The Project Gutenberg eBook of Janus in Modern Life, by W. M. Flinders Petrie

BY
W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE
D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S., F.B.A., &c.

Fools only learn by their own experience,
Wise men learn by the experience of others.

LONDON:
ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE & CO. LTD.
10 ORANGE STREET, LEICESTER SQUARE W.C.
1907.

"There are two roads to reformation for mankind—one through misfortunes of their own, the other through those of others; the former is the more unmistakable, the latter the less painful.... For it is history, and history alone, which, without involving us in actual danger, will mature our judgment, and prepare us to take right views, whatever may be the crisis or the posture of affairs."

These papers essay an understanding of some of the various principles which underlie the course of political movements in the present age. There is no attempt at introducing any considerations which are not familiar to every intelligent person, nor any comparisons with other instances which are not already well known in history. Why considerations which seem so obvious when stated, should yet not be familiar, may perhaps be due to the estrangement between science and corporate life, which is an unhappy feature of a time of transition both in education and in motives.

The point of view here is that of public and general conditions and not of private variations of beliefs. Such moral factors, though all important to the individual, are not so much the subject of the direct physical causes and effects which are here considered. Similarly the beneficial result of private benevolence is not added to these considerations, because it is largely outside of the effects of conduct, and finds its good in amending or neutralising the evil consequences of various actions. It will alwaysvi have its scope, but in opposition to, rather than in concert with, the direct effects which we are here to consider.

Too often the objections to various new views are based upon some sentiment of one party, rather than upon the reason which is common to all parties. Here, on the contrary, the aim is to consider the natural consequences of various actions, apart from personal opinion, and therefore on a common ground which all readers can equally accept.

The position of a partisan or an advocate has been avoided so far as possible. No doubt to many of the statements and deductions here, one party or another would cry, Anathema. As a whole the results are more in accord with Individualism than with Collectivism; but an attempt is made to trace what are the limits of a Collectivism that may not involve deleterious consequences. It may seem a fault to many minds that no cut and dried definite system or course of action is advocated; many people prefer a medicine which is guaranteed to relieve all their complaints, instead of a physiological research on the obscure causes of their troubles. But, if we are to advance, we must study the diseases of bodies politic with the same disinterestedness, and somewhat of the same unfeeling temper, as that of the physiologist in dealing with "animated nature." Such a line of study will be useless to the politician, so long as he is an opportunist or a placeman; and useless to thevii–viii socialist, so long as he refuses to learn by the experience of others.

The present time seems to most people so infinitely more important to them than the past or future, that they are impatient at the introduction of comparisons which seem to reflect upon their immediate judgment, or of anticipations which would check their present gratification. They forget that it is only a fiction to speak of the present, an infinitely thin division between what has been and that which will be. Every step of the past has been a present, living, urgent, imperative, to the whole world; and every such present has been entirely conditioned by its past, just as the future to us is conditioned by our present. If any race now cares to learn somewhat from its own past, and that of others, it may benefit its own future; if it prefers a blind selfishness, a better race will be welcomed to its place.

Janus, who looked to the past and to the future, was the god whose temple stood always open during war, that he might bring peace upon earth. And in our day it is only the view of the past and the future which can warn us of evils to come, and save us from violence and confusion.

In considering or designing any kind of work the first and most essential condition is the quality of material that has to be used. "You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." And what is true materially is true also mentally; the character of a people is the essential basis of all their institutions and government. If we intend to consider what improvements are possible, or what degradations may occur, we must treat the matter entirely as a question of character. "For forms of Government let fools contest, whate'er is best administered is best," and the administration depends upon the character of the people. We see on all sides that races of a low character necessarily pass, by the force of events, under the domination of other races who have a higher or stronger character. It is the quality of the race which is the most essential and determining factor in its history. That every nation has the kind of government which it deserves, is an old remark, which implies that its character determines its fate.2 The diligent but cautious Scot; the slovenly Slovene; the self-deceived Gaul; the tediously complete and logical German; these all show the manner in which their administration is the product of the individual character. Further, happiness is essentially dependent upon character, and is—by comparison—determined by character alone, almost apart from external circumstances.

It is therefore a matter of the first importance to consider how character is produced or modified. Possibly to some it may appear presumptuous to apply to the mind those natural laws which it is now generally agreed apply to bodily development. Yet even the probabilities of chance distribution may be shown to apply to the varieties of mind; both by rough observation in general, and also by a test case quantitatively applied (see Religion and Conscience in Ancient Egypt). A feeling against this treatment of the mind by material law is based on the idea that it implies an absence of free-will. But, to take an illustration, a railway company may be certain of carrying very closely the same number of passengers each day, without in the least embarrassing the free-will of any passenger as to whether or no he will travel. Let us notice, therefore, how the various principles of physical modification are applicable also to mental change. Whether it may be that changes take place by the inheritance of acquired characteristics, or whether they occur solely by accidental variation which proves beneficial, is a much debated question which is not requisite for us to settle here. It is agreed that in the physical life of all animals it may be seen that: (1) Favourable variations give a3 determining advantage to one individual over another, or to one more than another against a common enemy; (2) Useful variations tend to be maintained in successive generations; (3) Artificial conditions tend to produce variation; (4) Greater variability accompanies unusual developments; (5) Growth is directed and encouraged by use; and (6), as the total activity is limited, therefore disuse causes atrophy and degradation, by favouring of parts more used. To these follows the important corollary (7): Variation being only of benefit where there is competition in which it gives an advantage, its improvements will cease to be maintained in the absence of competition; it is only competition which makes improved variations permanent. For instance, if there were no carnivora the swifter deer would not have found their pace a benefit, and there would be no sufficient cause for their attaining their present swiftness. In place of looking on selection as merely a struggle we must look on it as the sole physical means of permanent elevation, the motor which has raised every species to its present point of ability.

To these principles common to all organic nature must be added another which is almost peculiar to man alone. We often hear that environment is the determinant of the nature of both animals and man. But the distinctive quality of man is the subjection of the environment to the ruling faculty; man is not necessarily conditioned by his environment, but a direct measure of his civilisation is the extent to which he creates his own conditions. Other communal animals, as the ant, the bee, or the beaver, have anticipated this to some extent; but in man alone can4 the ruling faculty rise to an entire reversal of almost every condition of environment.

The mental equivalents of these physical modifications are obviously true in common experience and in historical example.

(1) That a favourable variation of mind gives a determining advantage needs no illustration, as every sharp and able man of business has shown this in all ages.

(2) That mental qualities are inherited has been pretty generally recognised, and the work of Galton on Hereditary Genius has enforced this by statistical example. But the historical consequences have not been sufficiently noticed; for it is obviously possible by selective action to increase or diminish not only the bodily activity but also the mental ability seen in the whole community. The series of proscriptions of all the leading men of Rome, alternately on one side and then on the other, from Marius down to Octavius, was so disastrous a drain of political ability, that only the Julian family was left; and there was never an able emperor of Roman ancestry after that line was extinct. The expulsion of the Huguenots from France drained it of the active middle class minds, and left the great gap in the continuity of sympathy which made the Revolution possible. The later expulsion or extermination also of the active upper class minds drained that land of nearly all the hereditary ability of the race: the consequence has been to leave at the present day a nation of mediocrities, among whom there is but a fraction of the genius seen in Germany and England on either side of it. Almost every leading name is that of a foreigner, as for5 instance Waddington, Zurlinden, Eiffel, Reinach, Rothschild, Gambetta, Maspero. Another very important consideration is that sporadic ability is not inherited in the same manner as long continued family ability. Not a single Roman Emperor who rose solely from his individual powers left a worthy and capable son. The Gordians were a good senatorial family, and ran through three generations on the throne. In England the same thing is seen. The main source of new men of ability is from sturdy Puritan or Quaker stocks that have long practised self-denial and hard work; old families with long traditions of public service continue usually on the same line of ability; but the nouveaux riches who have sprung forward on some lucky speculation or trade enterprise usually go hopelessly to pieces in the next generation. The longer a useful type has been maintained the more stable it is.

(3) That artificial conditions tend to produce variation is obvious in every civilisation. The more intense is the artificiality of life, the greater are the extremes of ability and incompetence, of riches and poverty, accompanying it. It is often a problem to kind hearts that there should be such misery and degradation side by side with the ease and welfare of civilisation. The answer is that it is inevitable, because the very same artificiality which gives scope to the capable to rise, equally gives scope for the incapable to fall. Every chance, every opening, every benefit attainable by exertion, is a means of advance to him who uses it; but it is accompanied by equal chances of failure, equal openings to loss, equal injuries resulting from sloth, which are the6 equally sure means of degradation for those who have not the wit or energy to avoid them. The "submerged tenth" is the inevitable complement of the leading tenth.

(4) Greater variability of mind accompanies unusual development; this is seen in the great outbursts of mental activity which have occurred along with external expansion in the times of Elizabeth and of Victoria. Or in earlier times the growth of Greek literature following the Periclean expansion, or of Roman literature with the Augustan settlement of the world.

(5) Mental growth is directed and encouraged by use. This fact is so obvious that it is proverbial, as in the saying, "The mind grows by what it feeds upon." All mental training and teaching recognise this, but it is true in later life as well as in youth. It is well known how in the least civilised races small children are as advanced—or more so—than in higher races. The Australian is said to come to a standstill at ten or twelve years old. The Egyptian seldom advances mentally after sixteen. A low-class Englishman does not improve after twenty or so. A capable man will continue to expand till thirty or forty. And the man of the greatest capacity will continue to grow mentally, and assimilate new lines of thought, until seventy or eighty.

Thus the greater the power of use and the activity of the mind, the longer will it continue to grow. This may well be regarded as one of the main tests of a great mind; and it is strictly in accord with the system of the well-known embryonic changes passing from lower to higher stages, and continuing to grow7 in development into higher and higher types. The savage ceased to grow mentally even while in childhood; the sage continues the expansion of mind to extreme old age.

