The essay begins with a humorously as an old lady in Petrograd (Russia) is walking right in the middle of a busy street, carrying her basket. Her strange behaviour confuses traffic and puts her in danger. When people tell her that the pavement is the proper place for pedestrians, she refuses and says she can walk wherever she likes because there is now “liberty.” Gardiner points out that she fails to understand what liberty really means. If she thinks liberty allows her to walk in the middle of the road, then, by the same logic, a cab-driver could claim liberty to drive on the pavement. Such behaviour would lead to total disorder, everyone blocking each other, and no one being able to reach anywhere. Thus, what she imagines as freedom would actually result in complete social chaos. In fact, unlimited personal liberty results in social anarchy.
Gardiner warns that society is in danger of becoming “liberty-drunk,” just like the old lady misunderstands freedom and misusing it. Therefore, it is necessary to remind ourselves what the “rule of the road” truly means. The rule of the road signifies that to protect everyone’s liberty, the liberty of each individual must be restricted to some extent. He uses the example of a policeman at Piccadilly Circus. When the policeman stops traffic by raising his hand, he is not being tyrannical; instead, he represents liberty because he ensures order. A person in a hurry may feel annoyed and think his freedom has been obstructed. But, if the policeman did not stop anyone, traffic would collapse into total confusion, making it impossible for anyone to cross the road.
Liberty is described as something more than a personal right it
is a social contract, meaning it involves mutual agreement and adjustment among
people. In areas where an individual’s actions do not affect anyone else, he is
completely free. For example, if someone chooses to walk down the Strand
wearing a dressing-gown, long hair, and bare feet, no one has the right to stop
him. Others may laugh, and he may ignore them. Likewise, he can dye his hair,
wax his moustache, wear whatever clothes he likes, sleep late or wake up early and
eat mustard with mutton—without asking anyone’s permission. In return, others
can make their own personal choices: their religion, whom they marry, what
books or poets they prefer, or what drinks they enjoy. These private choices
are part of complete personal liberty.
Gardiner explains that in all such private matters, people enjoy full independence. Everyone governs their own “private kingdom” where they can act according to their likes or dislikes- being wise, foolish, traditional or unconventional. However, the moment we move out of this private sphere and interact with others, our freedom becomes limited by their rights. He gives a humorous example: he may want to practice the trombone from midnight till three in the morning. If he goes to the top of Helvellyn (a mountain), he can do as he pleases because no one is disturbed. But if he plays in his bedroom, his family will complain; if he plays outside in the street, neighbours will object because his liberty to make noise clashes with their liberty to sleep. Since the world is full of people, everyone must adjust their freedom so that it does not harm others.
People are usually more aware of others violating social rules, but they often fail to notice their own shortcomings. In other words, we criticize others for misusing liberty but ignore our own mistakes in the same matter.
He gives a personal example. One morning, he boarded a train and sat down to read a Blue-book. He intended to spend an hour studying it seriously. He explains that reading a Blue-book is not enjoyable for him; he reads it only because it is part of his work, similar to a barrister reading a legal brief. If he were reading a book for pleasure, outside disturbances would not matter. he could enjoy a delightful book like Tristram Shandy or Treasure Island even during an earthquake.
He explains that when a person is reading for work, not pleasure, he needs silence. But at the next station, two men entered the carriage. One of them talked loudly and pompously throughout the journey. His behaviour reminded Gardiner of a joke about Horne Tooke, who once asked a swaggering man, “Are you someone in particular?” implying that the man behaved as though he were important. This loud stranger behaved exactly like that - he felt he was “someone in particular.” While Gardiner struggled to read the difficult clauses and sections of his Blue-book, the man’s booming voice drowned out everything. He spoke endlessly about his sons’ achievements in the war and gave his opinions on generals and politicians. Gardiner finally gave up reading, looked outside, and listened helplessly as the man continued. The man’s talk reminded him of an old barrel-organ endlessly repeating a dull tune.
Gardiner reflects that if he had asked the man to lower his voice, the man would probably have thought he was being rude. The man did not realise that others might have better things to do than listen to him. Gardiner recognises that the man was not intentionally bad; he was simply lacking the “social sense” - the ability to understand how one’s behaviour affects others. Gardiner says such a man is not “clubbable,” meaning he cannot fit comfortably into social groups because he does not observe the unwritten rules of polite society.
Gardiner argues that protecting the rights of “small people and quiet people” is just as important as protecting the rights of small nations. He then criticises motorists who use loud, aggressive horns. These horns make him feel the same anger he felt when Germany invaded Belgium - because both actions display bullying behaviour. He questions the moral right of someone who goes around blasting such an offensive noise at everyone in his way.
Gardiner next describes a less harmful but still inconsiderate person- someone who buys a loud gramophone and plays music like “Keep the Home Fires Burning” on a Sunday afternoon with windows open, filling the whole street with noise. He asks what the proper social limits are in such matters. He returns to his earlier example of the trombone. Hazlitt once said that a man has the right to practise the trombone in his house even if he annoys neighbours - but he must reduce the nuisance as much as possible. He should practise in the attic and keep windows closed. He must not sit in the front room with windows open, blasting noise into the neighbourhood. The same applies to the gramophone: one has the right to enjoy it, but must prevent disturbing neighbours.
Gardiner admits that sometimes the clash of liberties is impossible to resolve neatly. He gives an example: his friend X., who lives in a West End square, hates street pianos and angrily drives them away. But a nearby lady loves street. Whose liberty should give way? Gardiner honestly admits he cannot decide. Enjoying street pianos is as reasonable as disliking them. Both preferences are natural.
