Principles of Morals and

Principles of Morals and Legislation/177
person, whom the offence causes not to be in the trust, is any other
person, the offence must be either wrongful divestment, wrongful non-
investment, or wrongful interception, as before: in any of which cases to
consider the trust in the light of a burthen, it might also be styled wrong-
ful exemption from trust.
Lastly, with regard to the prejudice which the persons for whose
benefit the trust is instituted, or any other persons whose interests may
come to be affected by its existing or not existing in such or such hands,
are liable to sustain. Upon examination it will appear, that by every sort
of offence whereby the persons who are or should be in possession of it
are liable, in that respect, to sustain a prejudice, the persons now in
question are also liable to sustain a prejudice. The prejudice, in this
case, is evidently of a very different nature from what it was of in the
other: but the same general names will be applicable in this case as in
that. If the beneficiaries, or persons whose interests are at stake upon
the exercise of the trust, or any of them, are liable to sustain a prejudice,
resulting from the quality of the person by whom it may be filled, such
prejudice must result from the one or the other of two causes: 1. From a
person’s having the possession of it who ought not to have it: or 2. From
a person’s not having it who ought: whether it be a benefit or burthen to
the possessor, is a circumstance that to this purpose makes no differ-
ence. In the first of these cases the offences from which the prejudice
takes its rise are those of usurpation of trust, wrongful attribution of
trust, and wrongful imposition of trust: in the latter, wrongful non-in-
vestment of trust, wrongful interception of trust, wrongful divestment
of trust, wrongful abdication of trust, and wrongful detrectation of trust.
So much for the offences which concern the existence or possession
of a trust: those which concern the exercise of the functions that belong
to it may be thus conceived. You are in possession of a trust: the time
then for your acting in it must, on any given occasion, (neglecting, for
simplicity’s sake, the then present instant) be either past or yet to come.
If past, your conduct on that occasion must have been either conform-
able to the purposes for which the trust was instituted, or unconform-
able: if conformable, there has been no mischief in the case: if uncon-
formable, the fault has been either in yourself alone, or in some other
person, or in both: in as far as it has lain in yourself, it has consisted
either in your not doing something which you ought to do, in which case
it may be styled negative breach of trust; or in your doing something
which you ought not to do: if in the doing something which you ought

---

178/Jeremy Bentham
not to do, the party to whom the prejudice has accrued is either the same
for whose benefit the trust was instituted, or some other party at large:
in the former of these cases, the offence may be styled positive breach
of trust; in the other, abuse of trust. In as far as the fault lies in another
person, the offence on his part may be styled disturbance of trust. Sup-
posing the time for your acting in the trust to be yet to come, the effect
of any act which tends to render your conduct unconformable to the
purposes of the trust, may be either to render it actually and eventually
unconformable, or to produce a chance of its being so. In the former of
these cases, it can do no otherwise than take one or other of the shapes
that have just been mentioned. In the latter case, the blame must lie
either in yourself alone, or in some other person, or in both together, as
before. If in another person, the acts whereby he may tend to render
your conduct unconformable, must be exercised either on yourself, or
on other objects at large. If exercised on yourself, the infiuence they
possess must either be such as operates immediately on your body, or
such as operates immediately on your mind. In the latter case, again, the
tendency of them must be to deprive you either of the knowledge, or of
the power, or of the inclination, which would be necessary to your main-
taining such a conduct as shall be conformable to the purposes in ques-
tion. If they be such, of which the tendency is to deprive you of the
inclination in question, it must be by applying to your will the force of
some seducing motive. Lastly, This motive must be either of the coer-
cive, or of the alluring kind; in other words, it must present itself either
in the shape of a mischief or of an advantage. Now in none of all the
cases that have been mentioned, except the last, does the offence receive
any new denomination; according to the event it is either a disturbance
of trust, or an abortive attempt to be guilty of that offence. In this last it
is termed bribery; and it is that particular species of it which may be
termed active bribery, or bribe-giving. In this case, to consider the mat-
ter on your part, either you accept of the bribe, or you do not: if not, and
you do not afterwards commit, or go about to commit, either a breach or
an abuse of trust, there is no offence, on your part, in the case: if you do
accept it, whether you eventually do or do not commit the breach or the
abuse which it is the bribe-giver’s intention you should commit, you at
any rate commit an offence which is also termed bribery: and which, for
distinction sake, may be termed passive bribery, or bribe-taking. As to
any farther distinctions, they will depend upon the nature of the particu-
lar sort of trust in question, and therefore belong not to the present

---