開始 their 注目する，もくろむs: which 存在 once fully done, they would have a chance of 存在 themselves 初めの. 一方／合間, recollecting that nothing was ever yet done which some one was not the first to do, and that all good things which 存在する are the fruits of originality, let them modest enough to believe that there is something still left for it to 遂行する, and 保証する themselves that they are more in need of originality, the いっそう少なく they are conscious of the want.

In sober truth, whatever homage may be professed, or even paid, to real or supposed mental 優越, the general 傾向 of things throughout the world is to （判決などを）下す mediocrity the ascendant 力／強力にする の中で mankind. In 古代の history, in the Middle Ages, and in a 減らすing degree through the long 移行 from feudality to the 現在の time, the individual was a 力／強力にする in himself; and if he had either 広大な／多数の／重要な talents or a high social position, he was a かなりの 力／強力にする. At 現在の individuals are lost in the （人が）群がる. In politics it is almost a triviality to say that public opinion now 支配するs the world. The only 力／強力にする deserving the 指名する is that of 集まりs, and of 政府s while they make themselves the 組織／臓器 of the 傾向s and instincts of 集まりs. This is as true in the moral and social of 私的な life as in public 処理／取引s. Those whose opinions go by the 指名する of public opinion are not always the same sort of public: in America they are the whole white 全住民; in England, 主として the middle class. But they are always a 集まり, that is to say, 集団の／共同の mediocrity. And what is a still greater novelty, the 集まり do not now take their opinions from 高官s in Church or 明言する／公表する, from ostensible leaders, or from 調書をとる／予約するs. Their thinking is done for them by men much like themselves, 演説（する）／住所ing them or speaking in their 指名する, on the 刺激（する） of the moment, through the newspapers.

I am not complaining of all this. I do not 主張する that anything better is 両立できる, as a general 支配する, with the 現在の low 明言する／公表する of the human mind. But that does not 妨げる the 政府 of mediocrity from 存在 mediocre 政府. No 政府 by a 僕主主義 or a 非常に／多数の aristocracy, either in its political 行為／法令／行動するs or in the opinions, 質s, and トン of mind which it fosters, ever did or could rise above mediocrity, except in so far as the 君主 Many have let themselves be guided (which in their best times they always have done) by the counsels and 影響（力） of a more 高度に gifted and 教えるd One or Few. The initiation of all wise or noble things comes and must come from individuals; 一般に at first from some one individual. The honour and glory of the 普通の／平均（する） man is that he is 有能な of に引き続いて that 率先; that he can 答える／応じる internally to wise and noble things, and be led to them with his 注目する，もくろむs open. I am not countenancing the sort of "hero-worship" which applauds the strong man of genius for 強制的に 掴むing on the 政府 of the world and making it do his bidding in spite of itself. All he can （人命などを）奪う，主張する is, freedom to point out the way. The 力／強力にする of 説得力のある others into it is not only inconsistent with the freedom and 開発 of all the 残り／休憩（する）, but corrupting to the strong man himself. It does seem, however, that when the opinions of 集まりs of 単に 普通の／平均（する） men are everywhere become or becoming the 支配的な 力／強力にする, the counterpoise and corrective to that 傾向 would be the more and more pronounced individuality of those who stand on the higher eminences of thought. It is in these circumstances most 特に, that exceptional individuals, instead of 存在 deterred, should be encouraged in 事実上の／代理 異なって from the 集まり. In other times there was no advantage in their doing so, unless they 行為／法令／行動するd not only 異なって but better. In this age, the mere example of 非，不，無-順応／服従, the mere 拒絶 to bend the 膝 to custom, is itself a service. 正確に because the tyranny of o pinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is 望ましい, ーするために break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the 量 of eccentricity in a society has 一般に been 比例する to the 量 of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage it 含む／封じ込めるd. That so few now dare to be eccentric 示すs the 長，指導者 danger of the time.

I have said that it is important to give the freest 範囲 possible to uncustomary things, in order that it may in time appear which of these are fit to be 変えるd into customs. But independence of 活動／戦闘, and 無視（する） of custom, are not 単独で deserving of 激励 for the chance they afford that better 方式s 活動／戦闘, and customs more worthy of general 採択, may be struck out; nor is it only persons of decided mental 優越 who have a just （人命などを）奪う，主張する to carry on their lives in their own way. There is no 推論する／理由 that all human 存在 should be 建設するd on some one or some small number of patterns. If a person 所有するs any tolerable 量 of ありふれた sense and experience, his own 方式 of laying out his 存在 is the best, not because it is the best in itself, but because it is his own 方式. Human 存在s are not like sheep; and even sheep are not undistinguishably alike. A man cannot get a coat or a pair of boots to fit him unless they are either made to his 手段, or he has a whole warehouseful to choose from: and is it easier to fit him with a life than with a coat, or are human 存在s more like one another in their whole physical and spiritual conformation than in the 形態／調整 of their feet? If it were only that people have 多様制s of taste, that is 推論する／理由 enough for not 試みる／企てるing to 形態／調整 them all after one model.

But different persons also 要求する different 条件s for their spiritual 開発; and can no more 存在する healthily in the same moral, than all the variety of 工場／植物s can in the same physical, atmosphere and 気候. The same things which are helps to one person に向かって the cultivation of his higher nature are hindrances to another. The same 方式 of life is a healthy excitement to one, keeping all his faculties of 活動／戦闘 and enjoyment in their best order, while to another it is a distracting burthen, which 一時停止するs or 鎮圧するs all 内部の life. Such are the differences の中で human 存在s in their sources of 楽しみ, their susceptibilities of 苦痛, and the 操作／手術 on them of different physical and moral 機関s, that unless there is a corresponding 多様制 in their 方式s of life, they neither 得る their fair 株 of happiness, nor grow up to the mental, moral, and aesthetic stature of which their nature is 有能な. Why then should 寛容, as far as the public 感情 is 関心d, 延長する only to tastes and 方式s of life which だまし取る acquiescence by the multitude of their adherents? Nowhere (except in some monastic 会・原則s) is 多様制 of taste 完全に unrecognised; a person may, without 非難する, either like or dislike 列／漕ぐ／騒動ing, or smoking, or music, or 運動競技の 演習s, or chess, or cards, or 熟考する／考慮する, because both those who like each of these things, and those who dislike them, are too 非常に／多数の to be put 負かす／撃墜する. But the man, and still more the woman, who can be （刑事）被告 either of doing "What nobody does," or of not doing "what everybody does," is the 支配する of as much depreciatory 発言／述べる as if he or she had committed some 墓／厳粛／彫る／重大な moral delinquency. Persons 要求する to 所有する a 肩書を与える, or some other badge of 階級, or of the consideration of people of 階級, to be able to indulge somewhat in the 高級な of doing as they like without detriment to their estimation. To indulge somewhat, I repeat: for whoever 許す themselves much of that indulgence, 背負い込む the 危険 of something worse than disparaging spee ches- they are in 危険，危なくする of a （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 de lunatico, and of having their 所有物／資産／財産 taken from them and given to their relations.*

[* There is something both contemptible and frightful in the sort of 証拠 on which, of late years, any person can be judicially 宣言するd unfit for the 管理／経営 of his 事件／事情／状勢s; and after his death, his 処分 of his 所有物／資産／財産 can be 始める，決める aside, if there is enough of it to 支払う／賃金 the expenses of litigation- which are 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金d on the 所有物／資産／財産 itself. All the minute 詳細（に述べる）s of his daily life are 調査するd into, and whatever is 設立する which, seen through the medium of the perceiving and 述べるing faculties of the lowest of the low, 耐えるs an 外見 unlike 絶対の commonplace, is laid before the 陪審／陪審員団 as 証拠 of insanity, and often with success; the 賠審員s 存在 little, if at all, いっそう少なく vulgar and ignorant than the 証言，証人／目撃するs; while the 裁判官s, with that 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の want of knowledge of human nature and life which continually astonishes us in English lawyers, often help to 誤って導く them. These 裁判，公判s speak 容積／容量s as to the 明言する／公表する of feeling and opinion の中で the vulgar with regard to human liberty. So far from setting any value on individuality- so far from 尊敬（する）・点ing the 権利 of each individual to 行為／法令／行動する, in things indifferent, as seems good to his own judgment and inclinations, 裁判官s and 陪審／陪審員団s cannot even conceive that a person in a 明言する／公表する of sanity can 願望（する） such freedom. In former days, when it was 提案するd to 燃やす atheists, charitable people used to 示唆する putting them in a madhouse instead: it would be nothing surprising now-a-days were we to see this done, and the doers applauding themselves, because, instead of 迫害するing for 宗教, they had 可決する・採択するd so humane and Christian a 方式 of 扱う／治療するing these unfortunates, not without a silent satisfaction at their having その為に 得るd their 砂漠s.]

There is one characteristic of the 現在の direction of public opinion peculiarly calculated to make it intolerant of any 示すd demonstration of individuality. The general 普通の／平均（する） of mankind are not only 穏健な in intellect, but also 穏健な in inclinations: they have no tastes or wishes strong enough to incline them to do anything unusual, and they その結果 do not understand those who have, and class all such with the wild and intemperate whom they are accustomed to look 負かす／撃墜する upon. Now, in 新規加入 to this fact which is general, we have only to suppose that a strong movement has 始める，決める in に向かって the 改良 of morals, and it is evident what we have to 推定する／予想する. In these days such a movement has 始める，決める in; much has 現実に been 影響d in the way of 増加するd regularity of 行為／行う and discouragement of 超過s; and there is a philanthropic spirit abroad, for the 演習 of which there is no more 招待するing field than the moral and prudential 改良 of our fellow creatures. These 傾向s of the times 原因（となる） the public to be more 性質の／したい気がして than at most former periods to 定める／命ずる general 支配するs of 行為／行う, and endeavour to make every one 適合する to the 認可するd 基準. And that 基準, 表明する or tacit, is to 願望（する） nothing 堅固に. Its ideal of character is to be without any 示すd character; to maim by compression, like a Chinese lady's foot, every part of human nature which stands out prominently, and tends to make the person markedly dissimilar in 輪郭（を描く） to commonplace humanity.

As is usually the 事例／患者 with ideals which 除外する one-half of what is 望ましい, the 現在の 基準 of approbation produces only an inferior imitation of the other half. Instead of 広大な／多数の／重要な energies guided by vigorous 推論する／理由, and strong feelings 堅固に controlled by a conscientious will, its result is weak feelings and weak energies, which therefore can be kept in outward 順応／服従 to 支配する without any strength either of will or of 推論する／理由. Already energetic characters on any large 規模 are becoming 単に 伝統的な. There is now scarcely any 出口 for energy in this country except 商売／仕事. The energy expended in this may still be regarded as かなりの. What little is left from that 雇用 is expended on some hobby; which may be a useful, even a philanthropic hobby, but is always some one thing, and 一般に a thing of small dimensions. The greatness of England is now all 集団の／共同の; 個々に small, we only appear 有能な of anything 広大な／多数の／重要な by our habit of 連合させるing; and with this our moral and 宗教的な philanthropists are perfectly contented. But it was men of another stamp than this that made England what it has been; and men of another stamp will be needed to 妨げる its 拒絶する／低下する.

The 先制政治 of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human 進歩, 存在 in unceasing antagonism to that disposition to 目的（とする） at something better than customary, which is called, によれば circumstances, the spirit of liberty, or that of 進歩 or 改良. The spirit of 改良 is not always a spirit of liberty, for it may 目的（とする） at 軍隊ing 改良s on an unwilling people; and the spirit of liberty, in so far as it resists such 試みる／企てるs, may 同盟（する） itself 地元で and 一時的に with the 対抗者s of 改良; but the only unfailing and 永久の source of 改良 is liberty, since by it there are as many possible 独立した・無所属 centres of 改良 as there are individuals. The 進歩／革新的な 原則, however, in either 形態／調整, whether as the love of liberty or of 改良, is antagonistic to the sway of Custom, 伴う／関わるing at least emancipation from that yoke; and the contest between the two 構成するs the 長，指導者 利益／興味 of the history of mankind. The greater part of the world has, 適切に speaking, no history, because the 先制政治 of Custom is 完全にする. This is the 事例／患者 over the whole East. Custom is there, in all things, the final 控訴，上告; 司法（官） and 権利 mean 順応／服従 to custom; the argument of custom no one, unless tyrant intoxicated with 力／強力にする, thinks of resisting. And we see the result. Those nations must once have had originality; they did not start out of the ground populous, lettered, and 詩（を作る）d in many of the arts of life; they made themselves all this, and were then the greatest and most powerful nations of the world. What are they now? The 支配するs or 扶養家族s of tribes whose forefathers wandered in the forests when theirs had magnificent palaces and gorgeous 寺s, but over whom custom 演習d only a divided 支配する with liberty and 進歩.

A people, it appears, may be 進歩／革新的な for a 確かな length of time, and then stop: when does it stop? When it 中止するs to 所有する individuality. If a 類似の change should 生じる the nations of Europe, it will not be in 正確に／まさに the same 形態／調整: the 先制政治 of custom with which these nations are 脅すd is not 正確に stationariness. It proscribes singularity, but it does not 妨げる change, 供給するd all change together. We have discarded the 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 衣装s of our forefathers; every one must still dress like other people, but the fashion may change once or twice a year. We thus take care that when there is a change, it shall be for change's sake, and not from any idea of beauty or convenience; for the same idea of beauty or convenience would not strike all the world at the same moment, and be 同時に thrown aside by all at another moment. But we are 進歩／革新的な 同様に as changeable: we continually make new 発明s in mechanical things, and keep them until they are again superseded by better; we are eager for 改良 in politics, in education, even in morals, though in this last our idea of 改良 主として consists in 説得するing or 軍隊ing other people to be as good as ourselves. It is not 進歩 that we 反対する to; on the contrary, we flatter ourselves that we are the most 進歩／革新的な people who ever lived. It is individuality that we war against: we should think we had done wonders if we had made ourselves all alike; forgetting that the unlikeness of one person to another is 一般に the first thing which draws the attention of either to the imperfection of his own type, and the 優越 of another, or the 可能性, by 連合させるing the advantages of both, of producing something better than either. We have a 警告 example in 中国- a nation of much talent, and, in some 尊敬（する）・点s, even 知恵, 借りがあるing to the rare good fortune of having been 供給するd at an 早期に period with a 特に good 始める，決める of customs, the work, in some 手段, of men to whom even the most enlightened European must （許可，名誉などを）与える, under 確かな 制限s, the 肩書を与える of 下落するs and philosophers. They are remarkable, too, in the excellence of their apparatus for impressing, as far as possible, the best 知恵 they 所有する upon every mind in the community, and 安全な・保証するing that those who have appropriated most of it shall 占領する the 地位，任命するs of honour and 力／強力にする. Surely the people who did this have discovered the secret of human progressiveness, and must have kept themselves 刻々と at the 長，率いる of the movement of the world. On the contrary, they have become 静止している- have remained so for thousands of years; and if they are ever to be さらに先に 改善するd, it must be by foreigners. They have 後継するd beyond all hope in what English philanthropists are so industriously working at- in making a people all alike, all 治める／統治するing their thoughts and 行為／行う by the same maxims and 支配するs; and these are the fruits. The modern 政権 of public opinion is, in an unorganised form, what the Chinese 教育の and political systems are in an organised; and unless individuality shall be able 首尾よく to 主張する itself against this yoke, Europe, notwithstanding its noble antecedents and its professed Christianity, will tend to become another 中国.

