X LIMITATION OF STATE FUNCTIONS 157 



either of what is just or what is politic, but that it is, 

 on the contrary, altogether erroneous in principle and 

 mischievous in practice ; whence it follows that the 

 sooner it can be got rid of the better for society. 



Let us, then, seriously ask, what sufficient reason can 

 be adduced why the State should interfere to carry into 

 effect the desires, whims, or superstitious fancies of any 

 man, for generations, or perhaps for centuries, after his 

 death ? Why should the more enlightened future be 

 bound by the behests of the less enlightened past ? Why 

 should we allow, and even encourage, men to hold and 

 administer property after they are dead ? For it really 

 comes to that. A man may, justly and usefully, be 

 allowed full liberty (within the bounds of law and order) 

 to use his property as he pleases ditring his life ; but 

 why should we go out of our way and make complex 

 arrangements enabling him to continue to do the same 

 after he is dead ? Daring a man's lifetime he can give 

 property to whom he thinks fit, or he can apply it to any 

 purpose that he has at heart, without the State's 

 interference; but he absolutely requires the State's 

 assistance in order that his property may continue to be 

 applied precisely in accordance with his ideas of what is 

 best, after his death. The question is, why the State 

 should take any cognizance of the matter ? It is here 

 contended that this is one of those things quite beyond 

 the proper functions of a Government, and that it has 

 produced, as such excess of authority always does produce, 

 a vast amount of evil. When a man dies he generally 

 has what may be termed natural heirs, that is, children 

 or relatives dependent upon him for a provision in life. 

 For these he is morally bound first to provide, and any 

 surplus beyond their needs, and beyond what the law may 

 give to the State, he may rightly claim the power of 

 bequeathing to any living individuals ; and the State on 

 its part is bound to exercise that minimum of interference 

 necessary to secure the property to the respective persons 

 indicated by him. But on what grounds can the testator 

 claim the interference of the State for the purpose of 

 compelling the recipients of the property to do with it 



