NATURE 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1871 


THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL 
WO opposite views may be held as to the relation 
which ought to subsist between the Individual and 
the governing power of the State—views which, in their 
extreme form, may be expressed thus—the Paternal, in 
which the State does everything for the Individual, and 
the Independent, in which he is left to shift for himself in 
every respect, except protection from actual aggression by 
foreign or domestic foes. On the one hand, we are told 
that it is the duty of the State to have a paternal care over 
the morals and the welfare of its citizens ; on the other 
hand, that the province of the Government is simply the 
protection of his person and his goods. To a certain 
extent both views are correct. The true function of the 
Executive Government may be laid down as the protec- 
tion of the individual citizen, and of everything that belongs 
to him, against adverse influences that are not under his 
own control. A man’s morals are his own concern, and 
the law has no right to interfere with them or to regulate 
them, any more than it has to interfere with his religion, 
provided that in carrying out his views of morality he in 
no way interferes with his neighbour’s welfare or comfort. 
Then at once the injured party has the right of appeal to 
the assistance of the law to check his neighbour’s aggres- 
sive morality or immorality. 
Now the evils which a man may suffer from causes not 
within his own control are of two kinds—evils from his 
fellow-man, and evils from the forces of nature. Every 
Government acknowledges the right of its citizens to claim 
protection at its hands from the physical violence of 
others, whether foreigners or fellow-citizens. The whole 
of our military, naval, and police forces, and our criminal 
courts, form but a gigantic and enormously expensive 
machinery for securing this end. In the same manner our 
civil law-courts are designed as a security against the 
attacks of a man on his neighbour’s pocket. But there 
are many other ways in which one man may suffer from 
another’s misconduct, of which the State takes very little 
account, besides actually having his pocket picked. 
To one of these we have recently alluded, in speaking of 
the loss of health which may be endured from one’s neigh- 
bour’s uncleanliness, or otherwise unwholesome mode of 
life. But, to refer more especially to pecuniary loss; 
if I wish to buy an article of a man, and send him the 
money, and he neglects to send me his merchandise, 
while pocketing my money, I have my remedy against 
him, if I can catch him, by a civil suit or criminal prose- 
cution. If, however, he does send me something in 
exchange for my cash, but something that he knows per- 
fectly well is not worth half the money, I am equally 
swindled ; but my remedy against the cleverer rogue is 
extremely difficult, if I have any remedy at all. 
A striking instance of the necessity for legislation in this 
respect is furnished by a report recently presented to the 
Royal Agricultural Society. The Agricultural Society 
employs a consulting chemist, the eminent Dr. Voelcker, 
whose business it is to analyse manures, feeding stuffs, 
and other materials sent to him by members of the society. 
VOL, Iv. 
‘ 

301 

The committee who have charge of this matter report that 
“they have to call the attention of the Council to the great 
number of inferior and adulterated manures and feeding 
stuffs sold to agriculturists, but that they hope that the 
determination of the Council to publish these reports will 
eventually do much to check such fraudulent transac- 
tions.” Accordingly, here we have published analyses of 
manures, &c., in some cases with the names of the manu- 
facturers or vendors attached, and including such items as 
the following :—“ Carbonate and sulphate of lime, 48°77 
per cent. ;” “sand, 29°60 per cent ;” “alkaline salts, 
chiefly sulphate of soda, 44°61 per cent. ;” “a mere trace 
of ammonia, no phosphates whatever, a worthless mixture 
of green vitriol, crude sulphate of soda, gypsum, and 
sand, sold as the ‘ British Economical Manure,” &c., &c. ; 
many of these manures being warranted to contain a fixed 
proportion of organic matter, or sold as pure unadulterated 
phosphates. An oil-cake was found, on microscopic 
examination, to contain the husks of castor-oil beans, and 
to be totally unfit for feeding purposes; and this had 
already caused serious illness among the stock of several 
farmers. 
So little dependence can be placed on the assistance of 
our complicated legal provisions in cases of this kind, that 
the only remedy suggested by the Agricultural Society is 
the publication of the names of the fraudulent manufac- 
turers. Indeed, in one instance, the Society itself had to 
appear as defendant in an action for libel, and to pay 
nominal damages, while, at the same time, it was com- 
plimented by the judge on the benefit it was conferring on 
the community! Surely Justice was in this instance very 
blind. 
There is no doubt that this publication, like the elaborate 
series of reports on the adulteration of articles of food 
published some years ago in the Zawce?, will have exceed- 
ingly beneficial results, and high praise is due to the 
society for undertaking the work. But why should work 
of this kind devolve on any society or private journal ? 
Why should individuals or private bodies be subject to the 
annoyance incidental to undertaking such a crusade? If 
it is the duty of the State to prosecute a man who picks 
my pocket in one way, why is it not the duty of the State 
to prosecute the man who picks my pocket in another 
way? The difficulties in procuring the necessary evidence 
might be greater, but would not be insurmountable. If it 
were impossible to summon in such cases a jury of experts 
to try the matter, any jury composed of men of business 
of ordinary intelligence would know how to value such 
evidence from a man of Dr. Voelcker’s credit and expe- 
rience, as that an artificial manure sold at 5/. 5s. per ton 
“would be dear at 2/. per ton ;” that the “ British Econo- 
mical Manure” is “ utterly worthless ;” or that an oil-cake 
is “totally unfit for feeding purposes.” If there is another 
side of the question, let us hear it; but as the evidence 
stands before us, there couid be no difficulty in convicting 
these manufacturers of deliberate swindling. 
Let us now turn to the cases in which a man suffers 
injury from the forces of nature beyond his own control. 
Here, again, there are certain principles acknowledged by 
the State ; or rather, long precedent has sanctioned the 
application of principles in certain fixed directions, and in 
those only. No one will dispute that the Government is 
exercising its legitimate functions in building harbours of 
R 
