Heseemstoassumethatinstitutionscan’create’theinstinctsbywhichtheyareworked：ortoforgetthattheyprimarilytransmitinsteadoforiginatingpower，thoughindirectlytheyfosterorhinderthedevelopmentofcertaintendencies。Millwouldguardagainsttheabuseofpoliticalpowerbydividingitamongtheseparateindividuals。Hethenperceivesthatheisonlyredistributingthistremendouspowerinsteadofdiminishingitsintensity。Byisolatingthe’individual’hehascondemnedhimtonarrowviewsandpettyideals，buthasnotpreventedhimfromimpressingthemuponthemassofhomogeneousunits。Hence，heisalarmedbytheinevitable’tyrannyofthemajority。’HehasputatremendouspowerintothehandsofDemos，andcanonlysuggestthatitshouldnotbeexercised。
Itis，ifIamright，theacceptanceofthisantithesis，putabsolutely，the’individual，’assomethingnaturalononeside，andlaw，ontheotherside，asabondimposeduponthesociety，whichateverystephampersMill’sstatementofanyvitaltruths。
Hecannotuponthesetermsdrawasatisfactorydistinctionbetweentheindividualandthesociety。Whenmanistakenforaready-madeproduct，whilehissocialrelationcanbe’made’
off-handbythesovereign，itisimpossibletogiveasatisfactoryaccountoftheslowprocessesofevolutioninwhichmakingandgrowingareinextricablyunited，andtheindividualandthesocietyareslowlymodifiedbythegrowthofinstinctsandcustomsunderconstantactionandreaction。Thedifficultyofcourseisnotsolvedbyrecognisingitsexistence。Noonehasyetlaiddownasatisfactorycriterionoftheproperlimitsofindividualresponsibility。Theproblemistoovastandcomplextoadmitofanyoff-handsolution；andMill’serrorlieschieflyinunder-estimatingthedifficulty。
ThecontrasttoComteissignificant。Theinventorof’sociology’hadseeninthe’individualism’oftherevolutionaryschoolatransitoryandnegativestageofthought，whichwastoleadtoareconstructionofintellectualandsocialauthority。