(6) Disuse of mind causes atrophy and degradation. This principle is one of the most important of all in its practical bearings. The familiar figure of the later Merovings, the rois fainéants, is an historical example: freed from all necessity of thought by the assiduity of the mayors of the palace, the family mind atrophied further in each generation, until the king became a puppet without volition in royal affairs. The same working may be seen in the upper classes of many countries, where the spur of the necessity of action ceases. Within a century of the cessation of the Moorish wars the chivalry of Spain began to atrophy; the same was seen in a century after the cessation of civil war in France. In England the strong tradition of training for the public careers in the civil and military services and parliament, has saved the upper classes more than elsewhere. But a rich family without active interests almost always shows atrophy of mind. There is a fine saying of Mencius, "Those whom God destines for some great part, He first chastens by suffering and toil." The same tendency to atrophy is equally seen in the lower classes, when the necessity of self-help is removed. And many of the modern movements have been of a degrading tendency, leading to the holding back of the capable and the artificial help of the incapable. It is obvious that if persons have retrograded and got into difficulties, they are presumably less capable than those around them. If then they are8 relieved independently of their own exertions, their incapacity is fostered and they retrograde still further. To compensate them for their incapacity by relief works, by farm colonies, by outdoor relief doles, by maintenance of their children, will inevitably lead to further atrophy of mind. The doctrine of equality of wages in a trade is a double injury, it encourages the most incapable man that can possibly squeeze into the trade, and it discourages the capable man who is worth far more than the average. It must tend to drive capable men out of the trades which they might have raised by their example and stimulus, into other lines where capacity can still earn its value. The mental atrophy that has come over ordinary workmen is appalling, at least in the region of London. In case after case, the common sense and intelligence seems to have been entirely lost, and the grossest blunders will be made by well-paid men; and it is safe to say that in most business a really capable and active man can do from three to six times as much as the average workman, beside avoiding the loss of time by mistakes. In short a certified ease of conditions, and absence of direct penalties of incapacity, has atrophied the ordinary working mind to a point which is dangerously low in comparison with that of other races. The remedy lies in training the incapable by a stern discipline of gradually teaching them the maximum that they can perform in the day, with good direction and avoidance of bad conditions. After a couple of years of such intensive training they should be drafted into ordinary factories, with the warning that if they fall out of work again, another year's compulsory hard training will be the result.

In another way this atrophy of mind may be seen and felt as a temporary condition by members of boards and committees. What is everyone's business is nobody's business; and when each person feels that he is not personally responsible, a numbness and inaction ensues which is characteristic of such bodies. Men, any one of whom would act sensibly when alone, will succumb to the paralysing sense that they need not think because nine other men are doing so, and the results are well known as characterising these assemblies which have "neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be damned." There are very few public bodies which are not really dependent on the individual thought and design of one person, criticised and amended by the collateral views of others. In short, all action and rule must be personal and not corporate, however much the person may be checked and controlled by general opinion of the public, or of a restricted body. Without personal initiative atrophy is the result.

Another great theatre of mental atrophy is officialism, where a man is bound to follow certain rules and routine rather than to think. A German has remarked to me that a man who is perfectly reasonable and intelligent in private life becomes quite foolish as soon as he enters his office. This constant result is the strongest reason for not extending official control of affairs needlessly, or the management of public work by officials. Private enterprise will always be more effective than an official system, because it is solely the result of individual initiative. The enormous monopolies of railways in England are on the whole far more beneficial to the public than the State10 railways of other countries. The evils of corporate monopoly, checked by law and supervision of the Board of Trade, are less than the evil of stagnation by official atrophy. In the Republic of France the principal line runs its best trains slower than, and at three times the cost of, the best trains on great English lines.

(7) It is only competition which makes permanent the improved mental variations which occur. The evils of competition in physical things almost disappear in the mental field; and, unless misused as in a foolishly designed examination, there seems an unmixed benefit from unlimited competition of mind. It is only by such competition that higher types of ability have been established in the past, and it is to such that we must look for future improvement. It is true that in various directions we find a dislike of competition; but that is the surest sign that it is effective, and therefore beneficial to the whole body.

We see then that each of those principles which rule in physical modification is equally true of mental modification.

But though the modes of mental variation may be fairly clear, we must not be carried away by the view that therefore great changes in man are to be expected. The effects of various conditions upon the body are tolerably familiar, yet the average form of man has varied extraordinarily little during ten thousand years. The highest type of ancient man differs almost inappreciably from the highest type of modern man, certainly by not a tenth of the difference that may be seen between different types at present. It may be practically said that man is at a standstill11 in physical development. Sanitary improvements and better feeding may do great things, but they leave the essential form and constitution unaltered. The same is true of mind. When we become familiar with details of early ages nothing is more astonishing than to see how unaltered the mind of man is in its essentials. In tales and maxims six thousand years old we see not only the common stock of primary instincts, but also the finesse of conduct in public life, the modes of ensuring respect in dealing with superiors and inferiors, the attention to very varied elements of character, and a fine suavity and kindliness pervading the whole. There is not a single class or a single public body at present that practically stands as high as the ideal of two hundred generations ago. And when we look at the material civilisation we see still farther back the appreciation of qualities of work which only a very small proportion of mankind care for now. The overwhelming zeal for minute accuracy was as perfect a mental state at 4700 b.c. as it is in a Royal Society paper of our day. The subject and the method have changed; but the mental attitude is the same in a man who demanded, and in those who executed, beautifully true plane surfaces, and long measurements exact to far within the variation of size caused by a hot or a cold day, and the men now who triangulate a continent and measure the world. The mind is the same, only the stock-in-trade of it has increased. At the beginning of history the palaces were adorned with table services cut in the hardest and most beautiful stones, exquisitely formed and polished; and such homes were assuredly inhabited by men whose tastes12 and artistic sense were closely the same as the best of ours, and who would, like us, have revolted at most of the products of the present time. Not only was there the body of highly skilled and intelligent men to do such work, but there must have been a widely spread standard of taste demanding this exquisite work as an aesthetic pleasure. The nature of mind is unchanged, its motives, its feelings, its sense of life; only in knowledge and the applications of it do we differ from the earliest civilisation that we can trace.

It is, therefore, quite unreal for us to anticipate any change in the essential nature of man in the next few thousand years. The increase of knowledge and its applications will not alter that nature, or the relation of mind to mind. We shall still desire and admire the same things, and be moved by the same impulses; and we may neglect as ignorant dreams all speculations about any essential changes in the motives or constitution of man.

Having now seen how the fluctuations of amendment or deterioration of character, are subject to the same common laws as those of the variation of physical structure, we are in a position to see more clearly the effect of gradual changes around us in England. Emigration has been very active in the past three generations, and immigration has recently become important. The loss of the earliest emigrants who moved for religious and political reasons affected the national character very little; there was plenty of solid character remaining in England, and the removal of the more disputatious elements gave added strength to those who continued at home. The compulsory emigration of convicts was similarly a gain by removing those who were most out of harmony with the majority. Happily those whose characters made it most irksome to them to comply with the legal formulae of life at home, were just those best suited for the type of a new country, less restrained and more varied, with greater scope for enterprise. So far there had been a gain by removal of the two extreme types. But then succeeded a most serious movement of the voluntary selection of persons who thought that their energies would have a better and more remunerative scope in the colonies. This14 implied a draining away of those who had intelligence to choose a more promising career, energy to break with their present life and start afresh, and who possessed most adaptability, self-reliance, and hopefulness. All of these qualities are greatly needed at home for a prosperous population; and the incessant natural selection from the general mass, and removal of those who had most of such qualities, must have produced a serious effect on the home population. We see in England undoubtedly a lessening of sturdiness as a whole, and the deficiency of the abilities which have been most exported. There is a general outcry about the lack of adaptability in business; and the general want of self-reliance is shown by all the grandmotherly legislation which is sought and granted. At first we succeeded in getting rid of some amount of less desirable stock along with the capable stock; but in later years most countries will not admit any but good stock, and we lose the valuable examples of national character without any compensation. The drain of capacity from the nation is a most serious feature of life in England; and how far the prominence of the "submerged tenth," and the large proportion who live only a week's remove from starvation, is due to the lowering of the standard of capacity by the emigration of the more capable, is a very important question. The same consideration applies to Ireland in a far more acute form, as the emigration has been of much larger proportions.

A large immigration into England has recently grown up. So far as this is of more energetic men, who see their way to win over our heads, they should be welcomed. The German who comes to England15 to establish factories and exploit the English market is at least a gain to the country, as it is far better he should do this in England rather than expend all that energy and management out of England. The trade and manufacture of England have been largely built up by immigrations of Flemings, Huguenots, Dutch, French, and now Germans, who have each contributed to our capacity for work. In commercial business the foreign influence is strong. In north-west London one-tenth of the private residents are of German origin. A movement is going on quite comparable to other great race movements of past history; but it only affects the upper classes, and not the hand-labourer. Beside this there is the large movement of the lowest and most depressed mass of European humanity, from the sink of poverty in Poland and Western Russia. It is essentially a bad stock, one of the lowest in Europe; and the large proportion of criminal cases arising among these immigrants shows how undesirable they are. To allow such a low type free settlement in England, after draining the capable Englishmen to the colonies, makes a serious danger of a national collapse under a sudden pressure of some new circumstances, which might arise by trade or warfare.

Some other consequences which flow from recent changes will be dealt with in the fourth chapter in considering the effects of small causes.

The low type of character prevailing in all classes in England at present needs to be fully recognised. No doubt there has been in past centuries more external coarseness, and this detail strikes the attention of many people because it differs from their own16 present convention. But mere directness and plainness of speech is quite immaterial compared with the essentials of working power of mind and body, and the capacity for intelligent interests. Some centuries ago, when men thought more about the quality of their actions, sloth was ranked as one of the seven deadly sins. But now, in place of regarding it as anything wrong, there is an elaborate system of compulsory sloth; it is enforced by heavy penalties, and drilled into the character by example and self-interest. One man is forbidden to lay more than three hundred bricks a day, another forbidden to make more than so many glass dishes, another forbidden to attend to more than one machine. In every trade where a selfish short-sighted policy has gained its way, there is this system, which is doing inconceivable harm to character. The compulsory glorification of sloth is the most deleterious misfortune that can happen to a nation. The wreck of wars, pestilence and famine, will leave a more hopeful prospect than that of a people sunk in organised sloth.

