In the same way the great noble took his part in legislation，church preferment，the command of the army，and so forth，and fully admitted that he was bound in honour to play his part effectively；but he was equally convinced that he was subject to nothing outside of his sense of honour.His duties were also his rights.The na?f expression of this doctrine by a great borough proprietor，'May I not do what I like with my own？'was to become proverbial.(29)This，finally，suggests that a doctrine of 'individualism'is implied throughout.The individual rights are the antecedent and the rights of the state a consequent or corollary.Every man has certain sacred rights accruing to him in virtue of 'preion'or tradition，through his inherited position in the social organism.The 'rule of law'secures that he shall exercise them without infringing the privileges of his neighbour.He may moreover be compelled by the law to discharge them on due occasion.But，as there is no supreme body which can sufficiently superintend，stimulate，promote，or dismiss，the active impulse must come chiefly from his own sense of the fitness of things.The efficiency therefore depends upon his being in such a position that his duty may coincide with his personal interest.The political machinery can only work efficiently on the assumption of a spontaneous activity of the ruling classes，prompted by public spirit or a sense of personal dignity.
Meanwhile，'individualism'in a different sense was represented by the forces which made for progress rather than order，and to them I must now turn.
NOTES：
1.22George III.c.82.
2.Parl.Hist.xxx，787.
3.State Trials，xxiv，382.
4.Parl.Hist.xxv，472.
5.The country-gentlemen，said Wilberforce in 1800，are the 'very nerves and ligatures of the body politic.'--Correspondence，i.219.
6.Gneist's Self-Government，(3rd edition，1871)，p.879.
7.See Dictionary of National Biography.
8.The Law of the Constitution，p 209.
9.See Sir J.F.Stephen's History of the Criminal Law (1883)，i.470.
He quotes Blackstone's famous statement that there were 160felonies without benefit of clergy，and shows that this gives a very uncertain measure of the severity of the law.A single act making larceny in general punishable by death would be more severe than fifty separate acts，making fifty different varieties of larceny punishable by death.He adds，however，that the scheme of punishment was 'severe to the highest degree，and destitute of every sort of principle or system.'The number of executions in the early part of this century varied apparently from a fifth to a ninth of tbe capital sentences passed.See table in Porter's Progress of the Nation (1851)，p.635.
10.See the references to Cottu's report of 1822in Stephen's History，i.429，439，451.Cottu's book was translated by Blanco White.
11.Gneist's Self-Government (1871)，p.194.It is characteristic that J.S.Mill，in his Representative Government，remarks that the 'Quarter Sessions'are formed in the 'most anomalous'way；that they represent the old feudal principle，and are at variance with the fundamental principles of representative government (Rep.Gov.(1867)，p.113).The mainspring of the old system had become a simple anomaly to the new radicalism.
12.See Arthur Young，passim.there was，however，an improvement even in the first half of the century.See Cunningham's Growth of English Industry，etc.(Modern Times)，p.378.
13.See Military Forces of the Crown，by Charles M.Clode (1869)，for a full account of the facts.
14.Parl.Hist.xxx.490.Clode states (i.222)that ?9，000，000was spent upon barracks by 1804，and，it seems，without proper authority.
15.Debate in Parl.Hist.xiii.1382，etc.and see Walpole's Correspondence，i.400，for some characteristic comments.
16.Clode，ii.86.
