Principles of Morals and

198/Jeremy Bentham
fest enough, that the object which the guardian ought to propose to
himself, in the exercise of the powers to which those duties are annexed,
is to procure for the ward the greatest quantity of happiness which can
be procured for him, consistently with the regard which is due to the
other interests that have been mentioned: for this is the object which the
ward would have proposed to himself, and might and ought to have
been allowed to propose to himself, had he been capable of governing
his own conduct. Now, in order to procure this happiness, it is necessary
that he should possess a certain power over the objects on the use of
which such happiness depends. These objects are either the person of
the ward himself, or other objects that are extraneous to him. These
other objects are either things or persons. As to things, then, objects of
this class, insofar as a man’s happiness depends upon the use of them,
are styled his property. The case is the same with the services of any
persons over whom he may happen to possess a beneficial power, or to
whose services he may happen to possess a beneficial right. Now when
property of any kind, which is in trust, suffers by the delinquency of him
with whom it is in trust, such offence, of whatever nature it is in other
respects, may be styled dissipation in breach of trust: and if it be at-
tended with a profit to the trustee, it may be styled peculation. Fourthly,
For one person to exercise a power of any kind over another, it is neces-
sary that the latter should either perform certain acts, upon being com-
manded so to do by the former, or at least should suffer certain acts to
be exercised upon himself. In this respect a ward must stand upon the
footing of a servant: and the condition of a ward must, in this respect,
stand exposed to the same offences to which that of a servant stands
exposed: that is, on the part of a stranger, to disturbance, which, in
particular circumstances, will amount to theft: on the part of the ward,
to breach of duty: which, in particular circumstances, maybe effected
by elopement. Fifthly, There does not seem to be any offence concern-
ing guardianship that corresponds to abuse of trust: I mean in the sense
to which the last-mentioned denomination has been here confined. The
reason is, that guardianship, being a trust of a private nature, does not,
as such, confer upon the trustee any power, either over the persons or
over the property of any party, other than the beneficiary himself. If by
accident it confers on the trustee a power over any persons whose ser-
vices constitute a part of the property of the beneficiary, the trustee
becomes thereby, in certain respects, the master of such servants. Sixthly,
Bribery also is a sort of offence to which, in this case, there is not com-

---

Principles of Morals and Legislation/199
monly much temptation. It is an offence, however, which by possibility
is capable of taking this direction: and must therefore be aggregated to
the number of the offences to which the condition of a guardian stands
exposed. And thus we have in all seventeen of these offences: viz., 1.
Wrongful non-investment of guardianship. 2. Wrongful interception of
guardianship. 3. Wrongful divestment of guardianship. 4 Usurpation of
guardianship. 5. Wrongful investment of guardianship. 6. Wrongful
abdication of guardianship. 7. Detrectation of guardianship. 8. Wrong-
ful imposition of guardianship. 9. Mismanagement of guardianship. 10.
Desertion of guardianship. 11. Dissipation in prejudice of wardship. 12.
Peculation in prejudice of wardship. 13. Disturbance of guardianship.
14. Breach of duty to guardians. 15. Elopement from guardians. 16.
Ward-stealing. 17. Bribery in prejudice of wardship.
XLVIII. Next, with regard to offences to which the condition of
wardship is exposed. Those which first affect the existence of the condi-
tion itself are as follows: 1. Wrongful non-investment of the condition
of a ward. This, if it be the offence of one who should have been guard-
ian, coincides with wrongful detrectation of guardianship: if it be the
offence of a third person, it involves in it non-investment of guardian-
ship, which, provided the guardianship is, in the eyes of him who should
have been guardian, a desirable thing, is wrongful. 2. Wrongful inter-
ception of wardship. This, if it be the offence of him who should have
been guardian, coincides with wrongful detrectation of guardianship: if
it be the offence of a third person, it involves in it interception of guard-
ianship, which, provided the guardianship is, in the eyes of him who
should have been guardian, a desirable thing, is wrongful. 3. Wrongful
divestment of wardship. This, if it be the offence of the guardian, but
not otherwise, coincides with wrongful abdication of guardianship: if it
be the offence of a third person, it involves in it divestment of guardian-
ship, which, if the guardianship is, in the eyes of the guardian, a desir-
able thing, is wrongful. 4. Usurpation of the condition of a ward: an
offence not very likely to be committed. This coincides at any rate with
wrongful imposition of guardianship; and if the usurper were already
under the guardianship of another guardian, it will involve in it wrong-
ful divestment of such guardianship. 5. Wrongful investment of ward-
ship (the wardship being considered as a beneficial thing): this coin-
cides with imposition of guardianship, which, if in the eyes of the pre-
tended guardian the guardianship should be a burthen, will be wrongful.
6. Wrongful abdication of wardship. This coincides with wrongful di-

---