Connected with this is the strange lack of thought and adaptability in common matters of everyday life. The daily loss of time, and cost in trivial matters, which affects thousands of persons, makes a heavy tax on the whole. For instance, such a simple matter as putting the offices of a terminal station at the ends of the platforms is still ignored at many termini; the name of a station is often hard to find, and is never once put up in most termini; the price of a ticket is often not to be discovered; the right types of carriages are only now being tried, after persevering in a wrong form for two generations. In the streets the17 same lack of sense is seen in the immense omnibus system, which is difficult to use, especially for strangers, owing to the lack of numbered routes and conveyances. It has been officially decided that the numbering of routes and omnibuses is beyond the powers of the London County Council; and we must be compensated by the pleasing reflection that something at least is too hard for that body. The thoughtless edict however was enforced that every vehicle must carry a white light in front, and all the distinctive colours of the tram-car lights were abolished, causing great inconvenience at night. Even in the most recent appliances the same dulness is shown; electric fans are commonly placed where they only stir foul air, and not where they draw in fresh or expel used air. The whole lighting system still throws away two thirds of all its cost by lighting sky and walls as much as streets. In every direction it seems hard to believe that five minutes' thought has been given to matters costing thousands of pounds. If we traced such a mixture of design and of chance in any other subject it would lead to some curious speculations on the implied limitations of the directing Intellect. And in private matters it is the same; the extraordinary blunders and oversights in common trade work show that the most obvious details have not had a minute's real thought given to their arrangement. The result is an accumulation of difficulty and muddle which cripples, if not destroys, the purpose of the work. This persistent dulness, and incapacity for management and design, shows a defect of character which is a heavy detriment to the whole community.

The pleasures of the public show the same low type18 as their business. The illustrated papers that are read, apart from serious news, are a revelation of the vacuity of the public mind, as the advertisements are a testimony to its imbecility. The absence of any thoughts or information that can enlarge the mind, or give it fresh insight or understanding, and the fatuity of the illustrations, show the helpless little round of common ideas of the well-to-do classes: while the dishing up of legal filth for the lower classes, and the morbid love of trivial accidents and catastrophes, shows terribly the mere animalism which fills their horizon. The one subject on which most print is spent is that which is absolutely futile, sport and games. Whether one group of men, selected by mere accident, is a minute trifle more active than another accidental group, is a matter of such utter insignificance that it would seem impossible to suppose that anyone would turn the head to see the result decided. Yet such questions absorb most of the interests and spare thoughts and reading of a great part—perhaps the greater part—of the population, just as the races of the circus swamped all other interests of the decadent Roman. The results which they crave for cannot possibly mean anything to the present or to the future, as the selection is merely due to accidental causes. Even a lower depth is the relative excellence of two horses which are completely unknown to the persons who speculate on them. The utter waste of thought and print in such interests is a form of insanity which is worse than a drug habit, as it implies a hopeless atrophy of the mind to interests which would help it or develop it.

The whole interest of betting on sport, and also19 of gambling, is another evidence of an unwholesome condition. It implies a craving for excitement apart from personal exertion, which is always a bane to character; it involves the idea of gain apart from labour of mind or body, which is demoralising to the sense of work; it results in unearned fluctuations, which induce a wasteful habit; and it is based on the essentially ungentlemanly principle of benefiting by the loss of another, whereas all honourable gain is by the sharing of the benefits of labour. If a large part of the public are determined on deteriorating in this manner, it might be better for the community to satisfy it by public lottery, where one party is the government, which at least removes the last-named serious detriment to character. The gaming at Monte Carlo is moral compared with promiscuous betting.

The objections to such forms of interest are perhaps too often urged by moralists who wish to cause an alteration in the customs around them. Even if we can care for the benefit of persons with such interests, certainly we are not likely to make any difference to them by talking on the subject. But as students of diseased society we may take a deep interest in such forms of aberration as a pathologist may in a case of cancer. And it is difficult to feel any particular wish to change habits which so obviously belong to a bad stock that is hardly worth improving. The best hope is that the unmitigated results of such mental disease may quickly have full effect on the type, and result in its extermination before a better class or better race. So far as cure is possible, the most hopeful direction is by an increase of useful and beneficial interests,20 which will make such vapid and senseless amusements decay by mere disgust.

The distaste for work and craving for amusement extends beyond the above limits in a manner very deleterious to character. It is a feature of a decaying civilisation, as shown on the later Mykenaean frescoes, and the rage for the circus in later Roman times. Besides the waste of time and labour, it acts injuriously in producing a restless incapable type of mind, brought more forward lately in motoring; and also by creating a false social atmosphere, in which the business of life is contemned and treated as a drudgery, instead of being a main subject of interest and emulation. As the shrewd Carl Peters remarks on English society, "Nobody can fail to be struck by its utter recklessness and shallowness," and "an increasing objection to labour is noticeable right through the British nation."

These various forms of a low type of character are on the increase, and it does not seem at all likely that they will be checked, except by great disasters which remove the less capable part of the population, and compel the rest to adopt a more energetic mode of life.

Among the various movements which are by some expected to benefit character, the communistic ideals have enthusiastic support. But it must be remembered that all such types of society tend to repress ability. If any form of communism is to succeed there must be a fixed minimum of labour compulsory on each member; and it is certain that human nature will take the minimum limit as all that need be done. The tendency will be to drag down all21 energy to the speed of the weakest. Moreover, if there is to be any private peculium outside of the share of common produce, the able man will at once rise into a capitalist; if no private peculium is tolerated it is certain that ability will be driven out to other lands, or to other lines of life where communism cannot be enforced. It must always be kept in view that mediocrity hates ability, wherever it comes into comparison or competition; and in a uniform community, mediocrity must be dominant, and ability persecuted.

Again the communistic type tends to repress variation and diversity by making everyone subject to the control of the dull average; and this repression is most fatal to due advance by natural selection of beneficial variation. We may see in France how a centralised management by the State accompanies the lack of enterprise in affairs. It is notorious that in business the French will not spend freely on creating new openings and encouraging new demand. Probably the habit of mind and the type of government act and react by one intensifying the other.

Where we can study an actual working system of communism in such a climate as our own, we see that it only succeeded by some elaborate and very forcible regulations. To outsiders, ignorant of the machine, the less advanced states of society are generally supposed to be very simple, and to leave a large amount of liberty. On the contrary, whenever a barbaric or savage society is really understood, the complexity which is essential to its success is seen to be even greater than among ourselves. The movement of society has been from an earlier complexity of special22 restriction, to a later generalised simplicity. The whole of northern Europe appears to have had a very similar system of communal organisation, which has been mainly brought to light by the researches of Dr. Seebohm. The peace was kept by making every relation of a man responsible for his actions; either wounding in any degree, or murder, had to be compounded for by fines extending even to distant cousins, which were payable to the similar relations of the injured or murdered man. The immediate male relatives, father, son, brother, and first cousin, were responsible for two-thirds of the blood money, and other relations to the fifteenth degree made up the remainder. Thus the criminal law was communal in a full sense; and injuries were fully compensated in a manner which made every man his brother's keeper in a real communism. How would modern admirers of communism like to undertake the responsibilities of making up for the misdeeds of every relative? Yet that is an essential part of communal duties.

The poor-law system, as revealed in the Norse laws, was that all the poorer men were bound to do a certain amount of work for their chief, like the payment of taxes at present, which amounts now to more than a month's work in the year. In return the chief was bound to see that they were insured against extreme-poverty or distress. They were free to accumulate wealth if they had the ability to do so, but their bargains and marriages had to be ratified by the chief in order to safeguard them from the follies of incapacity. When a man wished to resign this position of insurance against misfortune there was no23 objection to his independence, and he could do so on paying a small fee, and having a feast with the chief and witnesses. But if after that he played the fool, and his family came to naught, no one was responsible for them, as he had resigned his insurance. There was but one course left, a wide grave in the churchyard received the whole family alive, and only the one who survived longest had the right to live at the cost of his chief afterwards. Such was the price of communal support; and this decisive treatment, even in Christian times, ensured the sturdiness of the hardy Norseman, by effectively weeding the incapable. This was the practical working of the communal system which did not check ability, and which succeeded in our climate in past times. It needed a fuller organisation of penalties and obligations than our present individualism; and whether any communism could permanently succeed with less compulsion may gravely be doubted. In using the terms Socialism and Communism they are taken here in their widest sense, as referring to all the courses opposed to individualism. Such is the general usage of our language at present, and we cannot restrict these terms solely to extreme views, as some of their advocates would wish. Moreover, it is the influence of views on practical life that we are considering, and not an ideal state which never has been realised, and probably never can be put in practice.

A favourite idea has been that the New Testament teaching favours communism. To many such an authority would be decisive; and those who would not accept it as authoritative, must consider that the teaching is at least that of men who had such an24 instinctive knowledge of human nature, and such sympathy with the springs of action, that their views have held Western man more firmly than any other system. The first point to notice in looking at the teaching, is that it was given to a very severely selected group of persons. The early disciples were one of the hardest-weeded bodies of men that ever existed, like the Huguenots or the Quakers; ready perception, hearty conscientiousness, and a will to do right at all costs were the first qualifications, and incessant persecution from various sides weeded out all those who had no deep root of character. To such a body temporary communism was almost a need of existence at starting; all the causes and characters which would ordinarily make it a failure were weeded out, and such a highly selected group might safely benefit by a system which depended on self-abnegation. But so soon as the Church spread, no trace of communism remained; and even in general altruism the injunctions referred only to the Church and not to the world. The teaching was "Bear ye one another's burdens"; not, bear the burdens of the Roman rabble, but only those of the stringently weeded community. The one saying which survived most strongly of all the Gospel teaching, and is repeated oftenest, is, "To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he seemeth to have." The full benefit of capacity and its utmost gains, and the direst losses of incapacity, are the main principle that is inculcated.

