THE STATE VERSUS THE MAN. 167 



the granting of the suffrage to all were likely to lead a people to an- 

 archy or to despotism, it could not be called a natural right, for suicide 

 is not a right. 



If one analyze completely the expression " natural rights," one finds 

 that it is really not sense. Xavier de Maistre, annoyed by the con- 

 stant appeals to nature which are to be found in all the writings of the 

 eighteenth century, said, very wittily : "Nature, who and what is this 

 woman ? " Nature is subject to certain laws, which are invariable ; 

 as, for instance, the law of gravitation. We may call these " laws of 

 nature," but in human institutions, which are ever varying, nothing of 

 the sort can exist. This superior and ideal right, which is invoked for 

 the purjDOse of condemning existing laws, and claiming their reform 

 or suppression, should rather be called rational right that is to say, 

 right in conformity with reason. 



In every country, and at all times, an order of things may be con- 

 ceived civil, political, penal and administrative laws which would 

 best conform to the general interest, and be the most favourable to 

 the well-being and progress of the nation. This order of things is not 

 the existing one. If it were, one might say, with the optimists, that 

 all is for the best in the best of possible worlds, and a demand for any 

 amelioration would be a rebellion against natural laws, and an absurd- 

 ity. But this order of things may be caught sight of by reason, and 

 defined with more or less accuracy by science ; hence its name of 

 rational order. If I ask for free trade in France, for a better division 

 of property in England, and for greater liberty in Russia, I do so in 

 the name of this rational order, as I believe that these changes would 

 increase men's happiness. 



This theory permits of our tracing a limit between individual lib- 

 erty and State power. 



Mr. Herbert Spencer proves very clearly that there are certain 

 things which no man would ever choose to abandon to State power ; 

 his religious convictions, for instance. On the other hand, all would 

 agree that the State should accept the charge of protecting frontiers 

 and punishing theft and murder, that is to say, the maintaining of 

 peace and security at home and abroad ; only here, like most English- 

 men, Mr. Herbert Spencer invokes human will. Find out, he says, on 

 the one hand, what the great majority of mankind would choose to 

 reserve to an individual sphere of action, and, on the other, what they 

 would consent to abandon to State decisions, and you will then be able 

 to fix the limit of the power of public authority. 



I cannot myself admit that human will is the source of rights. 

 Until quite recently, in all lands, slavery was considered a necessary 

 and legitimate institution. But did this unanimous opinion make it 

 any more a right ? Certainly not. It is in direct opposition to the 

 order of things which would be best for the general welfare ; it can- 

 not, therefore, be a right. 



