168 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



Until the sixteenth century, with the exception of a few Anabap- 

 tists who were burnt at the stake, all believed that the State ought to 

 punish heretics and atheists. But this general opinion did not suffice 

 to justify the intolerance then practised. The following line of argu- 

 ment, I think, would be most in keeping with individual interests, and, 

 consequently, with the interests of society in general : A certain por- 

 tion of men's acts ought not to be in any way subject to sovereign 

 authority, be it republican or monarchical. But what is to be the 

 boundary of this inviolable domain of individual activity ? The will 

 of the majority, or even of the entire population, is not competent to 

 trace it, for history has proved but too often how gross have been the 

 errors committed in such instances. This limit can, therefore, only be 

 fixed by science, which, at each fresh progress in civilization, can dis- 

 cover and proclaim aloud where State power should cease to interfere. 

 Sociological science, for instance, announces that liberty of conscience 

 should always be respected as man's most sacred possession, and because 

 religious advancement is only to be achieved at this price ; that true 

 property, or, in other words, the fruit of personal labour, must not be 

 tampered with, or labour would be discouraged and production would 

 diminish ; that criminals must not go unpunished, but that justice 

 must be strictly impartial, so that the innocent be not punished with 

 the guilty. 



It would not be at all impossible to draw up a formula of these 

 essential rights, which M. Thiers called necessary liberties, and which 

 are already inscribed in the constitutions of America, England, France, 

 Belgium, Holland, and all other free nations. It it sometimes very 

 difficult to know where to set bounds to individual liberty, in the in- 

 terests of public order and of the well-being of others ; and it is true, 

 of course, that either the king, the assembly, or the people enacts the 

 requisite laws, but if science has clearly demonstrated a given fact it 

 imposes itself. When certain truths have been frequently and clearly 

 explained, they come to be respected. The evidence of them forms 

 the general opinion, and this engenders laws. 



To be brief, I agree with Mr. Herbert Spencer that, contrary to 

 Rousseau's doctrine, State power ought to be limited, and that a do- 

 main should be reserved to individual liberty which should be always 

 respected ; but the limits of this domain should be fixed, not by the 

 people, but by reason and science, keeping in view what is best for the 

 public welfare. 



This brings me to the principal question I desire to treat. I am of 

 opinion that the State should make use of its legitimate powers of 

 action for the establishment of greater equality among men, in pro- 

 portion to their personal merits, and I believe that this would be in 

 conformity, not only with its mission properly speaking, but also with 

 rational rights, with the progress of humanity ; in a word, with all the 

 rights and all the interests invoked by Mr. Herbert Spencer. 



