no　better　grounds　than　that　persons　whose　religious　opinions　are
  different　from　theirs　do　not　practise　their　religious　observances；
  especially　their　religious　abstinences。　To　cite　a　rather　trivial
  example；　nothing　in　the　creed　or　practice　of　Christians　does　more　to
  envenom　the　hatred　of　Mahomedans　against　them　than　the　fact　of　their
  eating　pork。　There　are　few　acts　which　Christians　and　Europeans
  regard　with　more　unaffected　disgust　than　Mussulmans　regard　this
  particular　mode　of　satisfying　hunger。　It　is；　in　the　first　place；　an
  offence　against　their　religion；　but　this　circumstance　by　no　means
  explains　either　the　degree　or　the　kind　of　their　repugnance；　for　wine
  also　is　forbidden　by　their　religion；　and　to　partake　of　it　is　by　all
  Mussulmans　accounted　wrong；　but　not　disgusting。　Their　aversion　to
  the　flesh　of　the　〃unclean　beast〃　is；　on　the　contrary；　of　that　peculiar
  character；　resembling　an　instinctive　antipathy；　which　the　idea　of
  uncleanness；　when　once　it　thoroughly　sinks　into　the　feelings；　seems
  always　to　excite　even　in　those　whose　personal　habits　are　anything
  but　scrupulously　cleanly；　and　of　which　the　sentiment　of　religious
  impurity；　so　intense　in　the　Hindoos；　is　a　remarkable　example。
  Suppose　now　that　in　a　people；　of　whom　the　majority　were　Mussulmans；
  that　majority　should　insist　upon　not　permitting　pork　to　be　eaten
  within　the　limits　of　the　country。　This　would　be　nothing　new　in
  Mahomedan　countries。*　Would　it　be　a　legitimate　exercise　of　the　moral
  authority　of　public　opinion？　and　if　not；　why　not？　The　practice　is
  really　revolting　to　such　a　public。　They　also　sincerely　think　that　it
  is　forbidden　and　abhorred　by　the　Deity。　Neither　could　the
  prohibition　be　censured　as　religious　persecution。　It　might　be
  religious　in　its　origin；　but　it　would　not　be　persecution　for　religion；
  since　nobody's　religion　makes　it　a　duty　to　eat　pork。　The　only
  tenable　ground　of　condemnation　would　be　that　with　the　personal
  tastes　and　self…regarding　concerns　of　individuals　the　public　has　no
  business　to　interfere。
  *　The　case　of　the　Bombay　Parsees　is　a　curious　instance　in　point。
  When　this　industrious　and　enterprising　tribe；　the　descendants　of　the
  Persian　fire…worshippers；　flying　from　their　native　country　before
  the　Caliphs；　arrived　in　Western　India；　they　were　admitted　to
  toleration　by　the　Hindoo　sovereigns；　on　condition　of　not　eating
  beef。　When　those　regions　afterwards　fell　under　the　dominion　of
  Mahomedan　conquerors；　the　Parsees　obtained　from　them　a　continuance
  of　indulgence；　on　condition　of　refraining　from　pork。　What　was　at　first
  obedience　to　authority　became　a　second　nature；　and　the　Parsees　to　this
  day　abstain　both　from　beef　and　pork。　Though　not　required　by　their
  religion；　the　double　abstinence　has　had　time　to　grow　into　a　custom
  of　their　tribe；　and　custom；　in　the　East；　is　a　religion。
  To　come　somewhat　nearer　home：　the　majority　of　Spaniards　consider
  it　a　gross　impiety；　offensive　in　the　highest　degree　to　the　Supreme
  Being；　to　worship　him　in　any　other　manner　than　the　Roman　Catholic；　and
  no　other　public　worship　is　lawful　on　Spanish　soil。　The　people　of　all
  Southern　Europe　look　upon　a　married　clergy　as　not　only　irreligious；
  but　unchaste；　indecent；　gross；　disgusting。　What　do　Protestants　think
  of　these　perfectly　sincere　feelings；　and　of　the　attempt　to　enforce
  them　against　non…Catholics？　Yet；　if　mankind　are　justified　in
  interfering　with　each　other's　liberty　in　things　which　do　not　concern
  the　interests　of　others；　on　what　principle　is　it　possible　consistently
  to　exclude　these　cases？　or　who　can　blame　people　for　desiring　to
  suppress　what　they　regard　as　a　scandal　in　the　sight　of　God　and　man？　No
  stronger　case　can　be　shown　for　prohibiting　anything　which　is
  regarded　as　a　personal　immorality；　than　is　made　out　for　suppressing
  these　practices　in　the　eyes　of　those　who　regard　them　as　impieties；　and
  unless　we　are　willing　to　adopt　the　logic　of　persecutors；　and　to　say
  that　we　may　persecute　others　because　we　are　right；　and　that　they
  must　not　persecute　us　because　they　are　wrong；　we　must　beware　of
  admitting　a　principle　of　which　we　should　resent　as　a　gross　injustice
  the　application　to　ourselves。
  The　preceding　instances　may　be　objected　to；　although　unreasonably；
  as　drawn　from　contingencies　impossible　among　us：　opinion；　in　this
  country；　not　being　likely　to　enforce　abstinence　from　meats；　or　to
