on liberty-第34章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！




retractation。



　　Baron　Wilhelm　von　Humboldt；　in　the　excellent　essay　from　which　I　have



already　quoted；　states　it　as　his　conviction；　that　engagements　which



involve　personal　relations　or　services　should　never　be　legally　binding



beyond　a　limited　duration　of　time；　and　that　the　most　important　of



these　engagements；　marriage；　having　the　peculiarity　that　its　objects



are　frustrated　unless　the　feelings　of　both　the　parties　are　in



harmony　with　it；　should　require　nothing　more　than　the　declared　will　of



either　party　to　dissolve　it。　This　subject　is　too　important；　and　too



complicated；　to　be　discussed　in　a　parenthesis；　and　I　touch　on　it



only　so　far　as　is　necessary　for　purposes　of　illustration。　If　the



conciseness　and　generality　of　Baron　Humboldt's　dissertation　had　not



obliged　him　in　this　instance　to　content　himself　with　enunciating　his



conclusion　without　discussing　the　premises；　he　would　doubtless　have



recognised　that　the　question　cannot　be　decided　on　grounds　so　simple　as



those　to　which　he　confines　himself。　When　a　person；　either　by　express



promise　or　by　conduct；　has　encouraged　another　to　rely　upon　his



continuing　to　act　in　a　certain　way…　to　build　expectations　and



calculations；　and　stake　any　part　of　his　plan　of　life　upon　that



supposition…　a　new　series　of　moral　obligations　arises　on　his　part



towards　that　person；　which　may　possibly　be　overruled；　but　cannot　be



ignored。　And　again；　if　the　relation　between　two　contracting　parties



has　been　followed　by　consequences　to　others；　if　it　has　placed　third



parties　in　any　peculiar　position；　or；　as　in　the　case　of　marriage；



has　even　called　third　parties　into　existence；　obligations　arise　on　the



part　of　both　the　contracting　parties　towards　those　third　persons；



the　fulfilment　of　which；　or　at　all　events　the　mode　of　fulfilment；　must



be　greatly　affected　by　the　continuance　or　disruption　of　the　relation



between　the　original　parties　to　the　contract。　It　does　not　follow；



nor　can　I　admit；　that　these　obligations　extend　to　requiring　the



fulfilment　of　the　contract　at　all　costs　to　the　happiness　of　the



reluctant　party；　but　they　are　a　necessary　element　in　the　question；　and



even　if；　as　Von　Humboldt　maintains；　they　ought　to　make　no　difference



in　the　legal　freedom　of　the　parties　to　release　themselves　from　the



engagement　（and　I　also　hold　that　they　ought　not　to　make　much



difference）；　they　necessarily　make　a　great　difference　in　the　moral



freedom。　A　person　is　bound　to　take　all　these　circumstances　into



account　before　resolving　on　a　step　which　may　affect　such　important



interests　of　others；　and　if　he　does　not　allow　proper　weight　to　those



interests；　he　is　morally　responsible　for　the　wrong。　I　have　made



these　obvious　remarks　for　the　better　illustration　of　the　general



principle　of　liberty；　and　not　because　they　are　at　all　needed　on　the



particular　question；　which；　on　the　contrary；　is　usually　discussed　as



if　the　interest　of　children　was　everything；　and　that　of　grown



persons　nothing。



　　I　have　already　observed　that；　owing　to　the　absence　of　any　recognised



general　principles；　liberty　is　often　granted　where　it　should　be



withheld；　as　well　as　withheld　where　it　should　be　granted；　and　one　of



the　cases　in　which；　in　the　modern　European　world；　the　sentiment　of



liberty　is　the　strongest；　is　a　case　where；　in　my　view；　it　is



altogether　misplaced。　A　person　should　be　free　to　do　as　he　likes　in　his



own　concerns；　but　he　ought　not　to　be　free　to　do　as　he　likes　in



acting　for　another；　under　the　pretext　that　the　affairs　of　the　other



are　his　own　affairs。　The　State；　while　it　respects　the　liberty　of



each　in　what　specially　regards　himself；　is　bound　to　maintain　a



vigilant　control　over　his　exercise　of　any　power　which　it　allows　him　to



possess　over　others。　This　obligation　is　almost　entirely　disregarded　in



the　case　of　the　family　relations；　a　case；　in　its　direct　influence　on



