of all must be directed. I have explained my ideas sufficiently, not to be suspected of speaking in favor of any arbitrary regulation; yet I shall always insist on the necessity of restraining the animal faculties by those proper to man. In my opinion, consequently, personal, as well as moral liberty is limited. I have already treated of moral liberty; I shall here add my views of that which is personal in connexion with general happiness.

CHAPTER V.

Of Personal Liberty.

MAN, it is said, is born free. This proposition has been used by some authors in a very extensive signification. Every one, they have said, may do whatever he pleases. This interpretation, however, is incompatible with the constitution of the human mind. Let us observe the order of nature, that we may understand the will of the Creator.

Personal liberty we see is first limited by the laws of nature. Conception, birth, growth, health, and every function of vitality, as subjected to positive circumstances, force us at once to look on man as very dependent. Farther, man depends entirely upon others during his long infancy. And, again, as a social being, he has duties to fulfil, and rights to reclaim ; now, the idea of mutual obligation is incompatible with unbounded, or that liberty which admits every kind of individual gratification. We must live and permit others to live; we must do our duty as child, as parent, and as citizen. The elucidation of these points belongs to the study of the law of nature, or of the rights and duties of man.

The personal liberty of man is also limited by the reality of his two natures, and by the superiority of the one. The animal faculties must be subordinate to the powers proper to man, and the true

Christian is still the slave of justice. This principle, the touchstone of the excellence or imperfection of civil laws, bounds at the same time those who govern and those who are governed, and it proves clearly that by the will of the Creator the personal liberty of man is limited. It has, indeed, been said repeatedly, that without morality no society can exist, and that liberty is not licentiousThis is strictly true. The laws, however, must be just in favoring the common welfare.

ness.

Finally, the faculties proper to man may deviate from their natural destination, and this they do each time they act separately. Benevolence without justice and reflection, may do much evil, and justice without benevolence may be too severe. Thus even the most noble parts of man's nature are limited, and kept in check by each other; all must act in harmony to elicit good.

The truth, that personal liberty is very much circumscribed, is never neglected without great disorders following. We must, however, add that no one has any natural right, arbitrarily and from selfish motives, to limit the personal liberty of others. Volney says, 'Wheresoever I cast my eye, whatever the period of which I think, I find the same principles of increase, or of destruction, of elevation and of decline. If ever a nation be powerful, or an empire prosper, its conventional laws are conformable to those of nature. If, on the contrary, a state sink in ruin or be dissolved, the laws are imperfect or vicious, or the government is corrupt and violates the laws.' Civil restrictions ought to be the mere application of those of nature; they ought to be the same for every member of the community, and the aim of their imposition-the general happiness. Nature applies its laws constantly and indiscriminately; nature is incorruptible, and makes no exceptions. Human regulations alone are liable to this reproach. Governors and the governed are subjected to the same laws of propagation, of nutrition, of health, disease and death. Who can deny that nature is equally constant in the application of its moral laws? Happy period when every one will be obliged to conform his conduct to them!

In order to elucidate my ideas on the necessity of submitting the individual desires to the natural laws of morality, I shall quote physical love, attachment, self-love or covetiveness, and the love of approbation, and whatever I say of them will apply to the other feelings common to man and animals. The subordination of the animal nature to proper humanity, seems to me as necessary to the happiness of mankind, as is attention to matters used as food to individual preservation. A poisonous substance can never become wholesome aliment, and any action inimical to the happiness of mankind will never lose its essential and immoral character.

Is it permitted to limit physical love in society? The faculties proper to man decide the question. For as these are destined to general happiness, physical love being an animal feeling, must be restrained whenever it acts in opposition to their dictates. Now, there can be no doubt that the number of inhabitants in a country influences their state of being. Too crowded a population unavoidably causes misery and degeneration of the species. Both natural and Christian morality forbid us to exterminate or to forsake such unhappy beings as exist; society is even bound to take care of them, but their farther multiplication, as well as every other cause that militates against general happiness, may be lawfully opposed.