  interfere　with　people　for　worshipping；　and　for　either　marrying　or
  not　marrying；　according　to　their　creed　or　inclination。　The　next
  example；　however；　shall　be　taken　from　an　interference　with　liberty
  which　we　have　by　no　means　passed　all　danger　of。　Wherever　the
  Puritans　have　been　sufficiently　powerful；　as　in　New　England；　and　in
  Great　Britain　at　the　time　of　the　Commonwealth；　they　have
  endeavoured；　with　considerable　success；　to　put　down　all　public；　and
  nearly　all　private；　amusements：　especially　music；　dancing；　public
  games；　or　other　assemblages　for　purposes　of　diversion；　and　the
  theatre。　There　are　still　in　this　country　large　bodies　of　persons　by
  whose　notions　of　morality　and　religion　these　recreations　are
  condemned；　and　those　persons　belonging　chiefly　to　the　middle　class；
  who　are　the　ascendant　power　in　the　present　social　and　political
  condition　of　the　kingdom；　it　is　by　no　means　impossible　that　persons　of
  these　sentiments　may　at　some　time　or　other　command　a　majority　in
  Parliament。　How　will　the　remaining　portion　of　the　community　like　to
  have　the　amusements　that　shall　be　permitted　to　them　regulated　by　the
  religious　and　moral　sentiments　of　the　stricter　Calvinists　and
  Methodists？　Would　they　not；　with　considerable　peremptoriness；　desire
  these　intrusively　pious　members　of　society　to　mind　their　own　business？
  This　is　precisely　what　should　be　said　to　every　government　and　every
  public；　who　have　the　pretension　that　no　person　shall　enjoy　any
  pleasure　which　they　think　wrong。　But　if　the　principle　of　the
  pretension　be　admitted；　no　one　can　reasonably　object　to　its　being
  acted　on　in　the　sense　of　the　majority；　or　other　preponderating　power
  in　the　country；　and　all　persons　must　be　ready　to　conform　to　the　idea
  of　a　Christian　commonwealth；　as　understood　by　the　early　settlers　in
  New　England；　if　a　religious　profession　similar　to　theirs　should　ever
  succeed　in　regaining　its　lost　ground；　as　religions　supposed　to　be
  declining　have　so　often　been　known　to　do。
  To　imagine　another　contingency；　perhaps　more　likely　to　be　realised
  than　the　one　last　mentioned。　There　is　confessedly　a　strong　tendency　in
  the　modern　world　towards　a　democratic　constitution　of　society；
  accompanied　or　not　by　popular　political　institutions。　It　is　affirmed
  that　in　the　country　where　this　tendency　is　most　completely　realised…
  where　both　society　and　the　government　are　most　democratic…　the　United
  States…　the　feeling　of　the　majority；　to　whom　any　appearance　of　a
  more　showy　or　costly　style　of　living　than　they　can　hope　to　rival　is
  disagreeable；　operates　as　a　tolerably　effectual　sumptuary　law；　and
  that　in　many　parts　of　the　Union　it　is　really　difficult　for　a　person
  possessing　a　very　large　income　to　find　any　mode　of　spending　it　which
  will　not　incur　popular　disapprobation。　Though　such　statements　as　these
  are　doubtless　much　exaggerated　as　a　representation　of　existing
  facts；　the　state　of　things　they　describe　is　not　only　a　conceivable　and
  possible；　but　a　probable　result　of　democratic　feeling；　combined　with
  the　notion　that　the　public　has　a　right　to　a　veto　on　the　manner　in
  which　individuals　shall　spend　their　incomes。　We　have　only　further　to
  suppose　a　considerable　diffusion　of　Socialist　opinions；　and　it　may
  become　infamous　in　the　eyes　of　the　majority　to　possess　more　property
  than　some　very　small　amount；　or　any　income　not　earned　by　manual
  labour。　Opinions　similar　in　principle　to　these　already　prevail
  widely　among　the　artisan　class；　and　weigh　oppressively　on　those　who
  are　amenable　to　the　opinion　chiefly　of　that　class；　namely；　its　own
  members。　It　is　known　that　the　bad　workmen　who　form　the　majority　of　the
  operatives　in　many　branches　of　industry；　are　decidedly　of　opinion　that
  bad　workmen　ought　to　receive　the　same　wages　as　good；　and　that　no　one
  ought　to　be　allowed；　through　piecework　or　otherwise；　to　earn　by
  superior　skill　or　industry　more　than　others　can　without　it。　And　they
  employ　a　moral　police；　which　occasionally　becomes　a　physical　one；　to
  deter　skilful　workmen　from　receiving；　and　employers　from　giving；　a
  larger　remuneration　for　a　more　useful　service。　If　the　public　have
  any　jurisdiction　over　private　concerns；　I　cannot　see　that　these　people
  are　in　fault；　or　that　any　individual's　particular　public　can　be　blamed
  for　asserting　the　same　authority　over　his　individual　conduct　which　the
  general　public　asserts　over　people　in　general。
  But；　without　dwelling