What is it that has hitherto 保存するd Europe from this lot? What has made the European family of nations an 改善するing, instead of a 静止している 部分 of mankind? Not any superior excellence in them, which, when it 存在するs, 存在するs as the 影響 not as the 原因（となる）; but their remarkable 多様制 of character and culture. Individuals, classes, nations, have been 極端に unlike one another: they have struck out a 広大な／多数の／重要な variety of paths, each 主要な to something 価値のある; and although at every period those who travelled in different paths have been intolerant of one another, and each would have thought it an excellent thing if all the 残り／休憩（する） could have been compelled to travel his road, their 試みる／企てるs to 妨害する each other's 開発 have rarely had any 永久の success, and each has in time 耐えるd to receive the good which the others have 申し込む／申し出d. Europe is, in my judgment, wholly indebted to this plurality of paths for its 進歩／革新的な and many-味方するd 開発. But it already begins to 所有する this 利益 in a かなり いっそう少なく degree. It is decidedly 前進するing に向かって the Chinese ideal of making all people alike. M. de Tocqueville, in his last important work, 発言／述べるs how much more the Frenchmen of the 現在の day 似ている one another than did those even of the last 世代. The same 発言／述べる might be made of Englishmen in a far greater degree.

In a passage already 引用するd from Wilhelm 出身の Humboldt, he points out two things as necessary 条件s of human 開発, because necessary to （判決などを）下す people unlike one another; すなわち, freedom, and variety of 状況／情勢s. The second of these two 条件s is in this country every day 減らすing. The circumstances which surround different classes and individuals, and 形態／調整 their characters, are daily becoming more assimilated. 以前は different 階級s, different neighbourhoods, different 貿易（する）s and professions, lived in what might be called different worlds; at 現在の to a 広大な／多数の／重要な degree in the same. Comparatively speaking, they now read the same things, listen to the same things, see the same things, go to the same places, have their hopes and 恐れるs directed to the same 反対するs, have the same 権利s and liberties, and the same means of 主張するing them. 広大な／多数の／重要な as are the differences of position which remain, they are nothing to those which have 中止するd. And the assimilation is still 訴訟／進行. All the political changes of the age 促進する it, since they all tend to raise the low and to lower the high. Every 拡張 of education 促進するs it, because education brings people under ありふれた 影響（力）s, and gives them 接近 to the general 在庫／株 of facts and 感情s. 改良 in the means of communication 促進するs it, by bringing the inhabitants of distant places into personal 接触する, and keeping up a 早い flow of changes of 住居 between one place and another. The 増加する of 商業 and 製造（する）s 促進するs it, by diffusing more 広範囲にわたって the advantages of 平易な circumstances, and 開始 all 反対するs of ambition, even the highest, to general 競争, whereby the 願望（する） of rising becomes no longer the character of a particular class, but of all classes. A more powerful 機関 than even all these, in bringing about a general similarity の中で mankind, is the 完全にする 設立, in this and other 解放する／自由な countries, of the ascendancy of public opinion in the 明言する／公表する. As the さまざまな social eminences which en abled persons 堅固に守るd on them to 無視（する） the opinion of the multitude 徐々に become levelled; as the very idea of resisting the will of the public, when it is 前向きに／確かに known that they have a will, disappears more and more from the minds of practical 政治家，政治屋s; there 中止するs to be any social support for nonconformity- any 事実 力／強力にする in society which, itself …に反対するd to the ascendancy of numbers, is 利益／興味d in taking under its 保護 opinions and 傾向s at variance with those of the public.

The combination of all these 原因（となる）s forms so 広大な／多数の／重要な a 集まり of 影響（力）s 敵意を持った to Individuality, that it is not 平易な to see how it can stand its ground. It will do so with 増加するing difficulty, unless the intelligent part of the public can be made to feel its value- to see that it is good there should be differences, even though not for the better, even though, as it may appear to them, some should be for the worse. If the （人命などを）奪う，主張するs of Individuality are ever to be 主張するd, the time is now, while much is still wanting to 完全にする the 施行するd assimilation. It is only in the earlier 行う／開催する／段階s that any stand can be 首尾よく made against the encroachment. The 需要・要求する that all other people shall 似ている ourselves grows by what it 料金d on. If 抵抗 waits till life is 減ずるd nearly to one uniform type, all deviations from that type will come to be considered impious, immoral, even monstrous and contrary to nature. Mankind speedily become unable to conceive 多様制, when they have been for some time unaccustomed to see it.

Each will receive its proper 株, if each has that which more 特に 関心s it. To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is 主として the individual that is 利益／興味d; to society, the part which 主として 利益／興味s society.

Though society is not 設立するd on a 契約, and though no good 目的 is answered by inventing a 契約 ーするために deduce social 義務s from it, every one who receives the 保護 of society 借りがあるs a return for the 利益, and the fact of living in society （判決などを）下すs it 不可欠の that each should be bound to 観察する a 確かな line of 行為／行う に向かって the 残り／休憩（する）. This 行為／行う consists, first, in not 負傷させるing the 利益／興味s of one another; or rather 確かな 利益／興味s, which, either by 表明する 合法的な 準備／条項 or by tacit understanding, せねばならない be considered as 権利s; and secondly, in each person's 耐えるing his 株 (to be 直す／買収する，八百長をするd on some equitable 原則) of the 労働s and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from 傷害 and molestation. These 条件s society is 正当化するd in 施行するing, at all costs to those who endeavour to 保留する fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The 行為／法令／行動するs of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in 予定 consideration for their 福利事業, without going to the length of 侵害する／違反するing any of their 構成するd 権利s. The 違反者／犯罪者 may then be 正確に，正当に punished by opinion, though not by 法律. As soon as any part of a person's 行為／行う 影響する／感情s prejudicially the 利益／興味s of others, society has 裁判権 over it, and the question whether the general 福利事業 will or will not be 促進するd by 干渉するing with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person's 行為／行う 影響する／感情s the 利益／興味s of no persons besides himself, or needs not 影響する／感情 them unless they like (all the persons 関心d 存在 of 十分な age, and the ordinary 量 of understanding). In all such 事例／患者s, there should be perfect freedom, 合法的な and social, to do the 活動／戦闘 and stand the consequences.

It would be a 広大な／多数の／重要な 誤解 of this doctrine to suppose that it is one of selfish 無関心／冷淡, which pretends that human 存在s have no 商売／仕事 with each other's 行為／行う in life, and that they should not 関心 themselves about the 井戸／弁護士席-doing or 井戸／弁護士席-存在 of one another, unless their own 利益／興味 is 伴う／関わるd. Instead of any diminution, there is need of a 広大な／多数の／重要な 増加する of disinterested exertion to 促進する the good of others. But disinterested benevolence can find other 器具s to 説得する people to their good than whips and 天罰（を下す）s, either of the literal or the metaphorical sort. I am the last person to undervalue the self-regarding virtues; they are only second in importance, if even second, to the social. It is 平等に the 商売／仕事 of education to cultivate both. But even education 作品 by 有罪の判決 and 説得／派閥 同様に as by compulsion, and it is by the former only that, when the period of education is passed, the self-regarding virtues should be inculcated. Human 存在s 借りがある to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and 激励 to choose the former and 避ける the latter. They should be for ever 刺激するing each other to 増加するd 演習 of their higher faculties, and 増加するd direction of their feelings and 目的（とする）s に向かって wise instead of foolish, elevating instead of degrading, 反対するs and contemplations. But neither one person, nor any number of persons, is 令状d in 説 to another human creature of 熟した years, that he shall not do with his life for his own 利益 what he chooses to do with it. He is the person most 利益／興味d in his own 井戸／弁護士席-存在: the 利益／興味 which any other person, except in 事例／患者s of strong personal attachment, can have in it, is trifling, compared with that which he himself has; the 利益／興味 which society has in him 個々に (except as to his 行為／行う to others) is わずかの, and altogether indirect; while with 尊敬（する）・点 to his own feelings and circumstances, the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpas sing those that can be 所有するd by any one else. The 干渉，妨害 of society to overrule his judgment and 目的s in what only regards himself must be grounded on general presumptions; which may be altogether wrong, and even if 権利, are as likely as not to be misapplied to individual 事例／患者s, by persons no better 熟知させるd with the circumstances of such 事例／患者s than those are who look at them 単に from without. In this department, therefore, of human 事件／事情／状勢s, Individuality has its proper field of 活動／戦闘. In the 行為／行う of human 存在s に向かって one another it is necessary that general 支配するs should for the most part be 観察するd, in order that people may know what they have to 推定する／予想する: but in each person's own 関心s his individual spontaneity is する権利を与えるd to 解放する／自由な 演習. Considerations to 援助（する） his judgment, exhortations to 強化する his will, may be 申し込む／申し出d to him, even obtruded on him, by others: but he himself is the final 裁判官. All errors which he is likely to commit against advice and 警告 are far outweighed by the evil of 許すing others to constrain him to what they みなす his good.

I do not mean that the feelings with which a person is regarded by others ought not to be in any way 影響する／感情d by his self-regarding 質s or 欠陥／不足s. This is neither possible nor 望ましい. If he is 著名な in any of the 質s which conduce to his own good, he is, so far, a proper 反対する of 賞賛. He is so much the nearer to the ideal perfection of human nature. If he is grossly deficient in those 質s, a 感情 the opposite of 賞賛 will follow. There is a degree of folly, and a degree of what may be called (though the phrase is not unobjectionable) lowness or depravation of taste, which, though it cannot 正当化する doing 害（を与える） to the person who manifests it, （判決などを）下すs him やむを得ず and 適切に a 支配する of distaste, or, in extreme 事例／患者s, even of contempt: a person could not have the opposite 質s in 予定 strength without entertaining these feelings. Though doing no wrong to any one, a person may so 行為／法令／行動する as to 強要する us to 裁判官 him, and feel to him, as a fool, or as a 存在 of an inferior order: and since this judgment and feeling are a fact which he would prefer to 避ける, it is doing him a service to 警告する him of it beforehand, as of any other disagreeable consequence to which he exposes himself. It would be 井戸／弁護士席, indeed, if this good office were much more 自由に （判決などを）下すd than the ありふれた notions of politeness at 現在の 許す, and if one person could honestly point out to another that he thinks him in fault, without 存在 considered unmannerly or 推定するing. We have a 権利, also, in さまざまな ways, to 行為／法令／行動する upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the 圧迫 of his individuality, but in the 演習 of ours. We are not bound, for example, to 捜し出す his society; we have a 権利 to 避ける it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a 権利 to choose the society most 許容できる to us. We have a 権利, and it may be our 義務, to 警告を与える others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious 影響 on those with whom he associates. We ma y give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his 改良. In these さまざまな 方式s a person may 苦しむ very 厳しい 刑罰，罰則s at the 手渡すs of others for faults which 直接／まっすぐに 関心 only himself; but he 苦しむs these 刑罰，罰則s only in so far as they are the natural and, as it were, the spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves, not because they are purposely （打撃，刑罰などを）与えるd on him for the sake of 罰. A person who shows rashness, obstinacy, self-conceit- who cannot live within 穏健な means- who cannot 抑制する himself from hurtful indulgences- who 追求するs animal 楽しみs at the expense of those of feeling and intellect- must 推定する／予想する to be lowered in the opinion of others, and to have a いっそう少なく 株 of their favourable 感情s; but of this he has no 権利 to complain, unless he has 長所d their favour by special excellence in his social relations, and has thus 設立するd a 肩書を与える to their good offices, which is not 影響する／感情d by his demerits に向かって himself.

What I 競う for is, that the inconveniences which are 厳密に inseparable from the unfavourable judgment of others, are the only ones to which a person should ever be 支配するd for that 部分 of his 行為／行う and character which 関心s his own good, but which does not 影響する／感情 the 利益／興味 of others in their relations with him. 行為／法令／行動するs injurious to others 要求する a 全く different 治療. Encroachment on their 権利s; infliction on them of any loss or 損失 not 正当化するd by his own 権利s; falsehood or duplicity in 取引，協定ing with them; 不公平な or ungenerous use of advantages over them; even selfish abstinence from defending them against 傷害- these are fit 反対するs of moral reprobation, and, in 墓／厳粛／彫る／重大な 事例／患者s, of moral 天罰 and 罰. And not only these 行為／法令／行動するs, but the dispositions which lead to them, are 適切に immoral, and fit 支配するs of disapprobation which may rise to abhorrence. Cruelty of disposition; malice and ill-nature; that most anti-social and 嫌悪すべき of all passions, envy; dissimulation and insincerity, irascibility on insufficient 原因（となる）, and 憤慨 disproportioned to the 誘発; the love of domineering over others; the 願望（する） to engross more than one's 株 of advantages (the pleonexia of the Greeks); the pride which derives gratification from the abasement of others; the egotism which thinks self and its 関心s more important than everything else, and decides all doubtful questions in its own favour;- these are moral 副／悪徳行為s, and 構成する a bad and 嫌悪すべき moral character: unlike the self-regarding faults 以前 について言及するd, which are not 適切に immoralities, and to whatever pitch they may be carried, do not 構成する wickedness. They may be proofs of any 量 of folly, or want of personal dignity and self-尊敬（する）・点; but they are only a 支配する of moral reprobation when they 伴う／関わる a 違反 of 義務 to others, for whose sake the individual is bound to have care for himself. What are called 義務s to ourselves are not socially obligatory, unless circumstances （判決などを）下す th em at the same time 義務s to others. The 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 義務 to oneself, when it means anything more than prudence, means self-尊敬（する）・点 or self-開発, and for 非，不，無 of these is any one accountable to his fellow creatures, because for 非，不，無 of them is it for the good of mankind that he be held accountable to them.