In another point of view the parable of the prodigal son is sometimes felt to inculcate the ignoring of failure in life, and the permitting of follies to have no25 effect on the position of a person. The prodigal son among us is too often allowed to go on draining the resources on which his brethren rightfully have a claim. But the father in the parable, who had divided the family property already, was not intending to give anything more to the prodigal, however penitent he might be; forgiveness might be his, but the other brother was reassured at once by the formal declaration, "All that I have is thine." The greatest penitence, and the fullest forgiveness after it, will not give the prodigal a farthing beyond those rights which he has already misused.

Another appeal has been made, to a comparison with nature, in favour of communism. It is asked why we should be struggling like the carnivora, instead of peacefully browsing in amity like herbivora. But it would be hard to find a more intense example of competition than that among the cattle. Look at the skeleton of a bull, and see how every rib is broadened out into an armour plating for its vitals, each rib lapping over the other, so that no opening can be found for the point of its adversary's horn. None but those thus proof against goring have ever survived the desperate struggle of the strongest. In place of the artificial paddocks, where man has placed a single bull to lord the herd, look at the tragedy of the wild cattle, where the dispossessed chief of the Chillingham breed mopes apart in sullen anger, a Saturn dethroned and banished by the Jupiter who now leads the race. Then reflect how competition is more bitter and more intense in the bovine commune than among any individualistic carnivora.

The communistic view appears to tend to fatalism.26 This is practically seen for instance in Tolstoi's Peace and War, where the gigantic movements of the French and Russian hosts are looked on as inherent in the millions of people, and not originating in the leaders. And the habit of looking to the commune as the source of action will naturally tend toward a sense of the impossibility of altering the determination of a whole people, and the powerlessness of the individual against such forces. Now nothing more surely undermines activity and initiative than a fatalistic view. It saps the whole springs of action, and destroys the spirit of advance and improvement. In this aspect therefore we again see how injurious the communistic ideal is to solid character.

The recent growth of "municipalising" enterprises is another outcome of this spirit. The principle of it seems to be to absorb any public business which appears profitable, whether conveyance, supplies of material, or contracting for public work. Apart from the fact that only strong personal interest in management will make such enterprises profitable, there is also the inherent objection to the bad management which clings to the atrophy of mind of officials, as such; but there is also another serious influence upon character, which we should notice. The energy and initiative needed to start and work improvements, which is the essential source of profit in business, is easily suppressed or driven away. Many an enterprise which would succeed well is set aside because of the risks or the trouble of starting it, many another is left alone owing to little deterring causes; and if the great incentive of the possibility of large profits on some schemes, to compensate for the risks of many27 failures, is cut away by a municipality having the right of seizure of whatever succeeds, the whole enterprising character is cut down at the roots, to the immense injury of the nation at large. Supposing that some public enterprise makes 20 per cent. profit to its shareholders, the people who use it are certainly better off, or they would leave it alone, and the profit is no loss to the community, as it merely means so much transferred from one pocket to another, and none wasted. But if such enterprises are choked at the roots by fear of seizure, the whole community suffers. Who will care to develop suburbs by starting electric trams when the whole can be seized in twenty-one years, so soon as it begins to repay the risks incurred? This short-sighted grasping system has held England back behind most civilised countries, and been a gigantic public loss, not only by hindering specific enterprises, but more by thwarting most valuable characteristics.

When we are continually assured that there is a new and better way of doing anything, it is only reasonable to ask if anyone has tried it before. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating," and if some one has eaten such a pudding before us, we may be saved from using up good materials in a bad concoction. Until now the attention of historians has been so fixed upon the great military autocracy of Rome, that the growth of trade unionism and socialism under that government has been overlooked. Here we will trace and put together such facts as seem curiously parallel to the growth of modern unionism; and which, when they outstep our present position, may serve to show what further developments may be expected by us.

The first great step, which bore centuries of bitter results, was the favouring of the townsman as against the countryman. The voter in Rome could push laws to his own advantage in the hurly-burly of the public assembly, while the countryman was working hard in his furrow miles away. The conquered provinces were a great temptation; they had to yield tribute, grain came pouring into Rome, and why should not this abundance benefit the citizen by being sold at a low price? They forgot the countryman. His toil29 was none the less because Carthage or Sicily or Egypt were being plundered. But his pay was much the less if his produce lost its market value. The cheap corn of Gracchus was the knell of the honest agriculturist, as Professor Oman has pointed out. The only remedy was to try to cheapen production in Italy. This was done by giving up the small farmer altogether, and running only big estates by slave-labour, the human machine which was to Rome what machinery is to us. This staved off the evil somewhat. But soon the townsman demanded more and more, and at last free doles of corn were given to him, and agriculture became impossible in Italy. What tribute-corn did to Italy, cheap transport has done to England. The townsman is always favoured at the cost of the countryman, and the country is being depopulated. Not only cheap bread, but doles of every kind—hospitals, wash-houses, music, games, libraries—all are given to the townsman, while the countryman cannot possibly share in such doles. A large policy of equivalent benefits to the countryman would be the only corrective to this one-sided and deleterious favouritism. But the votes carry it, as they did in Rome.

In the earlier part of the second century, under Trajan, two little statements show what was going on. A guild or trade union of firemen in Asia Minor wished to be incorporated: but the emperor forbade, because such trade guilds became political centres. There must have been some experience of such movement for it to be anticipated. The other statement is that the more able and wealthy men avoided entering the guild of permanent aldermen, or30 curia, because of the burdens which were thrown upon them. A century later, about 230 a.d., all trades were organised into corporations or trades unions, recognised by the government, instead of being only private societies as before. This seems to have been a compulsory unionism; but there was some difference in class between this trades unionism and our own. In Rome the trades were in the hands of smaller men, and not of large firms and companies as much as with us; and on the other hand the mere mechanic was usually a slave, this slave labour being economically the equivalent of machinery in our time. Hence the Roman trades unions were small employers of the status of our plumbers or upholsterers, more than, as with us, a large mass of crude labour organised against all capital. They were trade unions, rather than unions of the mechanics as against the managers. The compulsory entry of all the master employers into a union would no doubt be a step very welcome to modern unionism; and the compulsory extension of it, so as to leave no free labour, would be an ideal condition, in which picketing would be quite superseded by legal compulsion to join the union. The differences therefore were mainly such as our trades unions would desire, and aim at in future; in short unionism by 230 a.d. was more developed than it is at present with us.

But here came in a very difficult question, which is before us also whenever unionism becomes dominant in any trade. It is all very well to let unions pillage capital, or even pillage each other, but can they be allowed to pillage the poor? This at once clashes with the favouring of the proletariat. It has already31 raised an acute difficulty in England. The Bricklayers' Union cannot be competed with from abroad, except very slightly by means of imported wooden houses. Hence this union has been able to close its grip firmly on the throat of the public; it has raised wages, and it has cut down work from eight hundred or nine hundred bricks laid daily to two hundred and seventy or three hundred and thirty in different standards now. By raising the cost of labour to about three times the amount, the cost of building as a whole must be nearly doubled. The dearness of lodging of the poor is really due to the remorseless extortion of the bricklayers, abetted by the extravagant building regulations locally in force in their interest, to increase the expenditure on a building. In the country there is disgraceful overcrowding for lack of cottage accommodation, and in towns miserable rooms fetch high rents. The ground-landlord, who is so much abused, has little to do with this; for ground-rents are seldom more than a tenth of the house rent and taxes. If all land were confiscated to-morrow it would not lower most rentals more than a fraction. If the Bricklayers' Union and all its results were abolished, rentals would descend to nearly half the present amounts.

If we were to meet this difficulty in the way that Rome dealt with it, the Government would give the Bricklayers' Union an absolute monopoly of building, on condition that dwellings under a certain value were charged at a third of the cost of labour, that is on the old terms of a full day's work fifty years ago, leaving all later profits to be gained from the wealthier classes. In the present straits about housing it is by32 no means certain that this would not be a popular course.

In Rome the grain importers and the bakers were the two trades which touched the proletariat most closely. And early in the third century these, and probably other essential trades, were organised as monopolist unions, on condition that the union was bound over to do a certain amount of work for the poor at a nominal rate. Thus the wastrel was favoured and protected, with his right to maintenance; and all profits of the business were to be made from work done for those who could afford to pay for it. This is unquestionably an ideal toward which a great deal of social legislation is tending at present. Railway companies and tramways are bound to carry workmen at nominal rates, while all their profits are to be earned from wealth. So far has this burden been imposed, that the construction of one railway line at least has been prevented by the heavy toll of cheap transport which was demanded before sanctioning it.

If the trade is not in the hands of a single firm for a whole district, like a railway company, there arises the problem, how is the burden of cheap work for the poor to be distributed over the constituent firms? This was solved in Rome by the union, which was the sole body recognised in law. Each member of the union was assessed by his union, on the basis of both his capital and his trade returns, and he had to do so much of the cheap work in proportion. Hence the wealth of each firm determined the amount of their proletariat taxation. If they could withdraw temporarily part of the capital from the business, their33 assessment would be lighter. Hence to each person the aim was to work with the smallest amount of capital, and to remove from the business all spare capital, and invest it elsewhere. This naturally resulted in business being badly worked. The difficulty was met by the law that all capital once in the business could never be withdrawn; and all profits—and, later, all acquired wealth—must be kept in the business, so that the richer firms should do their full share of proletariat service. The results of these logical developments of unionism and help to the proletariat, were that many withdrew altogether from unions, retiring on a small competence rather than live under such a burden, and that there was a general decline of commerce and of industry.

Property having thus become the gauge of responsibility in the union, the only way to prevent desertions was to declare that the property was attached to the union permanently, and whosoever acquired it did so under the implied covenant of supplying the share of union work out of it. The result of this law was that no one with capital would join a trade union, as their whole property became attached to the union; and poor persons were not desired on unions, as they could not take up a share of the proletariat service. This condition was met by the law forcibly enrolling capitalists in the unions, and demanding their personal service as well as the use of their capital.