Gardiner concludes by reflecting on the balance between
individual freedom and social order. He says we cannot be complete anarchists
(who want unlimited liberty) nor complete socialists (who want too much state
control). We need a wise mixture of both. We must preserve both individual
liberty and social liberty. We must restrain excessive governmental control
(the bureaucrat) and at the same time restrain people who behave without regard
for society (the anarchist). He gives an example: he will not allow any
authority to decide which school his child attends, what subject he studies, or
which sport he plays. These are personal matters. But he also accepts that
society has the right to prevent him from depriving his child of education
entirely or bringing him up as a savage or training him as a thief at Mr.
Fagin’s criminal academy.
I. Two- or Three-Sentence Answers
1. Why does the stout lady refuse to walk on the pavement?
The stout old lady refuses to use the pavement because she
believes that “liberty” allows her to walk wherever she likes. She thinks
freedom means doing anything according to her personal choice. She does not
realise that such behaviour endangers herself and confuses the traffic.
2. What is the rule of the road according to A. G. Gardiner?
The rule of the road means that in order to protect the
liberties of all, everyone must accept some limits on their personal freedom.
It ensures social order by preventing one person’s freedom from interfering
with another’s. Thus, the rule of the road promotes cooperation and safety in
society.
3. Which are the actions for which we ask one's leave?
We ask others’ permission only in matters that affect their
rights or their liberty. But in purely personal matters- like what we wear,
when we sleep, or what food we choose- we do not have to ask anyone’s leave.
Personal habits that do not harm others are completely our own choice.
4. What is the foundation of social conduct?
A reasonable consideration for the rights and feelings of others
is the foundation of social conduct. It means thinking about how our actions
affect the people around us. Without such consideration, social life becomes
unpleasant and chaotic.
5. How to preserve order in society, according to A. G. Gardiner?
Order in society is preserved when everyone accepts small restrictions on their personal liberty. These restrictions prevent people from disturbing or harming one another. When individuals adjust their behaviour to respect others’ freedom, society functions smoothly and peacefully.
6. What is the central idea of “On the Rule of the Road”?
The central idea is that true liberty is not doing whatever one
pleases but balancing personal freedom with social responsibility. Liberty
becomes meaningful only when it respects the liberty of others. Without mutual
respect and self-control, liberty turns into social anarchy.
7. How does Gardiner argue that true liberty requires social responsibility?
Gardiner shows that absolute personal freedom leads to chaos
because everyone’s actions would clash. He uses examples like the old lady
walking in the road, the loud railway passenger, and noisy motorists to show
how one person’s liberty can disturb many others. Therefore, true liberty
requires an understanding that freedom must be limited wherever it harms or
inconveniences other people.
II. Paragraph Answers
8. Who is a civilized man according to A. G. Gardiner?
According to Gardiner, a civilised man is someone who
understands that personal liberty must be balanced with respect for others’
rights. He does not impose his habits, tastes, or noise on the people around
him. He observes the small rules of social life - like waiting his turn,
keeping public noise low, and acting with courtesy- because he realises that
these actions make society pleasant and orderly. A civilised person possesses
the “social sense,” as he recognises how his behaviour affects others and voluntarily
adjusts himself to avoid causing inconvenience.
9. Liberty is not a personal affair. Elucidate.
Gardiner explains that liberty is not just about individual
freedom but is a shared social experience. While a person may be free to do
anything that affects only himself, he must restrict his freedom the moment it
begins to interfere with another person’s comfort or rights. For example, one
may dress oddly or eat what one likes, but one cannot practise loud music at
midnight or block the road in the name of liberty. Therefore, liberty becomes
meaningful only when it respects the similar liberty of others, showing that it
is essentially a social, not purely personal, matter.
10. What is his take on complete anarchist or complete socialist?
Gardiner believes that society must avoid the extremes of
complete anarchism and complete socialism. A complete anarchist demands
unlimited personal freedom, which leads to chaos, while a complete socialist
wants excessive state control, which suppresses individual choices. Gardiner
suggests a balanced approach: personal matters should remain free from
interference, but the state must intervene when individual actions threaten
public welfare. Thus, society needs a judicious mixture of both freedom and
regulation.
11. Liberty is a social contract. Discuss.
Gardiner describes liberty as a social contract because it
requires a mutual agreement among individuals to limit certain personal
freedoms for the greater good. Each person enjoys a wide area of personal choices,
but beyond that circle, everyone must consider others’ rights. Social life
becomes possible only when people cooperate, respect rules, and accept
necessary restrictions. Liberty therefore functions not as an individual
privilege alone but as a shared responsibility upheld by everyone.
III. Essay Answers
12. Comment on the correlation between individual liberty and social anarchy.
The essay highlights that unlimited individual liberty can
easily turn into social anarchy. Gardiner shows this through examples such as
the old lady walking down the middle of the road or the man practising loud
music at night. When one person insists on total freedom without concern for
others, everyone else’s freedom is disturbed, and the entire social system
breaks down. True liberty depends on recognising where one’s freedom ends and
another’s begins. Without this balance, society becomes disordered, unsafe, and
unpleasant. Hence, individual liberty must always operate within the limits of
social responsibility to prevent anarchy and preserve harmony.
13. Critically analyze whether rights of the people or rights of the nation is more important.
Gardiner’s essay suggests that both individual rights and
national rights are equally important and deeply interconnected. Nations
consist of individuals, and protecting the rights of “small people and quiet
people” is just as vital as defending small nations from aggression. However,
individual rights cannot override the collective welfare of the nation, just as
national authority cannot crush personal freedoms without justification. A
healthy society requires balance: individuals must enjoy freedom in personal
matters, but they cannot behave in ways that endanger society, such as raising
children without education or creating public nuisance. Likewise, the state
must protect national interests without becoming oppressive. Therefore, neither
is superior; rather, both must coexist in a balanced framework where personal
liberty supports national welfare, and national welfare safeguards individual
liberty.