The distinction between the loss of consideration which a person may rightly 背負い込む by defect of prudence or of personal dignity, and the reprobation which is 予定 to him for an offence against the 権利s of others, is not a 単に 名目上の distinction. It makes a 広大な difference both in our feelings and in our 行為／行う に向かって him whether he displeases us in things in which we think we have a 権利 to 支配（する）／統制する him, or in things in which we know that we have not. If he displeases us, we may 表明する our distaste, and we may stand aloof from a person 同様に as from a thing that displeases us; but we shall not therefore feel called on to make his life uncomfortable. We shall 反映する that he already 耐えるs, or will 耐える, the whole 刑罰，罰則 of his error; if he spoils his life by mismanagement, we shall not, for that 推論する／理由, 願望（する） to spoil it still その上の: instead of wishing to punish him, we shall rather endeavour to 緩和する his 罰, by showing him how he may 避ける or cure the evils his 行為／行う tends to bring upon him. He may be to us an 反対する of pity, perhaps of dislike, but not of 怒り／怒る or 憤慨; we shall not 扱う／治療する him like an enemy of society: the worst we shall think ourselves 正当化するd in doing is leaving him to himself, if we do not 干渉する benevolently by showing 利益／興味 or 関心 for him. It is far さもなければ if he has （規則などを）破る／侵害するd the 支配するs necessary for the 保護 of his fellow creatures, 個々に or collectively. The evil consequences of his 行為／法令／行動するs do not then 落ちる on himself, but on others; and society, as the protector of all its members, must 報復する on him; must （打撃，刑罰などを）与える 苦痛 on him for the 表明する 目的 of 罰, and must take care that it be 十分に 厳しい. In the one 事例／患者, he is an 違反者／犯罪者 at our 妨げる／法廷，弁護士業, and we are called on not only to sit in judgment on him, but, in one 形態／調整 or another, to 遂行する／発効させる our own 宣告，判決: in the other 事例／患者, it is not our part to （打撃，刑罰などを）与える any 苦しむing on him, except what may incidentally follow from our using the same liberty in the 規則 of our own 事件／事情／状勢s, which we 許す to him in his.

The distinction here pointed out between the part of a person's life which 関心s only himself, and that which 関心s others, many persons will 辞退する to 収容する／認める. How (it may be asked) can any part of the 行為／行う of a member of society be a 事柄 of 無関心／冷淡 to the other members? No person is an 完全に 孤立するd 存在; it is impossible for a person to do anything 本気で or 永久的に hurtful to himself, without mischief reaching at least to his 近づく 関係s, and often far beyond them. If he 負傷させるs his 所有物／資産／財産, he does 害（を与える） to those who 直接／まっすぐに or 間接に derived support from it, and usually 減らすs, by a greater or いっそう少なく 量, the general 資源; of the community. If he 悪化するs his bodily or mental faculties, he not only brings evil upon all who depended on him for any 部分 of their happiness, but disqualifies himself for （判決などを）下すing the services which he 借りがあるs to his fellow creatures 一般に; perhaps becomes a burthen on their affection or benevolence; and if such 行為／行う were very たびたび（訪れる）, hardly any offence that is committed would detract more from the general sum of good. Finally, if by his 副／悪徳行為s or follies a person does no direct 害（を与える） to others, he is にもかかわらず (it may be said) injurious by his example; and せねばならない be compelled to 支配（する）／統制する himself, for the sake of those whom the sight or knowledge of his 行為／行う might corrupt or 誤って導く.

And even (it will be 追加するd) if the consequences of 不品行／姦通 could be 限定するd to the vicious or thoughtless individual, ought society to abandon to their own 指導／手引 those who are manifestly unfit for it? If 保護 against themselves is confessedly 予定 to children and persons under age, is not society 平等に bound to afford it to persons of 円熟した years who are 平等に incapable of self-政府? If 賭事ing, or drunkenness, or incontinence, or idleness, or uncleanliness, are as injurious to happiness, and as 広大な／多数の／重要な a hindrance to 改良, as many or most of the 行為／法令／行動するs 禁じるd by 法律, why (it may be asked) should not 法律, so far as is 一貫した with practicability and social convenience, endeavour to repress these also? And as a 補足（する） to the 避けられない imperfections of 法律, ought not opinion at least to organise a powerful police against these 副／悪徳行為s, and visit rigidly with social 刑罰，罰則s those who are known to practise them? There is no question here (it may be said) about 制限するing individuality, or 妨げるing the 裁判，公判 of new and 初めの 実験s in living. The only things it is sought to 妨げる are things which have been tried and 非難するd from the beginning of the world until now; things which experience has shown not to be useful or suitable to any person's individuality. There must be some length of time and 量 of experience after which a moral or prudential truth may be regarded as 設立するd: and it is 単に 願望（する）d to 妨げる 世代 after 世代 from 落ちるing over the same precipice which has been 致命的な to their 前任者s.

I fully 収容する／認める that the mischief which a person does to himself may 本気で 影響する／感情, both through their sympathies and their 利益／興味s, those nearly connected with him and, in a minor degree, society 捕まらないで. When, by 行為／行う of this sort, a person is led to 侵害する／違反する a 際立った and assignable 義務 to any other person or persons, the 事例／患者 is taken out of the self-regarding class, and becomes amenable to moral disapprobation in the proper sense of the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語. If, for example, a man, through intemperance or extravagance, becomes unable to 支払う／賃金 his 負債s, or, having undertaken the moral 責任／義務 of a family, becomes from the same 原因（となる） incapable of supporting or educating them, he is deservedly reprobated, and might be 正確に，正当に punished; but it is for the 違反 of 義務 to his family or creditors, not for the extravagance. If the 資源s which せねばならない have been 充てるd to them, had been コースを変えるd from them for the most 慎重な 投資, the moral culpability would have been the same. George Barnwell 殺人d his uncle to get money for his mistress, but if he had done it to 始める，決める himself up in 商売／仕事, he would 平等に have been hanged. Again, in the たびたび（訪れる） 事例／患者 of a man who 原因（となる）s grief to his family by 中毒 to bad habits, he deserves reproach for his unkindness or ingratitude; but so he may for cultivating habits not in themselves vicious, if they are painful to those with whom he passes his life, who from personal 関係 are 扶養家族 on him for their 慰安. Whoever fails in the consideration 一般に 予定 to the 利益／興味s and feelings of others, not 存在 compelled by some more imperative 義務, or 正当化するd by allowable self-preference, is a 支配する of moral disapprobation for that 失敗, but not for the 原因（となる） of it, nor for the errors, 単に personal to himself, which may have remotely led to it. In like manner, when a person 無能にするs himself, by 行為／行う 純粋に self-regarding, from the 業績／成果 of some 限定された 義務 現職の on him to the public, he is 有罪の of a social offence. No perso n せねばならない be punished 簡単に for 存在 drunk; but a 兵士 or a policeman should be punished for 存在 drunk on 義務. Whenever, in short, there is a 限定された 損失, or a 限定された 危険 of 損失, either to an individual or to the public, the 事例／患者 is taken out of the 州 of liberty, and placed in that of morality or 法律.

But with regard to the 単に 次第で変わる／派遣部隊, or, as it may be called, 建設的な 傷害 which a person 原因（となる）s to society, by 行為／行う which neither 侵害する／違反するs any 明確な／細部 義務 to the public, nor occasions perceptible 傷つける to any assignable individual except himself; the inconvenience is one which society can afford to 耐える, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom. If grown persons are to be punished for not taking proper care of themselves, I would rather it were for their own sake, than under pretence of 妨げるing them from impairing their capacity or （判決などを）下すing to society 利益s which society does not pretend it has a 権利 to exact. But I cannot 同意 to argue the point as if society had no means of bringing its 女性 members up to its ordinary 基準 of 合理的な／理性的な 行為／行う, except waiting till they do something irrational, and then punishing them, 合法的に or morally, for it. Society has had 絶対の 力／強力にする over them during all the 早期に 部分 of their 存在: it has had the whole period of childhood and nonage in which to try whether it could make them 有能な of 合理的な／理性的な 行為／行う in life. The 存在するing 世代 is master both of the training and the entire circumstances of the 世代 to come; it cannot indeed make them perfectly wise and good, because it is itself so lamentably deficient in goodness and 知恵; and its best 成果／努力s are not always, in individual 事例／患者s, its most successful ones; but it is perfectly 井戸／弁護士席 able to make the rising 世代, as a whole, as good as, and a little better than, itself. If society lets any かなりの number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of 存在 行為／法令／行動するd on by 合理的な／理性的な consideration of distant 動機s, society has itself to 非難する for the consequences. 武装した not only with all the 力／強力にするs of education, but with the ascendency which the 当局 of a received opinion always 演習s over the minds who are least fitted to 裁判官 for themselves; and 補佐官d by the natural 刑罰，罰則s which cannot be 妨げるd from 落ちるing on those who 背負い込む the distaste or the contempt of those who know them; let not society pretend that it needs, besides all this, the 力／強力にする to 問題／発行する 命令（する）s and 施行する obedience in the personal 関心s of individuals, in which, on all 原則s of 司法（官） and 政策, the 決定／判定勝ち（する） せねばならない 残り／休憩（する） with those who are to がまんする the consequences.

Nor is there anything which tends more to discredit and 失望させる the better means of 影響（力）ing 行為／行う than a 訴える手段／行楽地 to the worse. If there be の中で those whom it is 試みる／企てるd to coerce into prudence or temperance any of the 構成要素 of which vigorous and 独立した・無所属 characters are made, they will infallibly 反逆者／反逆する against the yoke. No such person will ever feel that others have a 権利 to 支配（する）／統制する him in his 関心s, such as they have to 妨げる him from 負傷させるing them in theirs; and it easily comes to be considered a 示す of spirit and courage to 飛行機で行く in the 直面する of such usurped 当局, and do with ostentation the exact opposite of what it enjoins; as in the fashion of grossness which 後継するd, in the time of Charles II., to the fanatical moral intolerance of the Puritans. With 尊敬（する）・点 to what is said of the necessity of 保護するing society from the bad example 始める，決める to others by the vicious or the self-indulgent; it is true that bad example may have a pernicious 影響, 特に the example of doing wrong to others with impunity to the wrong-doer. But we are now speaking of 行為／行う which, while it does no wrong to others, is supposed to do 広大な／多数の／重要な 害（を与える） to the スパイ／執行官 himself: and I do not see how those who believe this can think さもなければ than that the example, on the whole, must be more salutary than hurtful, since, if it 陳列する，発揮するs the 不品行／姦通, it 陳列する，発揮するs also the painful or degrading consequences which, if the 行為／行う is 正確に，正当に 非難d, must be supposed to be in all or most 事例／患者s attendant on it.

But the strongest of all the arguments against the 干渉，妨害 of the public with 純粋に personal 行為／行う is that, when it does 干渉する, the 半端物s are that it 干渉するs wrongly, and in the wrong place. On questions of social morality, of 義務 to others, the opinion of the public, that is, of an overruling 大多数, though of wrong, is likely to be still oftener 権利; because on such questions they are only 要求するd to 裁判官 of their own 利益／興味s; of the manner in which some 方式 of 行為／行う, if 許すd to be practised, would 影響 themselves. But the opinion of a 類似の 大多数, 課すd as a 法律 on the 少数，小数派, on questions of self-regarding 行為／行う, is やめる as likely to be wrong as 権利; for in these 事例／患者s public opinion means, at the best, some people's opinion of what is good or bad for other people; while very of it does not even mean that; the public, with the most perfect 無関心／冷淡, passing over the 楽しみ or convenience of those whose 行為／行う they 非難, and considering only their own preference. There are many who consider as an 傷害 to themselves any 行為／行う which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an 乱暴／暴力を加える to their feelings; as a 宗教的な bigot, when 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金d with 無視（する）ing the 宗教的な feelings of others, has been known to retort that they 無視（する） his feelings, by 固執するing in their abominable worship or creed. But there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is 感情を害する／違反するd at his 持つ／拘留するing it; no more than between the 願望（する） of a どろぼう to take a purse, and the 願望（する） of the 権利 owner to keep it. And a person's taste is as much his own peculiar 関心 as his opinion or his purse. It is 平易な for any one to imagine an ideal public which leaves the freedom and choice of individuals in all uncertain 事柄s undisturbed, and only 要求するs them to 棄権する from 方式s of 行為／行う which 全世界の／万国共通の experience has 非難するd. But where has there been seen a public which 始める，決める any such 限界 to its 検閲? or when does the public trouble itself about 全世界の／万国共通の experience? In its 干渉，妨害s with personal 行為／行う it is seldom thinking of anything but the enormity of 事実上の／代理 or feeling 異なって from itself; and this 基準 of judgment, thinly disguised, is held up to mankind as the dictate of 宗教 and philosophy, by nine-tenths of all moralists and 思索的な writers. These teach that things are 権利 because they are 権利; because we feel them to be so. They tell us to search in our own minds and hearts for 法律s of 行為／行う binding on ourselves and on all others. What can the poor public do but 適用する these 指示／教授／教育s, and make their own personal feelings of good and evil, if they are tolerably 全員一致の in them, obligatory on all the world?

The evil here pointed out is not one which 存在するs only in theory; and it may perhaps be 推定する／予想するd that I should 明示する the instances in which the public of this age and country improperly 投資するs its own preferences with the character of moral 法律s. I am not 令状ing an essay on the aberrations of 存在するing moral feeling. That is too 重大な a 支配する to be discussed parenthetically, and by way of illustration. Yet examples are necessary to show that the 原則 I 持続する is of serious and practical moment, and that I am not endeavouring to 築く a 障壁 against imaginary evils. And it is not difficult to show, by abundant instances, that to 延長する the bounds of what may be called moral police, until it encroaches on the most unquestionably 合法的 liberty of the individual, is one of the most 全世界の／万国共通の of all human propensities.