human　happiness；　more　important　than　all　others　taken　together。　The



almost　despotic　power　of　husbands　over　wives　needs　not　be　enlarged



upon　here；　because　nothing　more　is　needed　for　the　complete　removal



of　the　evil　than　that　wives　should　have　the　same　rights；　and　should



receive　the　protection　of　law　in　the　same　manner；　as　all　other



persons；　and　because；　on　this　subject；　the　defenders　of　established



injustice　do　not　avail　themselves　of　the　plea　of　liberty；　but　stand



forth　openly　as　the　champions　of　power。　It　is　in　the　case　of



children　that　misapplied　notions　of　liberty　are　a　real　obstacle　to　the



fulfilment　by　the　State　of　its　duties。　One　would　almost　think　that　a



man's　children　were　supposed　to　be　literally；　and　not



metaphorically；　a　part　of　himself；　so　jealous　is　opinion　of　the



smallest　interference　of　law　with　his　absolute　and　exclusive　control



over　them；　more　jealous　than　of　almost　any　interference　with　his　own



freedom　of　action：　so　much　less　do　the　generality　of　mankind　value



liberty　than　power。　Consider；　for　example；　the　case　of　education。　Is



it　not　almost　a　self…evident　axiom；　that　the　State　should　require



and　compel　the　education；　up　to　a　certain　standard；　of　every　human



being　who　is　born　its　citizen？　Yet　who　is　there　that　is　not　afraid



to　recognise　and　assert　this　truth？　Hardly　any　one　indeed　will　deny



that　it　is　one　of　the　most　sacred　duties　of　the　parents　（or；　as　law



and　usage　now　stand；　the　father）；　after　summoning　a　human　being　into



the　world；　to　give　to　that　being　an　education　fitting　him　to　perform



his　part　well　in　life　towards　others　and　towards　himself。　But　while



this　is　unanimously　declared　to　be　the　father's　duty；　scarcely



anybody；　in　this　country；　will　bear　to　hear　of　obliging　him　to　perform



it。　Instead　of　his　being　required　to　make　any　exertion　or　sacrifice



for　securing　education　to　his　child；　it　is　left　to　his　choice　to



accept　it　or　not　when　it　is　provided　gratis！　It　still　remains



unrecognised；　that　to　bring　a　child　into　existence　without　a　fair



prospect　of　being　able；　not　only　to　provide　food　for　its　body；　but



instruction　and　training　for　its　mind；　is　a　moral　crime；　both



against　the　unfortunate　offspring　and　against　society；　and　that　if　the



parent　does　not　fulfil　this　obligation；　the　State　ought　to　see　it



fulfilled；　at　the　charge；　as　far　as　possible；　of　the　parent。



　　Were　the　duty　of　enforcing　universal　education　once　admitted　there



would　be　an　end　to　the　difficulties　about　what　the　State　should　teach；



and　how　it　should　teach；　which　now　convert　the　subject　into　a　mere



battlefield　for　sects　and　parties；　causing　the　time　and　labour　which



should　have　been　spent　in　educating　to　be　wasted　in　quarreling　about



education。　If　the　government　would　make　up　its　mind　to　require　for



every　child　a　good　education；　it　might　save　itself　the　trouble　of



providing　one。　It　might　leave　to　parents　to　obtain　the　education　where



and　how　they　pleased；　and　content　itself　with　helping　to　pay　the



school　fees　of　the　poorer　classes　of　children；　and　defraying　the



entire　school　expenses　of　those　who　have　no　one　else　to　pay　for



them。　The　objections　which　are　urged　with　reason　against　State



education　do　not　apply　to　the　enforcement　of　education　by　the　State；



but　to　the　State's　taking　upon　itself　to　direct　that　education；



which　is　a　totally　different　thing。　That　the　whole　or　any　large　part



of　the　education　of　the　people　should　be　in　State　hands；　I　go　as　far



as　any　one　in　deprecating。　All　that　has　been　said　of　the　importance　of



individuality　of　character；　and　diversity　in　opinions　and　modes　of



conduct；　involves；　as　of　the　same　unspeakable　importance；　diversity　of



education。　A　general　State　education　is　a　mere　contrivance　for



moulding　people　to　be　exactly　like　one　another：　and　as　the　mould　in



which　it　casts　them　is　that　which　pleases　the　predominant　power　in　the



government；　whether　this　be　a　monarch；　a　priesthood；　an　aristocracy；



or　the　majority　of　the　existing　generation；