By 270 a.d. Aurelian had made unionism compulsory for life so as to prevent the able men from withdrawing, to better themselves by free work individually. He also gave a wine dole, and gave34 bread in place of corn, to save the wastrel the trouble of baking. In the fourth century every member, and all his sons, and all his property, belonged inalienably to the trades union. By 369 a.d. all property however acquired belonged to the union.

Yet still men would leave all they had to get out of the hateful bondage, and so the unpopular trades—such as the moneyers in 380 a.d. and the bakers in 408—were recruited by requiring that everyone who married the daughter of a unionist must join his father-in-law's business. And thus "the Empire was an immense gaol where all worked not according to taste but by force," as Waltzing remarks in his great work Corporations Professionnelles, where the foregoing facts are stated.

There was but one end possible to this accumulation of move upon move, on the false basis of compulsory trade unionism, and work under cost for the proletariat. The whole system was so destructive of character and of wealth that it ruined the empire. Slavery was by no means the destruction of Rome, it flourished in the centuries when the Government was strongest, and diminished in advance of the social decay. Vice was by no means the destruction of Rome, it was worst when Rome was most powerful and was lessened in the decline. The one movement which grew steadily as Rome declined, and which was intimately connected with every stage of that decline, was the compulsion of labour and the maintenance of the wastrel as a burden on society. It was that which pulled down the greatest political organism, by the crushing of initiative and character,35 and by the steady drain on all forms of wealth. The free Goth was the welcome deliverer from social bondage. This growth of trade unionism has been followed here as a whole, without stopping to note other effects of the same type of mind, which are also very instructive to us. We now turn back to look at some earlier developments.

The Empire had a long age of internal peace, from the accession of Vespasian to the rise of Severus, comprising four or five generations. Men had forgotten in Italy and the provinces what war meant, as the only troubles had been frontier fighting. They ceased to value the strength of unity, and the importance of keeping the empire bound together. The sayings attributed to Gallienus in the middle of the third century cannot be looked on as merely wild vagaries, contrary to all the public opinion around him. Had no one else advocated the subdivision of the empire, he would never have continued to jest about not needing the produce of Gaul or of Syria. Such phrases must have been familiar among a little-Italy party, of whom Gallienus was the agent and mouthpiece. And such a situation will help to explain his conduct regarding the captivity of Valerian his father in Persia. A glance at old Valerian shows him to have been a rigid gentleman of the old school, like Galba or Nerva. And, when he was captured, the little-Italy party who had hold of Gallienus were relieved rather than otherwise. Had George III been captured by the French, probably George IV and Charles James Fox would not have been very anxious for his return.

The policy of the party seems to have been to36 encourage each province to start a separate government under its local ruler, in touch with the Roman Government, but with recognised independence. Britain was separated, and was only reunited to the empire at later times for short periods; Postumus, Victorinus, Tetricus, Carausius, Allectus, Constantius, Magnentius, Magnus Maximus, Jovinus, all ruled without any check from Italy. Syria was separated with such good will that the coinage for Zenobia was struck at the Imperial mint in Alexandria. In all, nineteen independent rulers are enumerated in this reign; and no attempt was made to reunite the provinces. There were gains in such a course; the heavy charge on Italy of keeping a great army was lessened; the risks of civil war seemed to be reduced, when each province was not tempted to set up its own ruler for the whole empire; and local feelings and variations could have free scope. It might be thought that three centuries of rule had fitted the provinces to hold their own in the world, and to be ruled independently. The result of the experiment in devolution, or home rule all round, was a time of such anarchy, misery and loss, as had not been known since a unified civilisation had existed in those lands.

After the immediate catastrophes had been somewhat rectified by succeeding emperors, Aurelian took up the great task of reuniting the whole empire. He carried this out victoriously; Tetricus from Gaul and Zenobia from Syria adorned his triumph. But Rome was bitter at such a policy. A furious rebellion broke out, nominally called the revolt of the mint; that it was a great social movement was seen by Gibbon,37 though he confesses that it is mysterious how three senators, most of the senatorial families, and multitudes of minor people were involved in it. The fighting was so severe that five thousand of Aurelian's trained army were killed. That the mint workmen took part in it is certain: but probably the mint was adopted as headquarters of the movement owing to its strength. All this shows that, so far from the great victories making Aurelian popular in Rome, they were most bitterly opposed. The only ground for this must be that a very strong party clung to the little-Italy policy, and hated Aurelian in consequence. This movement gives good ground for interpreting the policy of Gallienus in the way we have done above, as being a great party policy and not merely an imperial freak.

Within less than a generation later came the vast socialist decree of Diocletian, regulating all prices and wages throughout the empire. A maximum value was fixed for every kind of food—grain, wine, oil, meat, fish, vegetables and fruit. Hence such food would never be produced where the natural conditions prevented a profit within this maximum price; nor would it be transported beyond the distance within which the maximum yielded a profit. Whole districts must have been cut off from different kinds of supply by such legislation. Meanwhile the wages of labourers, of artizans, and of professions were all equally regulated, so that the best men could never have their superior ability rewarded. The prices of skins and leather, of all clothing, and of jewellery were likewise defined.

The consequence must have been that the losses in38 bad years of supply, owing to weather and other circumstances, must have fallen wholly on the producer, who might be ruined by the whole brunt of the loss, instead of being partly compensated by a rise in prices which taxed the whole body of users. No wonder that after such a law the whole empire plunged ever deeper into poverty and confusion. The coinage depreciated even more rapidly than before; and the economic distress of such a fixed system with a falling currency must have been overwhelming. Such were the results of one of the great socialistic attempts to remedy the course of events by artificial legislation.

We thus see how by the establishment of unionism, the feeding of paupers, the devolution of the empire, and the legislation on prices and wages, the socialistic policy brought to naught the greatest social organism that had yet appeared in the world.

Those persons who are unaccustomed to consider the great effects which flow from a continuous action of small causes, are too liable to suppose that a large result can only be obtained by a violent and immediate action. They suppose that only some mighty impulse can change the face of affairs; they pray that the mountains be rent, and look to the earthquake and the tempest, not thinking that it is the still small voice that really directs. They forget that it is the humble earthworms that plough the land, and the invisible bacteria that destroy nations and alter the face of politics.

Ignoring the far-reaching after-effects of action, men are led to over-do all the changes which they attempt to carry out by direct and immediate means. This is like a child who asks to have its hand cut off because its finger aches.

The bad effect of sudden and violent changes may best be observed in our own history. The great changes of the Civil War left England without any checks on the violence of parties. The King and Lords had been abolished, and the Commons ruled alone. The fierce factions of the Presbyterians and Independents would have wrecked the country, had not a ruler come forward far more arbitrary than the40 one already rejected. Charles had looked over the wall when he tried to arrest five members, but Cromwell stole the horse outright when he dismissed the parliament by armed force. Pride's Purge was a greater violation of popular liberties than anything done by Tudor or Stuart; and the effect of half a generation of such violence was that the nation was heartily glad to get back a worse king than the one they had beheaded. Cromwell's great service was, that he saved England from a fanatical and factious House of Commons, by exercising monarchical prerogatives which Charles never dared to assert. The needs of the time drove him, as a capable man, to act for the highest good outside the law. When we hear a faction lauding Cromwell now, it may be overlooked that he made short work of Fifth Monarchy men and other extremists; and that the great struggle of mind to him was the dire necessity of crushing the factions, and of using that compulsion which he clearly saw was the only alternative to anarchy. The bitter persecuting spirit of the factions was far more violent than any course of action which preceded or followed their rule. Neither Charles I nor Charles II touched the private religious actions of the people; but the factions proscribed even the private use of the Book of Common Prayer. The subsequent Five-mile Act regulating public meetings for worship was mild compared with the domiciliary visitations in search of the Prayer Book in 1645. But for the visits of the parliamentary soldiery, breaking into chapels and putting their swords to the breasts of the kneeling communicants, there would never have been the milder dispersions of the Restoration. But for the41 bitter persecution of the so-called Malignants, and the deprivation of the clergy throughout the country by the parliament, there would never have been the milder reversion of Bartholomew's Day, 1662. In every point the violent changes of constitution wrought more tyranny and more personal hardship than was even caused by the revulsion which followed.

In France the same effect was seen. The Revolution probably caused more bloodshed and more personal misery in ten years, than the old régime had done in a century. England has paid twenty-five millions a year for a century past as interest on the debt incurred for crushing Napoleon.

Another result should be noted with care. A great popular ferment with a diminution of constitutional control, must result in establishing a military despotism as the lesser evil for the country. Caesar, Aurelian, Cromwell, Napoleon, all arose from the popular party, as the necessary substitutes, by arbitrary action, for the constitutionalism which had been abolished. In the place of the legally regulated courses, more or less unsuitable and corrupted, it proved absolutely necessary when they were abolished to have some other supreme authority with power to enforce obedience.

We are not concerned at this point to consider the relative right or wrong of the various parties just mentioned; that has nothing to do with the matter. The lesson is that a violent and rapid change of constitution leads to worse evils than those which it is sought to remedy. Every existing order of things, however imperfect or bad, must have a certain balance of parts or it could not continue. And when that42 balance is destroyed the results can seldom be foreseen. It is exactly the same in nature; when any species of animal is exterminated suddenly—as by firearms—the far-reaching consequences of its disappearance cannot be anticipated; other species will increase or disappear, and even vegetable life will be modified.

The phrase therefore of a "radical reform," or briefly "radicalism," is in defiance of natural science and of historical experience; it denies the principle of gradual evolution in the development of institutions and of character. A small amount of experience of different types is enough to show its fallacy, for radicals say that "travelling abroad always spoils a good radical."