As a first instance, consider the 反感s which men 心にいだく on no better grounds than that persons whose 宗教的な opinions are different from theirs do not practise their 宗教的な observances, 特に their 宗教的な abstinences. To 特記する／引用する a rather trivial example, nothing in the creed or practice of Christians does more to envenom the 憎悪 of Mahomedans against them than the fact of their eating pork. There are few 行為／法令／行動するs which Christians and Europeans regard with more 影響を受けない disgust than Mussulmans regard this particular 方式 of 満足させるing hunger. It is, in the first place, an offence against their 宗教; but this circumstance by no means explains either the degree or the 肉親，親類d of their repugnance; for ワイン also is forbidden by their 宗教, and to partake of it is by all Mussulmans accounted wrong, but not disgusting. Their aversion to the flesh of the "unclean beast" is, on the contrary, of that peculiar character, 似ているing an 直感的に 反感, which the idea of uncleanness, when once it 完全に 沈むs into the feelings, seems always to excite even in those whose personal habits are anything but scrupulously cleanly, and of which the 感情 of 宗教的な impurity, so 激しい in the Hindoos, is a remarkable example. Suppose now that in a people, of whom the 大多数 were Mussulmans, that 大多数 should 主張する upon not permitting pork to be eaten within the 限界s of the country. This would be nothing new in Mahomedan countries.* Would it be a 合法的 演習 of the moral 当局 of public opinion? and if not, why not? The practice is really 反乱ing to such a public. They also 心から think that it is forbidden and abhorred by the Deity. Neither could the 禁止 be 非難d as 宗教的な 迫害. It might be 宗教的な in its origin, but it would not be 迫害 for 宗教, since nobody's 宗教 makes it a 義務 to eat pork. The only tenable ground of 激しい非難 would be that with the personal tastes and self-regarding 関心s of individuals the public has n o 商売／仕事 to 干渉する.

[* The 事例／患者 of the Bombay Parsees is a curious instance in point. When this industrious and 企業ing tribe, the 子孫s of the Persian 解雇する／砲火／射撃-worshippers, 飛行機で行くing from their native country before the Caliphs, arrived in Western India, they were 認める to toleration by the Hindoo 君主s, on 条件 of not eating beef. When those 地域s afterwards fell under the dominion of Mahomedan 征服者／勝利者s, the Parsees 得るd from them a continuance of indulgence, on 条件 of 差し控えるing from pork. What was at first obedience to 当局 became a second nature, and the Parsees to this day 棄権する both from beef and pork. Though not 要求するd by their 宗教, the 二塁打 abstinence has had time to grow into a custom of their tribe; and custom, in the East, is a 宗教.]

To come somewhat nearer home: the 大多数 of Spaniards consider it a 甚だしい／１２ダース impiety, 不快な／攻撃 in the highest degree to the 最高の 存在, to worship him in any other manner than the Roman カトリック教徒; and no other public worship is lawful on Spanish 国／地域. The people of all Southern Europe look upon a married clergy as not only irreligious, but unchaste, indecent, 甚だしい／１２ダース, disgusting. What do Protestants think of these perfectly sincere feelings, and of the 試みる／企てる to 施行する them against 非，不，無-カトリック教徒s? Yet, if mankind are 正当化するd in 干渉するing with each other's liberty in things which do not 関心 the 利益／興味s of others, on what 原則 is it possible 終始一貫して to 除外する these 事例／患者s? or who can 非難する people for 願望（する）ing to 抑える what they regard as a スキャンダル in the sight of God and man? No stronger 事例／患者 can be shown for 禁じるing anything which is regarded as a personal immorality, than is made out for 抑えるing these practices in the 注目する，もくろむs of those who regard them as impieties; and unless we are willing to 可決する・採択する the logic of persecutors, and to say that we may 迫害する others because we are 権利, and that they must not 迫害する us because they are wrong, we must beware of admitting a 原則 of which we should resent as a 甚だしい／１２ダース 不正 the 使用／適用 to ourselves.

The 先行する instances may be 反対するd to, although unreasonably, as drawn from contingencies impossible の中で us: opinion, in this country, not 存在 likely to 施行する abstinence from meats, or to 干渉する with people for worshipping, and for either marrying or not marrying, によれば their creed or inclination. The next example, however, shall be taken from an 干渉，妨害 with liberty which we have by no means passed all danger of. Wherever the Puritans have been 十分に powerful, as in New England, and in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain at the time of the 連邦／共和国, they have endeavoured, with かなりの success, to put 負かす／撃墜する all public, and nearly all 私的な, amusements: 特に music, dancing, public games, or other assemblages for 目的s of 転換, and the theatre. There are still in this country large 団体／死体s of persons by whose notions of morality and 宗教 these recreations are 非難するd; and those persons belonging 主として to the middle class, who are the ascendant 力／強力にする in the 現在の social and political 条件 of the kingdom, it is by no means impossible that persons of these 感情s may at some time or other 命令（する） a 大多数 in 議会. How will the remaining 部分 of the community like to have the amusements that shall be permitted to them 規制するd by the 宗教的な and moral 感情s of the 厳格な人 Calvinists and Methodists? Would they not, with かなりの peremptoriness, 願望（する） these intrusively pious members of society to mind their own 商売／仕事? This is 正確に what should be said to every 政府 and every public, who have the pretension that no person shall enjoy any 楽しみ which they think wrong. But if the 原則 of the pretension be 認める, no one can reasonably 反対する to its 存在 行為／法令／行動するd on in the sense of the 大多数, or other preponderating 力／強力にする in the country; and all persons must be ready to 適合する to the idea of a Christian 連邦／共和国, as understood by the 早期に 植民／開拓者s in New England, if a 宗教的な profession 類似の to theirs should ever 後継する in 回復するing its lost ground, as 宗教s supposed to be 拒絶する／低下するing have so often been known to do.

To imagine another contingency, perhaps more likely to be realised than the one last について言及するd. There is confessedly a strong 傾向 in the modern world に向かって a democratic 憲法 of society, …を伴ってd or not by popular political 会・原則s. It is 断言するd that in the country where this 傾向 is most 完全に realised- where both society and the 政府 are most democratic- the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs- the feeling of the 大多数, to whom any 外見 of a more showy or 高くつく／犠牲の大きい style of living than they can hope to 競争相手 is disagreeable, operates as a tolerably effectual sumptuary 法律, and that in many parts of the Union it is really difficult for a person 所有するing a very large income to find any 方式 of spending it which will not 背負い込む popular disapprobation. Though such 声明s as these are doubtless much 誇張するd as a 代表 of 存在するing facts, the 明言する／公表する of things they 述べる is not only a 考えられる and possible, but a probable result of democratic feeling, 連合させるd with the notion that the public has a 権利 to a 拒否権 on the manner in which individuals shall spend their incomes. We have only その上の to suppose a かなりの diffusion of 社会主義者 opinions, and it may become 悪名高い in the 注目する，もくろむs of the 大多数 to 所有する more 所有物／資産／財産 than some very small 量, or any income not earned by 手動式の 労働. Opinions 類似の in 原則 to these already 勝つ／広く一帯に広がる 広範囲にわたって の中で the artisan class, and 重さを計る oppressively on those who are amenable to the opinion 主として of that class, すなわち, its own members. It is known that the bad workmen who form the 大多数 of the operatives in many 支店s of 産業, are decidedly of opinion that bad workmen せねばならない receive the same 給料 as good, and that no one せねばならない be 許すd, through piecework or さもなければ, to earn by superior 技術 or 産業 more than others can without it. And they 雇う a moral police, which occasionally becomes a physical one, to 阻止する skilful workmen from receiving, and 雇用者s from giving, a larger remuner ation for a more useful service. If the public have any 裁判権 over 私的な 関心s, I cannot see that these people are in fault, or that any individual's particular public can be 非難するd for 主張するing the same 当局 over his individual 行為／行う which the general public 主張するs over people in general.

But, without dwelling upon supposititious 事例／患者s, there are, in our own day, 甚だしい／１２ダース usurpations upon the liberty of 私的な life 現実に practised, and still greater ones 脅すd with some 期待 of success, and opinions propounded which 主張する an 制限のない 権利 in the public not only to 禁じる by 法律 everything which it thinks wrong, but, ーするために get at what it thinks wrong, to 禁じる a number of things which it 収容する／認めるs to be innocent.

Under the 指名する of 妨げるing intemperance, the people of one English 植民地, and of nearly half the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, have been interdicted by 法律 from making any use whatever of fermented drinks, except for 医療の 目的s: for 禁止 of their sale is in fact, as it is ーするつもりであるd to be, 禁止 of their use. And though the impracticability of 遂行する／発効させるing the 法律 has 原因（となる）d its 廃止する in several of the 明言する／公表するs which had 可決する・採択するd it, 含むing the one from which it derives its 指名する, an 試みる／企てる has notwithstanding been 開始するd, and is 起訴するd with かなりの zeal by many of the professed philanthropists, to agitate for a 類似の 法律 in this country. The 協会, or "同盟" as it 条件 itself, which has been formed for this 目的, has acquired some notoriety through the publicity given to a correspondence between its 長官 and one of the very few English public men who 持つ／拘留する that a 政治家，政治屋's opinions せねばならない be 設立するd on 原則s. Lord Stanley's 株 in this correspondence is calculated to 強化する the hopes already built on him, by those who know how rare such 質s as are manifested in some of his public 外見s unhappily are の中で those who 人物／姿／数字 in political life. The 組織／臓器 of the 同盟, who would "深く，強烈に 嘆き悲しむ the 承認 of any 原則 which could be ひったくるd to 正当化する bigotry and 迫害," 請け負うs to point out the "幅の広い and impassable 障壁" which divides such 原則s from those of the 協会. "All 事柄s relating to thought, opinion, 良心, appear to me," he says, "to be without the sphere of 法律制定; all 付随するing to social 行為／法令／行動する, habit, relation, 支配する only to a discretionary 力／強力にする vested in the 明言する／公表する itself, and not in the individual, to be within it."

No について言及する is made of a third class, different from either of these, viz., 行為／法令／行動するs and habits which are not social, but individual; although it is to this class, surely, that the 行為／法令／行動する of drinking fermented アルコール飲料s belongs. Selling fermented アルコール飲料s, however, is 貿易（する）ing, and 貿易（する）ing is a social 行為／法令／行動する. But the 違反 complained of is not on the liberty of the 販売人, but on that of the 買い手 and 消費者; since the 明言する／公表する might just 同様に forbid him to drink ワイン as purposely make it impossible for him to 得る it. The 長官, however, says, "I （人命などを）奪う，主張する, as a 国民, a 権利 to 立法者 whenever my social 権利s are 侵略するd by the social 行為／法令／行動する of another." And now for the 鮮明度／定義 of these "social 権利s." "If anything 侵略するs my social 権利s, certainly the traffic in strong drink does. It destroys my 最初の／主要な 権利 of 安全, by 絶えず creating and 刺激するing social disorder. It 侵略するs my 権利 of equality, by deriving a 利益（をあげる） from the 創造 of a 悲惨 I am 税金d to support. It 妨げるs my 権利 to 解放する／自由な moral and 知識人 開発, by surrounding my path with dangers, and by 弱めるing and demoralising society, from which I have a 権利 to （人命などを）奪う，主張する 相互の 援助（する） and intercourse." A theory of "social 権利s" the like of which probably never before 設立する its way into 際立った language: 存在 nothing short of this- that it is the 絶対の social 権利 of every individual, that every other individual shall 行為／法令／行動する in every 尊敬（する）・点 正確に／まさに as he ought; that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular 侵害する／違反するs my social 権利, and する権利を与えるs me to 需要・要求する from the 立法機関 the 除去 of the grievance. So monstrous a 原則 is far more dangerous than any 選び出す／独身 干渉，妨害 with liberty; there is no 違反 of liberty which it would not 正当化する; it 認めるs no 権利 to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to that of 持つ／拘留するing opinions in secret, without ever 公表する／暴露するing them: for, the moment an opinion which I consider noxious passes any one's lips, it 侵略するs all the "social 権利s" せいにするd to me by the 同盟. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested 利益／興味 in each other's moral, 知識人, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant によれば his own 基準.

Another important example of 非合法の 干渉，妨害 with the rightful liberty of the individual, not 簡単に 脅すd, but long since carried into 勝利を得た 影響, is Sabbatarian 法律制定. Without 疑問, abstinence on one day in the week, so far as the exigencies of life 許す, from the usual daily 占領／職業, though in no 尊敬（する）・点 religiously binding on any except Jews, is a 高度に 有益な custom. And inasmuch as this custom cannot be 観察するd without a general 同意 to that 影響 の中で the industrious classes, therefore, in so far as some persons by working may 課す the same necessity on others, it may be allowable and 権利 that the 法律 should 保証（人） to each the observance by others of the custom, by 一時停止するing the greater 操作／手術s of 産業 on a particular day. But this justification, grounded on the direct 利益／興味 which others have in each individual's observance of the practice, does not 適用する to the self-chosen 占領／職業s in which a person may think fit to 雇う his leisure; nor does it 持つ／拘留する good, in the smallest degree, for 合法的な 制限s on amusements. It is true that the amusement of some is the day's work of others; but the 楽しみ, not to say the useful recreation, of many, is 価値（がある） the 労働 of a few, 供給するd the 占領／職業 is 自由に chosen, and can be 自由に 辞職するd. The operatives are perfectly 権利 in thinking that if all worked on Sunday, seven days' work would have to be given for six days' 給料; but so long as the 広大な／多数の／重要な 集まり of 雇用s are 一時停止するd, the small number who for the enjoyment of others must still work, 得る a 比例する 増加する of 収入s; and they are not 強いるd to follow those 占領／職業s if they prefer leisure to emolument. If a その上の 治療（薬） is sought, it might be 設立する in the 設立 by custom of a holiday on some other day of the week for those particular classes of persons. The only ground, therefore, on which 制限s on Sunday amusements can be defended, must be that they are religiously wrong; a 動機 of legisla tion which can never be too 真面目に 抗議するd against. Deorum injuriae Diis curae. It remains to be 証明するd that society or any of its officers 持つ／拘留するs a （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 from on high to avenge any supposed offence to Omnipotence, which is not also a wrong to our fellow creatures. The notion that it is one man's 義務 that another should be 宗教的な, was the 創立／基礎 of all the 宗教的な 迫害s ever （罪などを）犯すd, and, if 認める, would fully 正当化する them. Though the feeling which breaks out in the repeated 試みる／企てるs to stop 鉄道 travelling on Sunday, in the 抵抗 to the 開始 of Museums, and the like, has not the cruelty of the old persecutors, the 明言する／公表する of mind 示すd by it is fundamentally the same. It is a 決意 not to 許容する others in doing what is permitted by their 宗教, because it is not permitted by the persecutor's 宗教. It is a belief that God not only abominates the 行為／法令／行動する of the misbeliever, but will not 持つ／拘留する us guiltless if we leave him unmolested.