The most enlightened economists, admit that population increases in the ratio of the means of subsistence, in the same way as all living beings multiply or perish, according as they are well or ill supplied with nourishment. Vegetation prospers if the soil be well manured. Birds that live on insects are more or less numerous in districts, according to the quantity of food they afford. Herbivorous animals abound in lands which are rich in forage, and countries are peopled in proportion as they furnish the means of living. It is true that a greater number of sober and temperate than of gluttonous and luxurious persons may live in a given district, but nourishment is still the principal condition influencing population. The equilibrium between aliment and consumers is always preserved ;

sometimes, however, at the expense of a vast quantity of individual suffering. Were it not more meritorious, therefore, in governments, and more beneficial to the community at large, entirely to prevent the evil which becomes necessary to diminish the number of inhabitants? Since beggars, and those with hereditary dispositions to diseases, only propagate to the detriment of society and entail misery on their progeny, were it not better to prevent them from marriage altogether?

Let those who think differently reflect on the destination of mankind, and on all that is done, or rather neglected in society as relates to marriage, and they will not, without distinction, defend personal liberty in regard to propagation.

Both civil and religious regulations have, in some instances, restrained the desire, or even abstracted the power of propagation. Libertinism is interdicted in all countries, and adultery is punished as a crime. Soldiers and sailors are prohibited from marrying; they, however, are the stoutest and best made men; for bodily weakness and disease exempt and exclude from the military and naval service. Now, if society can prevent the choice of its youth from propagating, nay, if it think proper to make them expose their lives for the common welfare, as it is said, why should it not also have the right to interdict the marriages of those who propagate to the common calamity?

Let us farther reflect on the celibacy of priests of the Romish Church, and even on the example of Christ's apostles, who were advised against marriage. Now, if the prohibition of marriage be just and necessary as soldiers, sailors, and priests are concerned, and if polygamy in general be inadmissible, why should the propagation of infirmities and vices be endured? I think that marriages ought to be regulated by the rule of natural morality, and that this is an essential condition to general happiness. More details on this subject are given in my work on Education.

Another point conformable to the civil laws of all countries, but contrary to the morality of nature and Christianity, concerns exclusive love of every kind. Love of our family and of our country

are natural it is true, but both are common to man and animals, hence they must be subordinate to universal charity. Farther, attachment to those around us is laudable, but justice and truth are to precede every other consideration. The man must always triumph over the animal; hence we must prefer truth and general happiness before our country; we must give up national pride and the innumerable prejudices and evils that result from it, for the sake of entire humanity. Let us appreciate things in themselves and independently of occasions or causes. The Samaritan who has compassion on an unfortunate Israelite, dresses his wounds, and takes care of him, is truly his neighbor, and not the Jew or the Levite who looks at him and passes on. On the score of universal love, man, indeed, generally, and pretended Christians particularly, are very far behind. There is no nation which practises this noble precept of Christianity, and nothing but a perfect knowledge of human nature will ever incline men to follow it, or induce them to change the erroneous and pernicious opinions they entertain on this subject.

I arrive at the third point, which is equally delicate and contested, but indispensable to general happiness; I mean the restriction of selfishness. This feeling is the most formidable of all the enemies of mankind. It particularly induces neglect of the natural laws of morality, and divides society; it excites one individual against another, family against family, and nation against nation; it saps the foundations of empires, for it sells places, justice, and even puts up Heaven and immortality at a price; it concentrates all power in an individual, and establishes absolute governments, &c. We may therefore ask whether society has the right of restraining the desire to acquire, and how far it may enforce it?

The answer is similar to that given to the questions implicating the other animal faculties. The desire to acquire is a fundamental power, and cannot be annihilated by any enactment; it is a strong motive exciting the other aptitudes and dispositions, and may be most usefully employed; however, to what extent its activity is admissible is a point not yet determined. As an animal feeling,