In order to avoid violent change it is needful to allow free scope for gradual change. The greatest catastrophes may be caused by the accumulation of small forces; when a tiny stream becomes dammed by a landslip it may form a lake, which in bursting will devastate a whole valley. So when the gradual movement of a people is checked, and an artificial condition is enforced by laws, the breaking down of such restrictions will cause wholesale disaster. Had the Romans allowed free immigration of Gothic settlers there would never have been the Gothic conquest of Italy. Were the Californians and Australians to allow a free immigration of Japanese, under fair and equal laws, they would not have to fear a squadron demanding justice in their ports. The necessity of violent changes is therefore always the fault of those who prevent gradual changes to fit new conditions. If the House of Commons tries again43 the experiment of the Long Parliament, and by force or subterfuge abrogates the second chamber, it will be largely due to the House of Lords refusing changes in its mode of action. An Upper House which elected a legislative committee, like the election of Scotch and Irish Peers, would be in a far stronger position. The House of Commons at present is too much like an elephant picking up pins; and if the public become so much disgusted with its incapacity for business that at some crisis they throw the reins of power to an able man like Kitchener, it will be largely due to the fossilisation of the Rules of Procedure. A Lower House which allotted its time strictly according to the value of its votes of supply, or of the interests involved—which registered its decisions instantly, as by the electric signals which are now found in every hotel, and which employed diagrams in debate by means of the lantern and screen which are now found in every school—would stand a better chance of coping with its business in a creditable manner. The fault of violent change, and all its damaging consequences, rests in the first place on those who resist gradual change.

It is therefore needful to leave the way open for gradual changes. In every new law, the changes of circumstance which are likely to arise should be anticipated, by leaving the way open for them to begin to act gently and gradually. The principle of fixed fines (based on income tax), regardless of any reflection on character, for various infractions of a civil law (or even of some criminal laws) should be always open, so that, as necessities arise, the prevalence of such fines would call attention to the need of some44 change. An excellent system has been found in allowing a department a large latitude in interpreting a law, or a dispensing power in administering it; and this system might well be extended so far as it was not seriously abused by favouritism. Another mode of change is to permit a variety of types in different places, as in local administration, and then allow a large latitude for the adoption of any type found to work well in another place. This is partly reached by varying bye-laws; but this might well be extended higher in the scale, and with local liberty to adopt any bye-law already sanctioned elsewhere. The ways would thus be open for gradual movements, which could extend until they produced such pressure on the larger and more organic laws as to cause a serious legislative step.

We will now turn to observe the far-reaching actual and probable effects of various laws, which at first might seem quite inadequate to cause such changes. Some years have passed since the graduation of death-duties, and we can begin to see the effects. The simple action of a tax, without any compulsion, has produced a profound change in a family system which centuries or thousands of years had left unaltered. The notorious clinging to power and money among the aged, has given way before the screw of the State. The custom which left the control of large estates to men generally between fifty and eighty years of age, and hampered their development by the dying hand, has largely yielded to the Indian custom, of the division of property among sons on their marriage or entry on public life. It is becoming habitual for a father to establish his sons with the family property,45 and only to retain such a portion of the estate as he may wish to fill his declining activities. This is a very beneficial change, though by no means a grateful one to the Exchequer which has brought it about. In lesser properties the same action occurs; a father will buy an annuity for himself, and distribute the remaining capital, each son being at liberty either to place his portion at compound interest, so as to replace at the probable date of his father's death the full amount which he would have received otherwise, or else to trust to replacing the amount when he may be at his most remunerative age.

Not only is this a great social change, with far-reaching consequences in the management of property, but it will also act in other lines. When a man deals with his property in the unchecked privacy of a will, he can neglect the pressure of personality of his children in favour of the sentiment of leaving a powerful family name in perpetuity. But primogeniture must more or less succumb before the obvious personal claims of those who are joining in the daily life. It requires not only a flinty heart but also a brazen face, to leave younger sons penniless when personally distributing the means of ensuring the happiness and the amenities of life. Hence it is probable that estates will be much more sub-divided, and sons encouraged to continue to live on corners of the paternal acres. In short it will be a step toward the French infinitesimal splitting of property.

This again will act in a fundamental manner on our colonising ability. Primogeniture has made us a colonising race; no system is so perfect for ensuring a supply of fit colonists. When each wealthy house in the land46 educated two or three sturdy sons, with every benefit of health and knowledge, and then sent them out to form new centres, with a small capital to start with, and a reserve of help at home for any dire emergencies, the most perfect colonising machine had been evolved. Without these conditions England could never have filled other continents as she has. When sons stay at home on portions of the old estate, and have not enough wealth for the high training of their families, all this colonising power will be at an end. France cannot colonise because her domestic system does not produce this type of man, fitted in person and in condition to take up such a life. Our high death-duties are a certain way to stop educated colonisation.

Another change is also seen resulting from these duties. England, more than other lands, was rich in private treasure houses of precious things—pictures, statuary, libraries, and other collections. These represented a large amount of capital locked up, but it yielded a rich interest in the home education of the upper classes, in redeeming them from the dull, unimaginative, coarse, or sordid lives of wealthy classes in some other lands. So long as a duty only equal to a few months' or a year's interest was levied, the succession was not too burdensome, and the state reaped a steady small return. But when the possession of such means of amenity involves at each generation a crushing tax on the productive part of an estate, they must be sacrificed. The collections are vanishing to other lands, where such short-sighted policy is unknown, and England will be left bare. A far more profitable policy would have been to exempt all artistic or historical collections from death-duties,47 if they were thrown open to the public for a certain number of days in each year. They would thus have become partly public museums, provided free of all cost to the surrounding districts.

Another serious consideration is that 10 or 15 per cent., or even 20 per cent. in case of bequests for public purposes, is taken off accumulated national capital and thrown into yearly income. The estate duty is incessantly eating up the national reserves, and using them for current expenses. We should call any family which did this shameless spendthrifts, yet this is the immoral fashion of our taxation.

The effect of income tax is one of the most serious economic subjects, because it directly touches the production of wealth. There is little objection to income tax for emergencies of war, because if merely nominal (1d. in the pound) during peace, the true amount taxable will be well known, and a sudden increase will be truly collected and will not have distinct economic effects if only used for a year or two. But treating direct tax on incomes as a large source of revenue has very important effects on a commercial nation. A tax as high as 1s. in the pound is practically a tax on all English enterprise as compared with foreign. If a mill can be run at Calais to produce non-dutiable articles, free of income tax on its dividends, while a mill at Dover pays 5 per cent. tax on its dividends, that constitutes a discrimination of 5 per cent. against the English manufacturer's capital. The outcome of the whole is that all shares of English companies will stand permanently at 5 per cent. lower value than the shares of foreign companies. Or in other words £4 interest will have to be paid by an English company48 for £95 raised by debenture, while the foreign company will raise £100 for the same interest. The immediate result is that investments will increasingly be made in foreign governments and companies, whose dividends are payable abroad, instead of in London. This is not merely an evasion of tax, but it is perfectly legal if the dividends are spent abroad. No one need pay tax on any cost of foreign travel or residence if they draw the money from foreign sources, and do not let it be trapped in London. Thus there will be an ever increasing demand for purely foreign investment, according to the amount of tax on the investments in England. If the proposal was carried out to tax all investments much higher as "unearned income," it would cripple all English manufacture for lack of the capital, which would be driven abroad to escape the tax. It might be thought that other governments will come into line, and tax equally with ours; but if they see their own commercial advantage they will be very loth to put this bar on English capital flowing into their land to gain freedom. Even if France and Germany did as we do, it might be well worth while for Monaco to become the financial centre of Europe by having no income tax on companies centred there. The recent De Beers decision illustrates this very clearly. A company with its work abroad, and its investors largely abroad, is taxed on all its income because it uses a few square yards of space in London as an office. Obviously it will not remain. London will no longer be the centre of commercial work of the world if 5 per cent. or perhaps 10 per cent. is the price to be paid by all who use it. No company will remain in49 England that is not fixed by its works being here, and all those who are fixed here will work at a permanent disadvantage compared to the foreigner. It is doubtless thought that the large income yielded by the interest on the national debt is a safe and easy subject of taxation; Italy indeed raises 20 per cent. income tax on its debt interest. But this tax is purely nominal, as it is discounted in the price of stock, and such a government is merely paying with the left hand what it takes with the right. The case is seen clearly in Italian stock which stands at 20 per cent. lower value than it otherwise would; that is to say, that Italy pays say £4 for the loan of £80 now, instead of for the loan of £100 which it would receive if this tax was not imposed. The same is equally true of the tax as applied to government salaries; it cannot be evaded, and therefore it is merely a diminution of the salary, or a depreciation of the quality of men obtained for the nominal salary. A government cannot tax its own payments by any financial jugglery. Of course a government can cheat like a private person; promise a certain payment, and then break its word, and pay less by a tax. But that is only a transient profit raised by the sale of its character, and is not a permanent bargain.

Another effect of income tax will be seen if the proposed higher grading of incomes is carried out. The same changes that we have traced owing to the death duties will be produced by the life duties. Property will be sub-divided wherever possible. Every child will have a trust created for its benefit, every member of a family will have a separate income, every large estate will be nominally the50 property of a group of independent persons—a family club. This will tend, like the death duties, toward equal shares, instead of the parent hive system of primogeniture; and it likewise marks the end of educated colonising. The effect of this may be good for family life, but it will be disastrous commercially. There will no longer be the large capitalists who can take the risks of great enterprises. To raise a large floating capital for great undertakings will require the co-operation of so many small capitalists, that it will not be worth while for any one investor to give time to the affair. The lack of personal concern and interest, and the cost of dealing with widely collected capital, will all be a detriment to enterprises of large extent.

But the most disastrous as well as immoral kind of taxation will be that proposed as additional upon all permanent investments, under the guise of "unearned income." It is a fatally easy screw for a government to put on; but the effect of it will be to penalise all British manufacture in competition with foreign productions. All that we have noticed about the effect of a 5 per cent. tax will apply far more rapidly and decisively if a 10 per cent. tax should be put on. Shippers would sail under another flag and transfer their offices of registration; manufacturers would pass to a tax-free country; and a larger proportion of persons living on fixed income would spend it abroad. Beside the material disadvantages of such high taxation on enterprise, it would be a grave moral detriment.