I cannot 差し控える from 追加するing to these examples of the little account 一般的に made of human liberty, the language of downright 迫害 which breaks out from the 圧力（をかける） of this country whenever it feels called on to notice the remarkable 現象 of Mormonism. Much might be said on the 予期しない and instructive fact that an 申し立てられた／疑わしい new 発覚, and a 宗教 設立するd on it, the 製品 of palpable imposture, not even supported by the prestige of 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の 質s in its 創立者, is believed by hundreds of thousands, and has been made the 創立／基礎 of a society, in the age of newspapers, 鉄道s, and the electric telegraph. What here 関心s us is, that this 宗教, like other and better 宗教s, has its 殉教者s: that its prophet and 創立者 was, for his teaching, put to death by a 暴徒; that others of its adherents lost their lives by the same lawless 暴力／激しさ; that they were 強制的に expelled, in a 団体／死体, from the country in which they first grew up; while, now that they have been chased into a 独房監禁 休会 in the 中央 of a 砂漠, many in this country 率直に 宣言する that it would be 権利 (only that it is not convenient) to send an 探検隊／遠征隊 against them, and 強要する them by 軍隊 to 適合する to the opinions of other people. The article of the Mormonite doctrine which is the 長，指導者 挑発的な to the 反感 which thus breaks through the ordinary 抑制s of 宗教的な 寛容, is its 許可／制裁 of polygamy; which, though permitted to Mahomedans, and Hindoos, and Chinese, seems to excite unquenchable animosity when practised by persons who speak English and profess to be a 肉親，親類d of Christians. No one has a deeper disapprobation than I have of this Mormon 会・原則; both for other 推論する／理由s, and because, far from 存在 in any way countenanced by the 原則 of liberty, it is a direct infraction of that 原則, 存在 a mere riveting of the chains of one half of the community, and an emancipation of the other from 相互主義 of 義務 に向かって them. Still, it must be remembered tha t this relation is as much voluntary on the part of the women 関心d in it, and who may be みなすd the 苦しんでいる人s by it, as is the 事例／患者 with any other form of the marriage 会・原則; and however surprising this fact may appear, it has its explanation in the ありふれた ideas and customs of the world, which teaching women to think marriage the one thing needful, make it intelligible that many woman should prefer 存在 one of several wives, to not 存在 a wife at all. Other countries are not asked to recognise such unions, or 解放（する） any 部分 of their inhabitants from their own 法律s on the 得点する／非難する／２０ of Mormonite opinions. But when the dissentients have 譲歩するd to the 敵意を持った 感情s of others far more than could 正確に，正当に be 需要・要求するd; when they have left the countries to which their doctrines were 容認できない, and 設立するd themselves in a remote corner of the earth, which they have been the first to （判決などを）下す habitable to human 存在s; it is difficult to see on what 原則s but those of tyranny they can be 妨げるd from living there under what 法律s they please, 供給するd they commit no 侵略 on other nations, and 許す perfect freedom of 出発 to those who are 不満な with their ways.

A 最近の writer, in some 尊敬（する）・点s of かなりの 長所, 提案するs (to use his own words) not a crusade, but a civilisade, against this polygamous community, to put an end to what seems to him a retrograde step in civilisation. It also appears so to me, but I am not aware that any community has a 権利 to 軍隊 another to be civilised. So long as the 苦しんでいる人s by the bad 法律 do not invoke 援助 from other communities, I cannot 収容する／認める that persons 完全に unconnected with them せねばならない step in and 要求する that a 条件 of things with which all who are 直接／まっすぐに 利益／興味d appear to be 満足させるd, should be put an end to because it is a スキャンダル to persons some thousands of miles distant, who have no part or 関心 in it. Let them send missionaries, if they please, to preach against it; and let them, by any fair means (of which silencing the teachers is not one), …に反対する the 進歩 of 類似の doctrines の中で their own people. If civilisation has got the better of 野蛮／未開 when 野蛮／未開 had the world to itself, it is too much to profess to be afraid lest 野蛮／未開, after having been 公正に／かなり got under, should 生き返らせる and 征服する／打ち勝つ civilisation. A civilisation that can thus succumb to its vanquished enemy, must first have become so degenerate, that neither its 任命するd priests and teachers, nor anybody else, has the capacity, or will take the trouble, to stand up for it. If this be so, the sooner such a civilisation receives notice to やめる the better. It can only go on from bad to worse, until destroyed and regenerated (like the Western Empire) by energetic barbarians.

The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his 活動／戦闘s, in so far as these 関心 the 利益／興味s of no person but himself. Advice, 指示／教授／教育, 説得／派閥, and avoidance by other people if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only 対策 by which society can justifiably 表明する its dislike or disapprobation of his 行為／行う. Secondly, that for such 活動／戦闘s as are prejudicial to the 利益／興味s of others, the individual is accountable, and may be 支配するd either to social or to 合法的な 罰, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its 保護.

In the first place, it must by no means be supposed, because 損失, or probability of 損失, to the 利益／興味s of others, can alone 正当化する the 干渉，妨害 of society, that therefore it always does 正当化する such 干渉，妨害. In many 事例／患者s, an individual, in 追求するing a 合法的 反対する, やむを得ず and therefore legitimately 原因（となる）s 苦痛 or loss to others, or 迎撃するs a good which they had a reasonable hope of 得るing. Such 対立s of 利益／興味 between individuals often arise from bad social 会・原則s, but are 避けられない while those 会・原則s last; and some would be 避けられない under any 会・原則s. Whoever 後継するs in an overcrowded profession, or in a 競争の激しい examination; whoever is preferred to another in any contest for an 反対する which both 願望（する）, 得るs 利益 from the loss of others, from their wasted exertion and their 失望. But it is, by ありふれた admission, better for the general 利益／興味 of mankind, that persons should 追求する their 反対するs undeterred by this sort of consequences. In other words, society 収容する／認めるs no 権利, either 合法的な or moral, in the disappointed competitors to 免疫 from this 肉親，親類d of 苦しむing; and feels called on to 干渉する, only when means of success have been 雇うd which it is contrary to the general 利益／興味 to 許す- すなわち, 詐欺 or treachery, and 軍隊.

Again, 貿易（する） is a social 行為／法令／行動する. Whoever 請け負うs to sell any description of goods to the public, does what 影響する／感情s the 利益／興味 of other persons, and of society in general; and thus his 行為／行う, in 原則, comes within the 裁判権 of society: accordingly, it was once held to be the 義務 of 政府s, in all 事例／患者s which were considered of importance, to 直す／買収する，八百長をする prices, and 規制する the 過程s of 製造（する）. But it is now recognised, though not till after a long struggle, that both the cheapness and the good 質 of 商品／必需品s are most effectually 供給するd for by leaving the 生産者s and 販売人s perfectly 解放する／自由な, under the 単独の check of equal freedom to the 買い手s for 供給（する）ing themselves どこかよそで. This is the いわゆる doctrine of 解放する／自由な 貿易（する）, which 残り／休憩（する）s on grounds different from, though 平等に solid with, the 原則 of individual liberty 主張するd in this Essay. 制限s on 貿易（する）, or on 生産／産物 for 目的s of 貿易（する）, are indeed 抑制s; and all 抑制, qua 抑制, is an evil: but the 抑制s in question 影響する／感情 only that part of 行為／行う which society is competent to 抑制する, and are wrong 単独で because they do not really produce the results which it is 願望（する）d to produce by them. As the 原則 of individual liberty is not 伴う／関わるd in the doctrine of 解放する／自由な 貿易（する）, so neither is it in most of the questions which arise 尊敬（する）・点ing the 限界s of that doctrine; as, for example, what 量 of public 支配（する）／統制する is admissible for the 予防 of 詐欺 by adulteration; how far sanitary 警戒s, or 手はず／準備 to 保護する workpeople 雇うd in dangerous 占領／職業s, should be 施行するd on 雇用者s. Such questions 伴う／関わる considerations of liberty, only in so far as leaving people to themselves is always better, caeteris paribus, than controlling them: but that they may be legitimately controlled for these ends is in 原則 否定できない. On the other 手渡す, there are questions relating to 干渉，妨害 with 貿易（する） which are essentially questions of liberty; such as the Maine 法律, alr eady touched upon; the 禁止 of the 輸入 of あへん into 中国; the 制限 of the sale of 毒（薬）s; all 事例／患者s, in short, where the 反対する of the 干渉，妨害 is to make it impossible or difficult to 得る a particular 商品／必需品. These 干渉，妨害s are objectionable, not as 違反s on the liberty of the 生産者 or 販売人, but on that of the 買い手.

One of these examples, that of the sale of 毒（薬）s, opens a new question; the proper 限界s of what may be called the 機能（する）／行事s of police; how far liberty may legitimately be 侵略するd for the 予防 of 罪，犯罪, or of 事故. It is one of the undisputed 機能（する）／行事s of 政府 to take 警戒s against 罪，犯罪 before it has been committed, 同様に as to （悪事，秘密などを）発見する and punish it afterwards. The 予防の 機能（する）／行事 of 政府, however, is far more liable to be 乱用d, to the prejudice of liberty, than the punitory 機能（する）／行事;- for there is hardly any part of the 合法的 freedom of 活動／戦闘 of a human 存在 which would not 収容する／認める of 存在 代表するd, and 公正に／かなり too, as 増加するing the 施設s for some form or other of delinquency. にもかかわらず, if a public 当局, or even a 私的な person, sees any one evidently 準備するing to commit a 罪，犯罪, they are not bound to look on inactive until the 罪，犯罪 is committed, but may 干渉する to 妨げる it. If 毒（薬）s were never bought or used for any 目的 except the （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 of 殺人 it would be 権利 to 禁じる their 製造（する） and sale. They may, however, be 手配中の，お尋ね者 not only for innocent but for useful 目的s, and 制限s cannot be 課すd in the one 事例／患者 without operating in the other. Again, it is a proper office of public 当局 to guard against 事故s. If either a public officer or any one else saw a person 試みる／企てるing to cross a 橋（渡しをする） which had been ascertained to be 危険な, and there were no time to 警告する him of his danger, they might 掴む him and turn him 支援する, without any real 違反 of his liberty; for liberty consists in doing what one 願望（する）s, and he does not 願望（する） to 落ちる into the river. にもかかわらず, when there is not a certainty, but only a danger of mischief, no one but the person himself can 裁判官 of the 十分なこと of the 動機 which may 誘発する him to 背負い込む the 危険: in this 事例／患者, therefore (unless he is a child, or delirious, or in some 明言する／公表する of excitement or absorption 相いれない with the 十分な use of the 反映するing faculty), he ought, I conceive, to be only 警告するd of the danger; not 強制的に 妨げるd from exposing himself to it. 類似の considerations, 適用するd to such a question as the sale of 毒（薬）s, may enable us to decide which の中で the possible 方式s of 規則 are or are not contrary to 原則. Such a 警戒, for example, as that of labelling the 麻薬 with some word expressive of its dangerous character, may be 施行するd without 違反 of liberty: the 買い手 cannot wish not to know that the thing he 所有するs has poisonous 質s. But to 要求する in all 事例／患者s the 証明書 of a 医療の practitioner would make it いつかs impossible, always expensive, to 得る the article for 合法的 uses.

The only 方式 明らかな to me, in which difficulties may be thrown in the way of 罪，犯罪 committed through this means, without any 違反 価値（がある） taking into account upon the liberty of those who 願望（する） the poisonous 実体 for other 目的s, consists in 供給するing what, in the apt language of Bentham, is called "preappointed 証拠." This 準備／条項 is familiar to every one in the 事例／患者 of 契約s. It is usual and 権利 that the 法律, when a 契約 is entered into, should 要求する as the 条件 of its 施行するing 業績／成果, that 確かな 形式順守s should be 観察するd, such as 署名s, 任命 of 証言，証人／目撃するs, and the like, in order that in 事例／患者 of その後の 論争 there may be 証拠 to 証明する that the 契約 was really entered into, and that there was nothing in the circumstances to （判決などを）下す it 合法的に 無効の: the 影響 存在 to throw 広大な／多数の／重要な 障害s in the way of fictitious 契約s, or 契約s made in circumstances which, if known, would destroy their 有効性，効力. 警戒s of a 類似の nature might be 施行するd in the sale of articles adapted to be 器具s of 罪，犯罪. The 販売人, for example, might be 要求するd to enter in a 登録（する） the exact time of the 処理／取引, the 指名する and 演説（する）／住所 of the 買い手, the 正確な 質 and 量 sold; to ask the 目的 for which it was 手配中の，お尋ね者, and 記録，記録的な／記録する the answer he received. When there was no 医療の prescription, the presence of some third person might be 要求するd, to bring home the fact to the purchaser, in 事例／患者 there should afterwards be 推論する／理由 to believe that the article had been 適用するd to 犯罪の 目的s. Such 規則s would in general be no 構成要素 妨害 to 得るing the article, but a very かなりの one to making an 妥当でない use of it without （犯罪，病気などの）発見.

The 権利 inherent in society, to 区 off 罪，犯罪s against itself by antecedent 警戒s, 示唆するs the obvious 制限s to the maxim, that 純粋に self-regarding 不品行／姦通 cannot 適切に be meddled with in the way of 予防 or 罰. Drunkenness, for example, in ordinary 事例／患者s, is not a fit 支配する for 法律を制定する 干渉，妨害; but I should みなす it perfectly 合法的 that a person, who had once been 罪人／有罪を宣告するd of any 行為／法令／行動する of 暴力／激しさ to others under the 影響（力） of drink, should be placed under a special 合法的な 制限, personal to himself; that if he were afterwards 設立する drunk, he should be liable to a 刑罰，罰則, and that if when in that 明言する／公表する he committed another offence, the 罰 to which he would be liable for that other offence should be 増加するd in severity. The making himself drunk, in a person whom drunkenness excites to do 害（を与える） to others, is a 罪，犯罪 against others. So, again, idleness, except in a person receiving support from the public, or except when it 構成するs a 違反 of 契約, cannot without tyranny be made a 支配する of 合法的な 罰; but if, either from idleness or from any other avoidable 原因（となる）, a man fails to 成し遂げる his 合法的な 義務s to others, as for instance to support his children, it is no tyranny to 軍隊 him to fulfil that 義務, by compulsory 労働, if no other means are 利用できる.

