Thisistrue，butIbelievethatnopersoneversucceededinreconcilinghimselftotheconviction，withoutdoingconsiderableviolencetowhatiscalledtheinstinctivesentimentofjustice。Itisnotatallconformabletointuitivemoralitythatawrongshouldceasetobeawrongbecauseofwhatisreallyanaggravation，itsdurablecharacter;thatbecausecrimehasbeensuccessfulforacertainlimitedperiod，societyforitsownconvenienceshouldguaranteeitssuccessforalltimetocome。Accordingly，thosewhoconstructtheirsystemsofsocietyuponthenaturalrightsofman，usuallyaddtothewordnaturalthewordimprescriptible，andstrenuouslymaintainthatitisimpossibletoacquireafee—simpleinaninjustice。
Yetonemoreexample，toshowtheeasewithwhichconclusionsthatseemtofollowabsolutelyfromanaprioritheoryofjusticecanbedefeatedbyotherdeductionsfromthesamepremises。Accordingtotheauthor，howeverinadequatetheremunerationoflabourmaybe，thelabourerhasnogrievanceagainstsociety，becausesocietyisnotthecauseoftheinsufficiency，nordidsocietyeverbargainwithhim，orbinditselftohimbyanyengagement，guaranteeingaparticularamountof’remuneration。And，thisgranted，theauthorassumes（atp。394andelsewhere）asalogicalconsequence，thatproprietorsmustnotbeinterferedwith，outofregardtotheinterestsoflabour，intheperfectlyfreeuseoftheirpropertyconformablytotheirowninclination。Now，ifthispointwerebeingarguedasapracticalquestion，onutilitariangrounds，thereprobablywouldbelittledifferencebetweenMr。Thornton’sconclusionsandmyown。Ishouldstandupforthefreedisposalofpropertyasstrongly，andmostlikelywithonlythesamelimitations，ashewould。Butwearenowonaprioriground，andwhilethatisthecase，Imustinsistuponhavingtheconsequencesofprinciplescarriedouttothefull。Whatmattersitthat，accordingtotheauthor’stheory，theemployerdoesnowronginmakingtheusehedoesofhiscapital，ifthesametheorywouldjustifytheemployedincompellinghimbylawtomakeadifferentuseifthelabourerswouldinnowayinfringethedefinitionofjusticebytakingthematterintotheirownhands，andestablishingbylawanymodificationoftherightsofpropertywhichintheiropinionwouldincreasetheremunerationoftheirlabour？And，ontheauthor’sprinciples，thisrightcannotbedeniedthem。Theexistingsocialarrangements，andlawitself，existinvirtuenotonlyoftheforbearance，butoftheactivesupportofthelabouringclasses。Theycouldeffectthemostfundamentalchangesinthewholeorderofsocietybysimplywithholdingtheirconcurrence。
Supposethatthey，whobeingthenumericalmajoritycannotbecontrolledexceptbytheirowntacitconsent，shouldcometotheconclusion（forexample）
thatitisnotessentialtothebenefitsoftheinstitutionofpropertythatwealthshouldbeallowedtoaccumulateinlargemasses;andshouldconsequentlyresolvetodenylegalprotectiontoallpropertiesexceedingacertainamount。Therearethestrongestutilitarianreasonsagainsttheirdoingthis;butontheauthor’sprinciples，theyhavearighttodoit。
Bythismereabstinencefromdoingwhattheyhaveneverpromisednorinanywayboundthemselvestodo，theycouldextorttheconsentoftherichtoanymodificationofproprietaryrightswhichtheymightconsidertobefortheiradvantage。Theymightbindtherichtotakethewholeburdenoftaxationuponthemselves。Theymightbindthemtogiveemployment，atliberalwages，toanumberoflabourersinadirectratiototheamountoftheirincomes。Theymightenforceonthematotalabolitionofinheritanceandbequest。Allthiswouldbeaverywronguseoftheirpowerofwithholdingprotection;butonlybecausetheconditionsimposedwouldbeinjurious，insteadofbeneficial，tothepublicweal。NordoIseewhatarguments，exceptutilitarianones，areopentotheauthorforcondemningthem。Eventhemanifestobligationofmakingthechangeswiththeleastpossibledetrimenttotheinterestsandfeelingsoftheexistinggenerationofproprietors，itwouldbeextremelydifficulttodeducefromtheauthor’spremises，withoutcallinginothermaximsofjusticethanhistheoryrecognises。