It is too often forgotten that in taxation the government wields one of the greatest means of moral51 education. What does it say now by its taxation? Suppose a man to have saved £100, and to consider whether he will spend it on unremunerative pleasures, or on useful public works. The government says, "If you will spend your money on waste and luxury, paying for useless and monstrous rooms, making men stand idle in your hall, or decorate your extravagant food; if you will make women waste their eyes and lives on a fresh absurdity of fashion, or sell their souls; or if you will pay boys to become ne'er-do-weels on golf-links—in short if you will do as much mischief as possible, we will take 5 per cent. of your money. But if you spend it on benefiting the world, improving cultivation, building railways, opening the waste places and making them blossom, we will take 18 per cent., and leave you only £82 out of your £100." That is to say 5 per cent. on the original earning of the capital, 5 per cent. tax on investment income, and 10 per cent. on death duties, as estimated on large capital by the Income Tax Commission, 1906. And if the proposed higher taxing of so-called "unearned income" were carried out, this government claim would rise to 23 per cent. or even higher. In all reason, after money when earned has paid its tax of 5 per cent. it should be free of all further claims, at least if employed for public utility, and there should be no tax on dividends whatever, nor any death duties on savings; all such taxation falls eventually on the capital of the useful undertakings, and directly cripples the industry of the country.

The only way to escape the deadly effects of income tax upon home manufactures and produce would be to lay a countervailing duty on all imports, and a52 bounty on all exports. Then, and only then, would the manufacturer or farmer here be on exactly the same footing as one abroad. Then, and only then, would free trade be really carried out. So long as taxes fall on home production or home capital, which do not fall similarly abroad, so long free trade cannot exist.

Another highly immoral view of taxation is that of "plucking the goose so that it feels it least." Such a maxim was appropriate and excellent for an opportunist minister of an autocratic sovereign. But the first necessity for the political health of a democracy is that the individual shall feel every tax; such is the only way to prevent the squandering of public money by the votes of ignorant taxpayers. It would be very wholesome if the national expenditure was presented as a series of personal bills, showing how much was spent on each department by an average £50, or £100, or £200 householder. He would then be as much ashamed of the smallness of some items as of the largeness of others.

What is needed in place of the tax upon industry is a tax upon extravagance. We are accustomed to taxes which far exceed the prime cost upon tobacco and alcohol; and other luxuries should also be similarly taxed. If instead of taxing income (which is often requisite for reasonable living, or else usefully spent on improvements of the world), we had the luxuries taxed, the only people to complain (if the change were gradual) would be those who wasted instead of using their income. Let all ostentation be taxed very heavily, spacious rooms, large numbers of servants, costly food, motor cars (not professionally needed), entrance money for amusements, and53 tailors' and milliners' bills; and then a much smaller amount of such extravagance will equally bespeak wealth, and gain as much social consideration as at present. Such would be a moral taxation in place of the present wholly immoral and indefensible system of taxing industry and leaving waste unchecked.

We will now look to other eventual results of small continual action. The effect of transferring little by little the property in Irish land to the present occupiers has not been sufficiently noticed. For the present generation such a transference was merry enough to the tenant. But when he sells to another tenant what is to happen? Will a future tenant enter and gradually expropriate the present tenant, by treating him as a landlord? Certainly the present tenant will not be so foolish as to be thus trapped, he will demand money on the nail. How then is the future tenant to get his capital to buy the land? In most cases he will have to get it by borrowing on mortgage. And if the government is not prepared to always keep open a loan office for every incoming tenant to the end of time, a loan society or company must be his resort. Then if he should not pay this rent to the distant intangible society, his mortgage will be foreclosed. In place of a body of landlords, and landlords' agents who could always be personally approached, Ireland will fall into the hands of a landlordism of distant money-lenders without souls or feelings, and whom neither blandishments nor bullets can affect.

The remedy for land difficulties and various ills, that has been so often proposed, namely the State54 ownership of the land, is by no means promising. The greatest objection that can be flung at a landlord is that he is an absentee. No amount of agency, no excellence in the subordinate, is thought to compensate for the personal interest, the personal influence and care, of a good conscientious landlord spending his life among his tenants. Yet the State ownership would be worse than any absentee landlord. The agent would be that of an impersonal government, and responsible to nobody so long as he fulfilled a certain set of hard rules. He would have no personality more or less pliable behind him, but would blindly carry out the general dictates of a Parliament or a Revenue office, which neither knew nor cared about any personal exceptions or local details. We all know the ways of the Inland Revenue already; the extortions which have to be tediously reclaimed at a greater cost of time than the refunded money is worth; the starving of the Post Office in order to wring a profit of 50 per cent. on the whole correspondence of the country; the various illegal demands which have had to be resisted by legal trial, and appeal over appeal, at a ruinous cost to those who will not be cheated; we see in France and Italy the atrophy of a railway system which is ruled by government officials. And yet unobservant enthusiasts wish that every field should be under some petty official tied by red tape, and every farmer bound by laws and regulations which could never be applied to even a small district without individual hardship. The townsman cannot be allowed to play political experiments with the largest industry of England, of which he is profoundly ignorant: it must55 rest with the farmer only, to decide if he prefer to be under the Inland Revenue or under his landlord. It is notorious that government lands are administered more wastefully and less remuneratively than any private property; and it would be ruinous to tie up the whole country to such administration. It is useless to say that these are mere abuses which must be rectified. Let them be rectified in the minor scale first, before the system can be applied in the major scale. There is no kind of government in the world that would not ruin this country if it introduced State ownership. Human nature does not allow of it, and only ignorance of human nature could propose it.

Another large effect of trifles is seen in the cumulative character of borrowers. Mr. Harold Cox, M.P., has reminded those who are in favour of rather confiscatory proposals, that a loss of character of a public body, so that their good faith is not certain, may easily mean that they have to pay 4 per cent. instead of 3 per cent. for loans: and hence that all rents of public works paid for by loans will have to be 33 per cent. higher. This loss is far more than could be gained by entire confiscation of ground values, and entire ruin of all landlords. That this is by no means only a future risk may be seen in the stock list any day. India is not entirely safe; there are risks of financial ruin—by conquest, by ruinous wars against invasion, by ruin in insurrection, by ejectment, or by having to drop India owing to a collapse of the navy. Yet all these risks together are thought to be less than the risk of bad faith on the London County Council. Their stock stands at a lower price than India stock. Such is the large result of the many56 little touches of folly and extravagance which have lowered the financial barometer.

Another instance of remote changes is in the effects of the steam engine and other cheap and rapid communication. The full extent of the changes caused are yet far from being completed. Externally the great change is that of the equalisation of land values for agriculture all over the world, as the produce can be carried from land to land for a small part of its value. Hence tropical lands with rapid growth and high fertility will compete with others; and the cheapness of labour there, owing to the smaller requirements in a warmer climate, will react on all agricultural wages. There will also be a demand for cheap labour to work tropical lands to their full extent; and the facility for transportation of labourers will result in constantly shifting energetic people from rather cooler climates into the hotter land for a time, and withdrawing them again. The same system we already carry out for governing classes in India; and cheap transport will make it possible for an energetic race to hold hot countries continuously, without decay due to enervation by climate, as was the case in all earlier northern invaders.

Internally the changes owing to cheap communication are that land of similar quality equalises in value; and hence the worst land will fall to bottom price all over the country, and cannot be locally of any higher value. Also it will be difficult to get people to live in unpleasant districts, as they can easily shift about; hence wages will need to be higher in such districts, and therefore the land will be still lower. Thus the mobility of the inhabitants57 exaggerates the variation of land values already due to differing quality. The more bulky industries that need cheap land, and not much labour, will be fixed in the unpleasant districts; and peasant proprietors will tend to the worse land, as being abnormally low in value. Regarding movement of population only, as capable men can move about freely to get work that gives them full scope, the less capable will supplant the capable in all work that they are able to do. Hence we shall no longer find men of high quality leading simple lives in remote districts. The gain to the whole community is clear, but we lose one of the most interesting types of national character. The free and rapid transit in cities will cause them to be much less crowded in one mass. At Chicago men go to business from five miles out in five minutes. Our cumbrous stoppages along the whole route must be entirely given up for the outer districts of London. What is needed is a series of new centres twenty to thirty miles out of London; joined, some to the City, some to the West End, by non-stop trains, at sixty miles an hour. Such is certainly the type of great city which will finally be reached—a county covered with separate centres linked by trains at the highest speed. As we shall note further on, the development of great equatorial estates of European powers, and the growth of immense permanent armaments are both the inevitable result of rapid communication. We see thus how the whole type of human life and conditions has been altered, and the whole balance of circumstances readjusted, by the evolution of cheap motor power.

We have already noticed another effect of this58 change, in the increase of emigration draining the more capable persons from England, and so leaving a residue inferior in energy, initiative and self-reliance. This deterioration of the occupants of England and Ireland is thus due to the purely mechanical contrivance of a steam engine.

We have now traced the large effects of small economic causes, and we see how such apparently insignificant alterations may be far more effective and act far more beneficially than smashing the social machine with a sledge hammer because it does not run smoothly. We will now turn to look at some of the effects of favourite ideas of the present time.

The compensation to workmen for accident seems at first sight a righteous charge upon capital for the benefit of those who are injured in their business. The immediate effect upon character is to save the careless, thoughtless, and incompetent from the results of their faults; this at once reduces largely the weeding and educational effects of the bad qualities. No man would ever have become careful if he did not find the necessity of being so. Even if a tendency to malingering can be avoided, yet the teaching effect is done away. It may be thought that it is better to save the individual from his indiscretions rather than cure the race. Like most sentimentalism it causes more misery in the long run. Another, and entirely separate, effect is to prevent the employment of those who by age or bodily defect are the more liable to accident; the immediate hardship of loss of employment to these classes is, in the total, probably greater than the hardship of loss of employment by accidents which it is sought to compensate. We injure the59 individual as well as the race by such grandmothering. A severe law demanding full and adequate protection of workers, where they can be mechanically protected, is the utmost that could be beneficially enforced.