Again, there are many 行為／法令／行動するs which, 存在 直接／まっすぐに injurious only to the スパイ／執行官s themselves, ought not to be 合法的に interdicted, but which, if done 公然と, are a 違反 of good manners, and coming thus within the 部類 of offences against others, may rightly be 禁じるd. Of this 肉親，親類d are offences against decency; on which it is unnecessary to dwell, the rather as they are only connected 間接に with our 支配する, the 反対 to publicity 存在 平等に strong in the 事例／患者 of many 活動／戦闘s not in themselves condemnable, nor supposed to be so.

There is another question to which an answer must be 設立する, 一貫した with the 原則s which have been laid 負かす／撃墜する. In 事例／患者s of personal 行為／行う supposed to be blamable, but which 尊敬（する）・点 for liberty 妨げるs society from 妨げるing or punishing, because the evil 直接／まっすぐに resulting 落ちるs wholly on the スパイ／執行官; what the スパイ／執行官 is 解放する／自由な to do, ought other persons to be 平等に 解放する／自由な to counsel or 扇動する? This question is not 解放する／自由な from difficulty. The 事例／患者 of a person who solicits another to do an 行為／法令／行動する is not 厳密に a 事例／患者 of self-regarding 行為／行う. To give advice or 申し込む／申し出 誘導s to any one is a social 行為／法令／行動する, and may, therefore, like 活動／戦闘s in general which 影響する／感情 others, be supposed amenable to social 支配（する）／統制する. But a little reflection 訂正するs the first impression, by showing that if the 事例／患者 is not 厳密に within the 鮮明度／定義 of individual liberty, yet the 推論する／理由s on which the 原則 of individual liberty is grounded are applicable to it. If people must be 許すd, in whatever 関心s only themselves, to 行為／法令／行動する as seems best to themselves, at their own 危険，危なくする, they must 平等に be 解放する／自由な to 協議する with one another about what is fit to be so done; to 交流 opinions, and give and receive suggestions. Whatever it is permitted to do, it must be permitted to advise to do. The question is doubtful only when the instigator derives a personal 利益 from his advice; when he makes it his 占領／職業, for subsistence or pecuniary 伸び（る）, to 促進する what society and the 明言する／公表する consider to be an evil. Then, indeed, a new element of 複雑化 is introduced; すなわち, the 存在 of classes of persons with an 利益／興味 …に反対するd to what is considered as the public weal, and whose 方式 of living is grounded on the counteraction of it. Ought this to be 干渉するd with, or not? Fornication, for example, must be 許容するd, and so must 賭事ing; but should a person be 解放する／自由な to be a pimp, or to keep a 賭事ing-house? The 事例／患者 is one of those which 嘘（をつく） on the exact 境界 line between two 原則s, and it is not at once app arent to which of the two it 適切に belongs.

There are arguments on both 味方するs. On the 味方する of toleration it may be said that the fact of に引き続いて anything as an 占領／職業, and living or 利益（をあげる）ing by the practice of it, cannot make that 犯罪の which would さもなければ be admissible; that the 行為／法令／行動する should either be 終始一貫して permitted or 終始一貫して 禁じるd; that if the 原則s which we have hitherto defended are true, society has no 商売／仕事, as society, to decide anything to be wrong which 関心s only the individual; that it cannot go beyond dissuasion, and that one person should be as 解放する／自由な to 説得する as another to dissuade. In 対立 to this it may be 競うd, that although the public, or the 明言する／公表する, are not 令状d in authoritatively deciding, for 目的s of repression or 罰, that such or such 行為／行う 影響する／感情ing only the 利益／興味s of the individual is good or bad, they are fully 正当化するd in assuming, if they regard it as bad, that its 存在 so or not is at least a disputable question: That, this 存在 supposed, they cannot be 事実上の／代理 wrongly in endeavouring to 除外する the 影響（力） of solicitations which are not disinterested, of instigators who cannot かもしれない be impartial- who have a direct personal 利益／興味 on one 味方する, and that 味方する the one which the 明言する／公表する believes to be wrong, and who confessedly 促進する it for personal 反対するs only. There can surely, it may be 勧めるd, be nothing lost, no sacrifice of good, by so ordering 事柄s that persons shall make their 選挙, either wisely or foolishly, on their own 誘発するing, as 解放する／自由な as possible from the arts of persons who 刺激する their inclinations for 利益／興味d 目的s of their own. Thus (it may be said) though the 法令s 尊敬（する）・点ing unlawful games are utterly indefensible- though all persons should be 解放する／自由な to 賭事 in their own or each other's houses, or in any place of 会合 設立するd by their own subscriptions, and open only to the members and their 訪問者s- yet public 賭事ing-houses should not be permitted. It is true that the 禁止 is never effectual, a nd that, whatever 量 of tyrannical 力／強力にする may be given to the police, 賭事ing-houses can always be 持続するd under other pretences; but they may be compelled to 行為／行う their 操作／手術s with a 確かな degree of secrecy and mystery, so that nobody knows anything about them but those who 捜し出す them; and more than this society ought not to 目的（とする） at.

There is かなりの 軍隊 in these arguments. I will not 投機・賭ける to decide whether they are 十分な to 正当化する the moral anomaly of punishing the accessary, when the 主要な／長／主犯 is (and must be) 許すd to go 解放する／自由な; of 罰金ing or 拘留するing the procurer, but not the fornicator- the 賭事ing-house keeper, but not the gambler. Still いっそう少なく ought the ありふれた 操作／手術s of buying and selling to be 干渉するd with on analogous grounds. Almost every article which is bought and sold may be used in 超過, and the 販売人s have a pecuniary 利益／興味 in encouraging that 超過; but no argument can be 設立するd on this, in favour, for instance, of the Maine 法律; because the class of 売買業者s in strong drinks, though 利益／興味d in their 乱用, are indispensably 要求するd for the sake of their 合法的 use. The 利益／興味, however, of these 売買業者s in 促進するing intemperance is a real evil, and 正当化するs the 明言する／公表する in 課すing 制限s and 要求するing 保証（人）s which, but for that justification, would be 違反s of 合法的 liberty.

A その上の question is, whether the 明言する／公表する, while it 許すs, should にもかかわらず 間接に discourage 行為／行う which it みなすs contrary to the best 利益／興味s of the スパイ／執行官; whether, for example, it should take 対策 to （判決などを）下す the means of drunkenness more 高くつく／犠牲の大きい, or 追加する to the difficulty of procuring them by 限界ing the number of the places of sale. On this as on most other practical questions, many distinctions 要求する to be made. To 税金 興奮剤s for the 単独の 目的 of making them more difficult to be 得るd, is a 手段 異なるing only in degree from their entire 禁止; and would be 正当と認められる only if that were 正当と認められる. Every 増加する of cost is a 禁止, to those whose means do not come up to the augmented price; and to those who do, it is a 刑罰，罰則 laid on them for gratifying a particular taste. Their choice of 楽しみs, and their 方式 of expending their income, after 満足させるing their 合法的な and moral 義務s to the 明言する／公表する and to individuals, are their own 関心, and must 残り／休憩（する） with their own judgment. These considerations may seem at first sight to 非難する the 選択 of 興奮剤s as special 支配するs of 課税 for 目的s of 歳入. But it must be remembered that 課税 for 会計の 目的s is 絶対 必然的な; that in most countries it is necessary that a かなりの part of that 課税 should be indirect; that the 明言する／公表する, therefore, cannot help 課すing 刑罰，罰則s, which to some persons may be prohibitory, on the use of some articles of 消費. It is hence the 義務 of the 明言する／公表する to consider, in the 課税 of 税金s, what 商品／必需品s the 消費者s can best spare; and a fortiori, to select in preference those of which it みなすs the use, beyond a very 穏健な 量, to be 前向きに／確かに injurious. 課税, therefore, of 興奮剤s, up to the point which produces the largest 量 of 歳入 (supposing that the 明言する／公表する needs all the 歳入 which it 産する／生じるs) is not only admissible, but to be 認可するd of.

The question of making the sale of these 商品／必需品s a more or いっそう少なく 排除的 特権, must be answered 異なって, によれば the 目的s to which the 制限 is ーするつもりであるd to be subservient. All places of public 訴える手段／行楽地 要求する the 抑制 of a police, and places of this 肉親，親類d peculiarly, because offences against society are 特に apt to 起こる／始まる there. It is, therefore, fit to 限定する the 力／強力にする of selling these 商品／必需品s (at least for 消費 on the 位置／汚点／見つけ出す) to persons of known or vouched-for respectability of 行為／行う; to make such 規則s 尊敬（する）・点ing hours of 開始 and の近くにing as may be requisite for public 監視, and to 身を引く the licence if 違反s of the peace 繰り返して take place through the 黙認 or incapacity of the keeper of the house, or if it becomes a rendezvous for concocting and 準備するing offences against the 法律. Any その上の 制限 I do not conceive to be, in 原則, 正当と認められる. The 制限 in number, for instance, of beer and spirit houses, for the 表明する 目的 of （判決などを）下すing them more difficult of 接近, and 減らすing the occasions of 誘惑, not only exposes all to an inconvenience because there are some by whom the 施設 would be 乱用d, but is ふさわしい only to a 明言する／公表する of society in which the 労働ing classes are avowedly 扱う／治療するd as children or savages, and placed under an education of 抑制, to fit them for 未来 admission to the 特権s of freedom. This is not the 原則 on which the 労働ing classes are professedly 治める／統治するd in any 解放する／自由な country; and no person who 始める，決めるs 予定 value on freedom will give his adhesion to their 存在 so 治める／統治するd, unless after all 成果／努力s have been exhausted to educate them for freedom and 治める／統治する them as freemen, and it has been definitively 証明するd that they can only be 治める／統治するd as children. The 明らかにする 声明 of the 代案／選択肢 shows the absurdity of supposing that such 成果／努力s have been made in any 事例／患者 which needs be considered here. It is only because the 会・原則s of this country are a 集まり of inconsistencies, that things find admittance into our practice which belong to the system of despotic, or what is called paternal, 政府, while the general freedom of our 会・原則s 妨げるs the 演習 of the 量 of 支配（する）／統制する necessary to （判決などを）下す the 抑制 of any real efficacy as a moral education.

It was pointed out in an 早期に part of this Essay, that the liberty of the individual, in things wherein the individual is alone 関心d, 暗示するs a corresponding liberty in any number of individuals to 規制する by 相互の 協定 such things as regard them 共同で, and regard no persons but themselves. This question 現在のs no difficulty, so long as the will of all the persons 巻き込むd remains unaltered; but since that will may change, it is often necessary, even in things in which they alone are 関心d, that they should enter into 約束／交戦s with one another; and when they do, it is fit, as a general 支配する, that those 約束／交戦s should be kept. Yet, in the 法律s, probably, of every country, this general 支配する has some exceptions. Not only persons are not held to 約束／交戦s which 侵害する／違反する the 権利s of third parties, but it is いつかs considered a 十分な 推論する／理由 for 解放（する）ing them from an 約束／交戦, that it is injurious to themselves. In this and most other civilised countries, for example, an 約束／交戦 by which a person should sell himself, or 許す himself to be sold, as a slave, would be 無効の; neither 施行するd by 法律 nor by opinion. The ground for thus 限界ing his 力／強力にする of 任意に 配置する／処分する／したい気持ちにさせるing of his own lot in life, is 明らかな, and is very 明確に seen in this extreme 事例／患者. The 推論する／理由 for not 干渉するing, unless for the sake of others, with a person's voluntary 行為／法令／行動するs, is consideration for his liberty. His voluntary choice is 証拠 that what he so chooses is 望ましい, or at least endurable, to him, and his good is on the whole best 供給するd for by 許すing him to take his own means of 追求するing it. But by selling himself for a slave, be abdicates his liberty; he foregoes any 未来 use of it beyond that 選び出す／独身 行為／法令／行動する. He therefore 敗北・負かすs, in his own 事例／患者, the very 目的 which is the justification of 許すing him to 配置する／処分する／したい気持ちにさせる of himself. He is no longer 解放する／自由な; but is thenceforth in a position which has no longer the presumption in its favour, that would be afforded by his 任意に remaining in it. The 原則 of freedom cannot 要求する that he should be 解放する／自由な not to be 解放する／自由な. It is not freedom to be 許すd to 疎遠にする his freedom. These 推論する／理由s, the 軍隊 of which is so 目だつ in this peculiar 事例／患者, are evidently of far wider 使用／適用; yet a 限界 is everywhere 始める，決める to them by the necessities of life, which continually 要求する, not indeed that we should 辞職する our freedom, but that we should 同意 to this and the other 制限 of it. The 原則, however, which 需要・要求するs uncontrolled freedom of 活動／戦闘 in all that 関心s only the スパイ／執行官s themselves, 要求するs that those who have become bound to one another, in things which 関心 no third party, should be able to 解放（する） one another from the 約束／交戦: and even without such voluntary 解放（する） there are perhaps no 契約s or 約束／交戦s, except those that relate to money or money's 価値（がある）, of which one can 投機・賭ける to say that there せねばならない be no liberty whatever of retractation.

Baron Wilhelm 出身の Humboldt, in the excellent essay from which I have already 引用するd, 明言する／公表するs it as his 有罪の判決, that 約束／交戦s which 伴う／関わる personal relations or services should never be 合法的に binding beyond a 限られた／立憲的な duration of time; and that the most important of these 約束／交戦s, marriage, having the peculiarity that its 反対するs are 失望させるd unless the feelings of both the parties are in harmony with it, should 要求する nothing more than the 宣言するd will of either party to 解散させる it. This 支配する is too important, and too 複雑にするd, to be discussed in a parenthesis, and I touch on it only so far as is necessary for 目的s of illustration. If the conciseness and generality of Baron Humboldt's dissertation had not 強いるd him in this instance to content himself with enunciating his 結論 without discussing the 前提s, he would doubtless have recognised that the question cannot be decided on grounds so simple as those to which he 限定するs himself. When a person, either by 表明する 約束 or by 行為／行う, has encouraged another to rely upon his continuing to 行為／法令／行動する in a 確かな way- to build 期待s and 計算／見積りs, and 火刑／賭ける any part of his 計画（する） of life upon that supposition- a new 一連の moral 義務s arises on his part に向かって that person, which may かもしれない be overruled, but cannot be ignored. And again, if the relation between two 契約ing parties has been followed by consequences to others; if it has placed third parties in any peculiar position, or, as in the 事例／患者 of marriage, has even called third parties into 存在, 義務s arise on the part of both the 契約ing parties に向かって those third persons, the fulfilment of which, or at all events the 方式 of fulfilment, must be 大いに 影響する／感情d by the continuance or disruption of the relation between the 初めの parties to the 契約. It does not follow, nor can I 収容する／認める, that these 義務s 延長する to 要求するing the fulfilment of the 契約 at all costs to the happiness of the 気が進まない party; but they are a n ecessary element in the question; and even if, as 出身の Humboldt 持続するs, they せねばならない make no difference in the 合法的な freedom of the parties to 解放（する） themselves from the 約束／交戦 (and I also 持つ／拘留する that they ought not to make much difference), they やむを得ず make a 広大な／多数の／重要な difference in the moral freedom. A person is bound to take all these circumstances into account before 解決するing on a step which may 影響する／感情 such important 利益／興味s of others; and if he does not 許す proper 負わせる to those 利益／興味s, he is morally 責任がある the wrong. I have made these obvious 発言／述べるs for the better illustration of the general 原則 of liberty, and not because they are at all needed on the particular question, which, on the contrary, is usually discussed as if the 利益／興味 of children was everything, and that of grown persons nothing.

I have already 観察するd that, 借りがあるing to the absence of any recognised general 原則s, liberty is often 認めるd where it should be withheld, 同様に as withheld where it should be 認めるd; and one of the 事例／患者s in which, in the modern European world, the 感情 of liberty is the strongest, is a 事例／患者 where, in my 見解（をとる）, it is altogether misplaced. A person should be 解放する／自由な to do as he likes in his own 関心s; but he ought not to be 解放する／自由な to do as he likes in 事実上の／代理 for another, under the pretext that the 事件／事情／状勢s of the other are his own 事件／事情／状勢s. The 明言する／公表する, while it 尊敬（する）・点s the liberty of each in what 特に regards himself, is bound to 持続する a vigilant 支配（する）／統制する over his 演習 of any 力／強力にする which it 許すs him to 所有する over others. This 義務 is almost 完全に 無視（する）d in the 事例／患者 of the family relations, a 事例／患者, in its direct 影響（力） on human happiness, more important than all others taken together. The almost despotic 力／強力にする of husbands over wives needs not be 大きくするd upon here, because nothing more is needed for the 完全にする 除去 of the evil than that wives should have the same 権利s, and should receive the 保護 of 法律 in the same manner, as all other persons; and because, on this 支配する, the defenders of 設立するd 不正 do not avail themselves of the 嘆願 of liberty, but stand 前へ／外へ 率直に as the 支持する／優勝者s of 力／強力にする. It is in the 事例／患者 of children that misapplied notions of liberty are a real 障害 to the fulfilment by the 明言する／公表する of its 義務s. One would almost think that a man's children were supposed to be literally, and not metaphorically, a part of himself, so jealous is opinion of the smallest 干渉，妨害 of 法律 with his 絶対の and 排除的 支配（する）／統制する over them; more jealous than of almost any 干渉，妨害 with his own freedom of 活動／戦闘: so much いっそう少なく do the generality of mankind value liberty than 力／強力にする. Consider, for example, the 事例／患者 of education. Is it not almost a self-evident axiom, that the 明言する／公表する should 要求する and 強要する the education, up to a 確かな standa rd, of every human 存在 who is born its 国民? Yet who is there that is not afraid to recognise and 主張する this truth? Hardly any one indeed will 否定する that it is one of the most sacred 義務s of the parents (or, as 法律 and usage now stand, the father), after 召喚するing a human 存在 into the world, to give to that 存在 an education fitting him to 成し遂げる his part 井戸／弁護士席 in life に向かって others and に向かって himself. But while this is 全員一致で 宣言するd to be the father's 義務, scarcely anybody, in this country, will 耐える to hear of 強いるing him to 成し遂げる it. Instead of his 存在 要求するd to make any exertion or sacrifice for 安全な・保証するing education to his child, it is left to his choice to 受託する it or not when it is 供給するd gratis! It still remains unrecognised, that to bring a child into 存在 without a fair prospect of 存在 able, not only to 供給する food for its 団体／死体, but 指示／教授／教育 and training for its mind, is a moral 罪，犯罪, both against the unfortunate offspring and against society; and that if the parent does not fulfil this 義務, the 明言する／公表する せねばならない see it 実行するd, at the 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金, as far as possible, of the parent.

Were the 義務 of 施行するing 全世界の／万国共通の education once 認める there would be an end to the difficulties about what the 明言する／公表する should teach, and how it should teach, which now 変える the 支配する into a mere 戦場 for sects and parties, 原因（となる）ing the time and 労働 which should have been spent in educating to be wasted in quarreling about education. If the 政府 would （不足などを）補う its mind to 要求する for every child a good education, it might save itself the trouble of 供給するing one. It might leave to parents to 得る the education where and how they pleased, and content itself with helping to 支払う／賃金 the school 料金s of the poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expenses of those who have no one else to 支払う／賃金 for them. The 反対s which are 勧めるd with 推論する／理由 against 明言する／公表する education do not 適用する to the 施行 of education by the 明言する／公表する, but to the 明言する／公表する's taking upon itself to direct that education; which is a 全く different thing. That the whole or any large part of the education of the people should be in 明言する／公表する 手渡すs, I go as far as any one in deprecating. All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and 多様制 in opinions and 方式s of 行為／行う, 伴う／関わるs, as of the same unspeakable importance, 多様制 of education. A general 明言する／公表する education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be 正確に／まさに like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant 力／強力にする in the 政府, whether this be a 君主, a 聖職者, an aristocracy, or the 大多数 of the 存在するing 世代; in 割合 as it is efficient and successful, it 設立するs a 先制政治 over the mind, 主要な by natural 傾向 to one over the 団体／死体. An education 設立するd and controlled by the 明言する／公表する should only 存在する, if it 存在する at all, as one の中で many competing 実験s, carried on for the 目的 of example and 刺激, to keep the others up to a 確かな 基準 of excellence. Unless, indeed, when society in general is in so backward a sta te that it could not or would not 供給する for itself any proper 会・原則s of education unless the 政府 undertook the 仕事: then, indeed, the 政府 may, as the いっそう少なく of two 広大な／多数の／重要な evils, take upon itself the 商売／仕事 of schools and universities, as it may that of 共同の 在庫／株 companies, when 私的な 企業, in a 形態／調整 fitted for 請け負うing 広大な／多数の／重要な 作品 of 産業, does not 存在する in the country. But in general, if the country 含む／封じ込めるs a 十分な number of persons qualified to 供給する education under 政府 後援, the same persons would be able and willing to give an 平等に good education on the voluntary 原則, under the 保証／確信 of remuneration afforded by a 法律 （判決などを）下すing education compulsory, 連合させるd with 明言する／公表する 援助（する） to those unable to defray the expense.

The 器具 for 施行するing the 法律 could be no other than public examinations, 延長するing to all children, and beginning at an 早期に age. An age might be 直す／買収する，八百長をするd at which every child must be 診察するd, to ascertain if he (or she) is able to read. If a child 証明するs unable, the father, unless he has some 十分な ground of excuse, might be 支配するd to a 穏健な 罰金, to be worked out, if necessary, by his 労働, and the child might be put to school at his expense. Once in every year the examination should be 新たにするd, with a 徐々に 延長するing 範囲 of 支配するs, so as to make the 全世界の／万国共通の 取得／買収, and what is more, retention, of a 確かな 最小限 of general knowledge 事実上 compulsory. Beyond that 最小限 there should be voluntary examinations on all 支配するs, at which all who come up to a 確かな 基準 of proficiency might （人命などを）奪う，主張する a 証明書. To 妨げる the 明言する／公表する from 演習ing, through these 手はず／準備, an 妥当でない 影響（力） over opinion, the knowledge 要求するd for passing an examination (beyond the 単に instrumental parts of knowledge, such as languages and their use) should, even in the higher classes of examinations, be 限定するd to facts and 肯定的な science 排他的に. The examinations on 宗教, politics, or other 論争d topics, should not turn on the truth or falsehood of opinions, but on the 事柄 of fact that such and such an opinion is held, on such grounds, by such authors, or schools, or churches.

Under this system, the rising 世代 would be no worse off in regard to all 論争d truths than they are at 現在の; they would be brought up either churchmen or dissenters as they now are, the 明言する／公表する 単に taking care that they should be 教えるd churchmen, or 教えるd dissenters. There would be nothing to 妨げる them from 存在 taught 宗教, if their parents chose, at the same schools where they were taught other things. All 試みる／企てるs by the 明言する／公表する to bias the 結論s of its 国民s on 論争d 支配するs are evil; but it may very 適切に 申し込む／申し出 to ascertain and certify that a person 所有するs the knowledge requisite to make his 結論s, on any given 支配する, 価値（がある） …に出席するing to. A student of philosophy would be the better for 存在 able to stand an examination both in Locke and in Kant, whichever of the two he takes up with, or even if with neither: and there is no reasonable 反対 to 診察するing an atheist in the 証拠s of Christianity, 供給するd he is not 要求するd to profess a belief in them. The examinations, however, in the higher 支店s of knowledge should, I conceive, be 完全に voluntary. It would be giving too dangerous a 力／強力にする to 政府s were they 許すd to 除外する any one from professions, even from the profession of teacher, for 申し立てられた／疑わしい 欠陥／不足 of 資格s: and I think, with Wilhelm 出身の Humboldt, that degrees, or other public 証明書s of 科学の or professional acquirements, should be given to all who 現在の themselves for examination, and stand the 実験（する）; but that such 証明書s should 会談する no advantage over competitors other than the 負わせる which may be 大（公）使館員d to their 証言 by public opinion.

It is not in the 事柄 of education only that misplaced notions of liberty 妨げる moral 義務s on the part of parents from 存在 recognised, and 合法的な 義務s from 存在 課すd, where there are the strongest grounds for the former always, and in many 事例／患者s for the latter also. The fact itself, of 原因（となる）ing the 存在 of a human 存在, is one of the most responsible 活動／戦闘s in the 範囲 of human life. To 請け負う this 責任／義務- to bestow a life which may be either a 悪口を言う／悪態 or a blessing- unless the 存在 on whom it is to be bestowed will have at least the ordinary chances of a 望ましい 存在, is a 罪，犯罪 against that 存在. And in a country either over-peopled, or 脅すd with 存在 so, to produce children, beyond a very small number, with the 影響 of 減ずるing the reward of 労働 by their 競争, is a serious offence against all who live by the remuneration of their 労働. The 法律s which, in many countries on the Continent, forbid marriage unless the parties can show that they have the means of supporting a family, do not 越える the 合法的 力／強力にするs of the 明言する／公表する: and whether such 法律s be expedient or not (a question おもに 扶養家族 on 地元の circumstances and feelings), they are not objectionable as 違反s of liberty. Such 法律s are 干渉，妨害s of the 明言する／公表する to 禁じる a mischievous 行為／法令／行動する- an 行為／法令／行動する injurious to others, which せねばならない be a 支配する of reprobation, and social stigma, even when it is not みなすd expedient to superadd 合法的な 罰. Yet the 現在の ideas of liberty, which bend so easily to real 違反s of the freedom of the individual in things which 関心 only himself, would repel the 試みる／企てる to put any 抑制 upon his inclinations when the consequence of their indulgence is a life or lives of wretchedness and depravity to the offspring, with manifold evils to those 十分に within reach to be in any way 影響する／感情d by their 活動／戦闘s. When we compare the strange 尊敬（する）・点 of mankind for liberty, with their strange want of 尊敬（する）・点 for it, we might imagin e that a man had an 不可欠の 権利 to do 害（を与える） to others, and no 権利 at all to please himself without giving 苦痛 to any one.

I have reserved for the last place a large class of questions 尊敬（する）・点ing the 限界s of 政府 干渉，妨害, which, though closely connected with the 支配する of this Essay, do not, in strictness, belong to it. These are 事例／患者s in which the 推論する／理由s against 干渉，妨害 do not turn upon the 原則 of liberty: the question is not about 抑制するing the 活動／戦闘s of individuals, but about helping them; it is asked whether the 政府 should do, or 原因（となる） to be done, something for their 利益, instead of leaving it to be done by themselves, 個々に or in voluntary combination.

The 反対s to 政府 干渉，妨害, when it is not such as to 伴う／関わる 違反 of liberty, may be of three 肉親，親類d.

The first is, when the thing to be done is likely to be better done by individuals than by the 政府. Speaking 一般に, there is no one so fit to 行為／行う any 商売／仕事, or to 決定する how or by whom it shall be 行為／行うd, as those who are 本人自身で 利益／興味d in it. This 原則 非難するs the 干渉，妨害s, once so ありふれた, of the 立法機関, or the officers of 政府, with the ordinary 過程s of 産業. But this part of the 支配する has been 十分に 大きくするd upon by political 経済学者s, and is not 特に 関係のある to the 原則s of this Essay.

The second 反対 is more nearly 連合した to our 支配する. In many 事例／患者s, though individuals may not do the particular thing so 井戸／弁護士席, on the 普通の／平均（する）, as the officers of 政府, it is にもかかわらず 望ましい that it should be done by them, rather than by the 政府, as a means to their own mental education- a 方式 of 強化するing their active faculties, 演習ing their judgment, and giving them a familiar knowledge of the 支配するs with which they are thus left to 取引，協定. This is a 主要な／長／主犯, though not the 単独の, 推薦 of 陪審／陪審員団 裁判，公判 (in 事例／患者s not political); of 解放する／自由な and popular 地元の and 地方自治体の 会・原則s; of the 行為／行う of 産業の and philanthropic 企業s by voluntary 協会s. These are not questions of liberty, and are connected with that 支配する only by remote 傾向s; but they are questions of 開発. It belongs to a different occasion from the 現在の to dwell on these things as parts of 国家の education; as 存在, in truth, the peculiar training of a 国民, the practical part of the political education of a 解放する／自由な people, taking them out of the 狭くする circle of personal and family selfishness, and accustoming them to the comprehension of 共同の 利益／興味s, the 管理／経営 of 共同の 関心s- habituating them to 行為／法令／行動する from public or 半分-public 動機s, and guide their 行為／行う by 目的（とする）s which 部隊 instead of 孤立するing them from one another. Without these habits and 力／強力にするs, a 解放する／自由な 憲法 can neither be worked nor 保存するd; as is exemplified by the too-often transitory nature of political freedom in countries where it does not 残り／休憩（する） upon a 十分な basis of 地元の liberties. The 管理／経営 of 純粋に 地元の 商売／仕事 by the localities, and of the 広大な／多数の／重要な 企業s of 産業 by the union of those who 任意に 供給（する） the pecuniary means, is その上の recommended by all the advantages which have been 始める，決める 前へ／外へ in this Essay as belonging to individuality of 開発, and 多様制 of 方式s of 活動／戦闘. 政府 操作／手術s tend to be everywhere alike. With individuals a nd voluntary 協会s, on the contrary, there are 変化させるd 実験s, and endless 多様制 of experience. What the 明言する／公表する can usefully do is to make itself a central depository, and active circulator and diffuser, of the experience resulting from many 裁判，公判s. Its 商売／仕事 is to enable each experimentalist to 利益 by the 実験s of others; instead of 許容するing no 実験s but its own.

The third and most cogent 推論する／理由 for 制限するing the 干渉，妨害 of 政府 is the 広大な／多数の／重要な evil of 追加するing unnecessarily to its 力／強力にする. Every 機能（する）／行事 superadded to those already 演習d by the 政府 原因（となる）s its 影響（力） over hopes and 恐れるs to be more 広範囲にわたって diffused, and 変えるs, more and more, the active and ambitious part of the public into hangers-on of the 政府, or of some party which 目的（とする）s at becoming the 政府. If the roads, the 鉄道s, the banks, the 保険 offices, the 広大な／多数の／重要な 共同の-在庫／株 companies, the universities, and the public charities, were all of them 支店s of the 政府; if, in 新規加入, the 地方自治体の 会社／団体s and 地元の boards, with all that now devolves on them, became departments of the central 行政; if the 雇うs of all these different 企業s were 任命するd and paid by the 政府, and looked to the 政府 for every rise in life; not all the freedom of the 圧力（をかける） and popular 憲法 of the 立法機関 would make this or any other country 解放する／自由な さもなければ than in 指名する. And the evil would be greater, the more efficiently and scientifically the 行政の 機械／機構 was 建設するd- the more skilful the 手はず／準備 for 得るing the best qualified 手渡すs and 長，率いるs with which to work it. In England it has of late been 提案するd that all the members of the civil service of 政府 should be selected by 競争の激しい examination, to 得る for these 雇用s the most intelligent and 教えるd persons procurable; and much has been said and written for and against this 提案. One of the arguments most 主張するd on by its 対抗者s is that the 占領／職業 of a 永久の 公式の／役人 servant of the 明言する／公表する does not 持つ／拘留する out 十分な prospects of emolument and importance to attract the highest talents, which will always be able to find a more 招待するing career in the professions, or in the service of companies and other public 団体／死体s. One would not have been surprised if this argument had been used by the friends of the proposition, as an ans wer to its 主要な／長／主犯 difficulty. Coming from the 対抗者s it is strange enough. What is 勧めるd as an 反対 is the safety-弁 of the 提案するd system. If indeed all the high talent of the country could be drawn into the service of the 政府, a 提案 tending to bring about that result might 井戸／弁護士席 奮起させる uneasiness. If every part of the 商売／仕事 of society which 要求するd organised concert, or large and 包括的な 見解（をとる）s, were in the 手渡すs of the 政府, and if 政府 offices were universally filled by the ablest men, all the 大きくするd culture and practised 知能 in the country, except the 純粋に 思索的な, would be concentrated in a 非常に／多数の 官僚主義, to whom alone the 残り／休憩（する） of the community would look for all things: the multitude for direction and 口述 in all they had to do; the able and aspiring for personal 進歩. To be 認める into the 階級s of this 官僚主義, and when 認める, to rise therein, would be the 単独の 反対するs of ambition. Under this 政権, not only is the outside public ill-qualified, for want of practical experience, to criticise or check the 方式 of 操作／手術 of the 官僚主義, but even if the 事故s of despotic or the natural working of popular 会・原則s occasionally raise to the 首脳会議 a 支配者 or 支配者s of 改革（する）ing inclinations, no 改革（する） can be 影響d which is contrary to the 利益／興味 of the 官僚主義.

Such is the melancholy 条件 of the ロシアの empire, as shown in the accounts of those who have had 十分な 適切な時期 of 観察. The Czar himself is 権力のない against the bureaucratic 団体／死体; he can send any one of them to Siberia, but he cannot 治める／統治する without them, or against their will. On every 法令 of his they have a tacit 拒否権, by 単に 差し控えるing from carrying it into 影響. In countries of more 前進するd civilisation and of a more insurrectionary spirit, the public, accustomed to 推定する／予想する everything to be done for them by the 明言する／公表する, or at least to do nothing for themselves without asking from the 明言する／公表する not only leave to do it, but even how it is to be done, 自然に 持つ／拘留する the 明言する／公表する 責任がある all evil which 生じるs them, and when the evil 越えるs their 量 of patience, they rise against the 政府, and make what is called a 革命; その結果 somebody else, with or without 合法的 当局 from the nation, 丸天井s into the seat, 問題／発行するs his orders to the 官僚主義, and everything goes on much as it did before; the 官僚主義 存在 不変の, and nobody else 存在 有能な of taking their place.

A very different spectacle is 展示（する）d の中で a people accustomed to transact their own 商売／仕事. In フラン, a large part of the people, having been engaged in 軍の service, many of whom have held at least the 階級 of 非，不，無 （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限d officers, there are in every popular insurrection several persons competent to take the lead, and improvise some tolerable 計画（する） of 活動／戦闘. What the French are in 軍の 事件／事情／状勢s, the Americans are in every 肉親，親類d of civil 商売／仕事; let them be left without a 政府, every 団体／死体 of Americans is able to improvise one, and to carry on that or any other public 商売／仕事 with a 十分な 量 of 知能, order, and 決定／判定勝ち（する）. This is what every 解放する／自由な people せねばならない be: and a people 有能な of this is 確かな to be 解放する／自由な; it will never let itself be enslaved by any man or 団体／死体 of men because these are able to 掴む and pull the reins of the central 行政. No 官僚主義 can hope to make such a people as this do or を受ける anything that they do not like. But where everything is done through the 官僚主義, nothing to which the 官僚主義 is really 逆の can be done at all. The 憲法 of such countries is an organisation of the experience and practical ability of the nation into a disciplined 団体／死体 for the 目的 of 治める／統治するing the 残り／休憩（する）; and the more perfect that organisation is in itself, the more successful in 製図／抽選 to itself and educating for itself the persons of greatest capacity from all 階級s of the community, the more 完全にする is the bondage of all, the members of the 官僚主義 含むd. For the 知事s are as much the slaves of their organisation and discipline as the 治める／統治するd are of the 知事s. A Chinese 蜜柑 is as much the 道具 and creature of a 先制政治 as the humblest cultivator. An individual Jesuit is to the 最大の degree of abasement the slave of his order, though the order itself 存在するs for the 集団の／共同の 力／強力にする and importance of its members.

It is not, also, to be forgotten, that the absorption of all the 主要な／長／主犯 ability of the country into the 治める／統治するing 団体／死体 is 致命的な, sooner or later, to the mental activity and progressiveness of the 団体／死体 itself. Banded together as they are- working a system which, like all systems, やむを得ず proceeds in a 広大な／多数の／重要な 手段 by 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 支配するs- the 公式の／役人 団体／死体 are under the constant 誘惑 of 沈むing into indolent 決まりきった仕事, or, if they now and then 砂漠 that mill-horse 一連の会議、交渉／完成する, of 急ぐing into some half-診察するd crudity which has struck the fancy of some 主要な member of the 軍団; and the 単独の check to these closely 連合した, though seemingly opposite, 傾向s, the only 刺激 which can keep the ability of the 団体／死体 itself up to a high 基準, is 義務／負債 to the watchful 批評 of equal ability outside the 団体／死体. It is 不可欠の, therefore, that the means should 存在する, 独立して of the 政府, of forming such ability, and furnishing it with the 適切な時期s and experience necessary for a 訂正する judgment of 広大な／多数の／重要な practical 事件／事情／状勢s. If we would 所有する 永久的に a skilful and efficient 団体／死体 of functionaries- above all, a 団体／死体 able to 起こる／始まる and willing to 可決する・採択する 改良s; if we would not have our 官僚主義 degenerate into a pedantocracy, this 団体／死体 must not engross all the 占領／職業s which form and cultivate the faculties 要求するd for the 政府 of mankind.

To 決定する the point at which evils, so formidable to human freedom and 進歩, begin, or rather at which they begin to predominate over the 利益s …に出席するing the 集団の／共同の 使用／適用 of the 軍隊 of society, under its recognised 長，指導者s, for the 除去 of the 障害s which stand in the way of its 井戸／弁護士席-存在; to 安全な・保証する as much of the advantages of centralised 力／強力にする and 知能 as can be had without turning into 政治の channels too 広大な／多数の／重要な a 割合 of the general activity- is one of the most difficult and 複雑にするd questions in the art of 政府. It is, in a 広大な／多数の／重要な 手段, a question of 詳細（に述べる）, in which many and さまざまな considerations must be kept in 見解（をとる）, and no 絶対の 支配する can be laid 負かす／撃墜する. But I believe that the practical 原則 in which safety resides, the ideal to be kept in 見解（をとる）, the 基準 by which to 実験（する） all 手はず／準備 ーするつもりであるd for 打ち勝つing the difficulty, may be 伝えるd in these words: the greatest dissemination of 力／強力にする 一貫した with efficiency; but the greatest possible centralisation of （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）, and diffusion of it from the centre. Thus, in 地方自治体の 行政, there would be, as in the New England 明言する／公表するs, a very minute 分割 の中で separate officers, chosen by the localities, of all 商売／仕事 which is not better left to the persons 直接／まっすぐに 利益／興味d; but besides this, there would be, in each department of 地元の 事件／事情／状勢s, a central superintendence, forming a 支店 of the general 政府. The 組織／臓器 of this superintendence would concentrate, as in a 焦点（を合わせる）, the variety of （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） and experience derived from the 行為／行う of that 支店 of public 商売／仕事 in all the localities, from everything analogous which is done in foreign countries, and from the general 原則s of political science. This central 組織／臓器 should have a 権利 to know all that is done, and its special 義務 should be that of making the knowledge acquired in one place 利用できる for others. Emancipated from the petty prejudices and 狭くする 見解（をとる）s of a locality by its elevated po sition and 包括的な sphere of 観察, its advice would 自然に carry much 当局; but its actual 力／強力にする, as a 永久の 会・原則, should, I conceive, be 限られた／立憲的な to 説得力のある the 地元の officers to obey the 法律s laid 負かす／撃墜する for their 指導／手引. In all things not 供給するd for by general 支配するs, those officers should be left to their own judgment, under 責任／義務 to their 選挙権を持つ／選挙人s. For the 違反 of 支配するs, they should be responsible to 法律, and the 支配するs themselves should be laid 負かす／撃墜する by the 立法機関; the central 行政の 当局 only watching over their 死刑執行, and if they were not 適切に carried into 影響, 控訴，上告ing, によれば the nature of the 事例／患者, to the 法廷s to 施行する the 法律, or to the 選挙区／有権者s to 解任する the functionaries who had not 遂行する／発効させるd it によれば its spirit.

Such, in its general conception, is the central superintendence which the Poor 法律 Board is ーするつもりであるd to 演習 over the 行政官／管理者s of the Poor 率 throughout the country. Whatever 力／強力にするs the Board 演習s beyond this 限界 were 権利 and necessary in that peculiar 事例／患者, for the cure of rooted habits of maladministration in 事柄s 深く，強烈に 影響する／感情ing not the localities 単に, but the whole community; since no locality has a moral 権利 to make itself by mismanagement a nest of pauperism, やむを得ず 洪水ing into other localities, and impairing the moral and physical 条件 of the whole 労働ing community. The 力／強力にするs of 行政の coercion and subordinate 法律制定 所有するd by the Poor 法律 Board (but which, 借りがあるing to the 明言する／公表する of opinion on the 支配する, are very scantily 演習d by them), though perfectly 正当と認められる in a 事例／患者 of first-率 国家の 利益／興味, would be wholly out of place in the superintendence of 利益／興味s 純粋に 地元の. But a central 組織／臓器 of （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） and 指示／教授／教育 for all the localities would be 平等に 価値のある in all departments of 行政. A 政府 cannot have too much of the 肉親，親類d of activity which does not 妨げる, but 援助（する）s and 刺激するs, individual exertion and 開発. The mischief begins when, instead of calling 前へ／外へ the activity and 力／強力にするs of individuals and 団体／死体s, it 代用品，人s its own activity for theirs; when, instead of 知らせるing, advising, and, upon occasion, 公然と非難するing, it makes them work in fetters, or 企て，努力，提案s them stand aside and does their work instead of them. The 価値（がある） of a 明言する／公表する, in the long run, is the 価値（がある） of the individuals composing it; and a 明言する／公表する which 延期するs the 利益／興味s of their mental 拡大 and elevation to a little more of 行政の 技術, or of that 外見 of it which practice gives, in the 詳細（に述べる）s of 商売／仕事; a 明言する／公表する which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile 器具s in its 手渡すs even for 有益な 目的s- will find that with small men no 広大な／多数の／重要な thing can really be 遂行するd; an d that the perfection of 機械／機構 to which it has sacrificed everything will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the 決定的な 力／強力にする which, in order that the machine might work more 滑らかに, it has preferred to banish.

The End