The provision of old age pensions is another pleasing scheme. In the first place it will diminish the need of foresight and of self-restraint; it will thus weaken character by removing the great driving force of self-interest. The burden will have to be borne by all, including those who are already at the last gasp, and will tend to push such over the border line. It will not discriminate between those who have borne a large share in the cost of national renewal by bringing up a family, and those who have selfishly squandered all they received. And like outdoor poor relief, it will be discounted in wages, and tend to lower the wage rate if no savings are to be expected. A sounder plan would be to revert to the kind of communal system of our forefathers, and make a legal demand for a pension of, say, £2 a year from every child, and 10s. a year from every grown up nephew or grandchild. Thus those who have done most for the State by renewal would receive most in return, and the greatest inducement would be given to bring up children to active and capable lives. The idea of a right to maintenance would be the knell of any State which undertook it. The endowment of wastrels, the taxing of all the capable for the propagation of the incapable, and the wholesale deterioration of character, would be utter ruin to a nation. Nature knows of no right to maintenance, but only the necessity of getting rid of those who need it by mending or ending them.

There is another movement which seems most desirable and humane at first sight, and irreproachable in its economic aspect: the saving of infant life by greater care. A huge waste of life is going on, and it has been proved that it is preventable. But however much we must sympathise with it, we cannot shut our eyes to its meaning. England produces over 300,000 excess of births over deaths yearly, and perhaps a tenth more might be added to that by care of infant life. But would that tenth be of the best stock or the worst? We must agree that it would be of the lower, or lowest type of careless, thriftless, dirty, and incapable families that the increase would be obtained. Is it worth while to dilute our increase of population by 10 per cent. more of the most inferior kind? Will England be stronger for having one thirtieth more, and that of the worst stock, added to the population every year? This movement is doing away with one of the few remains of natural weeding out of the unfit that our civilisation has left to us. And it will certainly cause more misery than happiness in the course of a century.

Lastly, let us look to the general question of the results of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of different classes. Roughly we may divide three classes of money-earners: the lower, who receive weekly pay, and are tempted to spend it all by the certainty of poor relief when needed; the middle, who receive yearly pay, and must save if they are to avoid losing caste in late life; the upper, who make large but uncertain profits by organising work, or by financial manipulation, regular or irregular. During the last century we have seen a great growth61 of wealth in England. At first it spread to workmen and manufacturers, then to the middle classes generally, and latterly much has accumulated in the hands of large operators with trusts and financial dealings. What has been the result of the wealth in the hands of each class, to that class, and to the whole community? The rise of workmen's pay has mainly been used up; there has been a great benefit by improving the conditions of life, but perhaps half of the increase has been lost in mere waste; very little has gone toward lifting families to a higher class, and but a very small proportion has been saved. The whole property of the poor is estimated now at nearly a year's income, the result of savings in a century, or less than 1 per cent. saved. When we turn to the middle classes there is a worse spectacle. There was, broadly speaking, but little need to raise the standard of expenditure among the middle classes. They were fairly comfortable, and need not have spent more on themselves; their gains might have been spent on profitable enterprises, or given for endowments to public purposes. On the contrary, but a small part of their gains have been saved or remuneratively spent, and far the greater part has disappeared in ever-increasing ostentation. It has been turned into a curse by creating an absurdly artificial standard of living and of sociality, so burdensome that every man is ashamed to ask a friend to the leg of mutton dinners of his grandfather's standard. It is thought mean to spend less per head on a single dinner than the amount which ought to keep a man in comfort for a couple of weeks. Real, genial sociality has been uprooted and killed in the senseless62 race of ostentation. And practically nothing has been done for public benefits by endowments. As a manufacturer in a park, with a motor, remarked, "you cannot expect anyone not to spend up to his income." The idea of using what is really requisite for successful living, and not squandering money beyond that, is entirely forgotten. The simplicity of having nothing that is unnecessary, the pleasure of having a large balance to use beyond the needs of life, and the comfort of never needing to worry about money, are all unknown to those who spend up to the hilt, and who turn their money into a grinding curse of life. The distribution of surplus wealth among the middle classes has proved an entire failure in national economics.

Now, lastly, the surplus is passing into a new class, the large business speculator, the financier, and trust-man. So far as we can yet see, this class is justifying itself far more than the middle class. In fifty years the middle classes have not given as much to endow education as the millionaires have given in five years. A man with a gigantic income cannot spend more than a few per cent. of it on himself. He must use it for large public enterprises which benefit mankind. To put it in another form, a great dealer has organised a method for taxing the community in such a way that they do not notice it. And if he spends the tax on public improvements or endowments—railways, new inventions, or universities—he is an active benefactor to the whole community. He sponges up the surplus which would otherwise be frittered away in ostentation or luxury, and drops it out where it is a permanent benefit. As a principle we may hate the trust-man63 and multi-millionaire, but he may be a lesser curse than the extravagant middle or lower-class man. War is hateful, but it may be a lesser curse than rotting in peace. So long as the average man shows by his selfish luxury that he is incapable of managing wealth, so long the private taxer—who prevents some of the waste—will be a positive blessing to the community. The evolution of the great money-manager type now going on is a distinct step forward in the prevention of waste, and the growth of a better system of expenditure. A million pounds a year scattered over a hundred thousand men will be all eaten up in luxuries or lost in folly; spread among a thousand men it will only swell their wasteful pride of life; but put it in the hands of ten men who have worked for it, and they will spend most of it in useful work that will bear fruit. Until the education, moral and intellectual, of the average man is on a higher plane, it will be well for the surplus wealth to be in the safer hands of those who have proved their capacity for avoiding waste. The evolution of society is not fitted at present for a wealthy middle-class, or a proletariat domination.

We have now seen in many directions how great are the changes in the constitution of society, which are brought about by a succession of small movements, each of which imperceptibly bears its share in the change. We see thus how carefully small tendencies should be watched; and we learn how needless and often how futile is a violent uprooting of institutions instead of a gradual growth.

Another lesson to note is that every attempt to interfere by legislation in the natural working of64 causes is more likely to do harm than good. The long lesson, which it took all the middle ages to teach, was that legislative interference with trade always did harm; we have come to believe that in a half-hearted way, but we are still perpetually longing to tinker society by interfering with natural cause and effect.

A large part of the aims of government in all ages has been the securing of uniformity, and much of the misery of mankind has been caused by the enforcing of it. But when we look at nature we see that a highly uniform species is the least likely to advance; and a seedsman or a breeder will try to break up too uniform a strain by exciting conditions which may lead to beneficial new varieties. It is only in a fluctuating species in which new "sports" easily arise, or are quickly developed by conditions, that we can expect to acquire new qualities or beneficial advance.

It is therefore one of the essentials for an advancing species that it should have full scope for diversity, so that any new varieties may not be crushed out by a uniformity of conditions. Too uniform a type of government is a deadly thing. Compulsory orthodoxy killed the vitality of Spain, and—so far as it succeeded—that of France also. No state was more brilliant or vigorous than the Norman rule in Sicily, which equally patronised Muhammedan and Christian.

Diversity may be secured in two ways, either by large varieties within a single great state, or by differences between homogeneous small states. The66 diversity within a large state may be seen in England or America; diversity between small states was attained between the cities of ancient Greece or mediaeval Italy.

But we meet with limiting conditions in the necessity of combination for mutual support; and in small states that can be carried out by a vigorous intolerance which weeds out those who are not conformable, and drives them into more congenial communities. Intolerance, therefore, is a gain to a small community, though detrimental to a large state where it excludes the neighbourhood of variety.

In modern times it is with large states that we have mainly to deal. They are a necessary development where communication is sufficiently easy for the concentrated military pressure of the whole to be brought to bear on a single point. If states are so small that concentration on the border is too easy, the state will expand; if concentration is difficult owing to size, the state will tend to fall apart again. The size for states which is most successful is a function of the facility of internal communication. Let those who deplore the absorption of small states, and the growth of Imperialism in all countries, ponder the tale of the North American Indians, who resented the power of the white man, and considered how to rid themselves of him. Their great council was rejoiced, when one sage said that if they would do as he said, he would promise that no white man should remain. "If the white man is to go you must give up all that he brought, the horse, the gun, the blanket, the firewater; if you will do this you may be free." They thought—and then said, "No, he must stay." So, if we are67 willing to revert to nothing quicker than a cob, we might get back to a Heptarchy.

The modern condition of great states being therefore forced upon us by the railway and telegraph, the only practical question is the form of life in such communities. Uniformity that is enforced, either by law, or by custom or fashion, is certainly a detriment, as it will suppress the useful variations when they arise. And the objection to it bursts out in the form of anarchism, which is specially a disease of great states. The amount of anarchism is very closely related to the size of the state; and it is probably an exact measure of the internal strain produced by repulsion of diverse types and the pressure needed to keep them together.

It is only a very crude form of intolerance to expect many tens of millions of people to agree in religion, morals, and government. A degree of intolerance that may succeed, and even be useful, for some thousands, will be disastrous if applied to as many millions of men.

But here we run against another guiding principle of many people. It is often assumed that possibly in government, probably in religion, and certainly in morals, there is an absolute standard of right and wrong, immutable and irremovable. To take the last subject—that of morals—to the utilitarian they are the conditions for the well-being of society, and may vary indefinitely with the variations of society, and he recognises that there is perhaps no action which may not belong to the best code of morality for certain possible conditions. To the theologian morals are the Divine dictates, which have varied immensely68 under different dispensations; and the Patriarchal, early Jewish, Prophetic, or Christian codes are represented as quite incompatible one with another. The subjects of sister-marriage, concubinage of captives, lapidation, private revenge, communal or individual responsibility, and others, all show how entirely variable the presentation of the moral standard is for different states of society. Hence we must always regard any given moral standard as being rightly associated with some particular condition of society and typical of it; much as the colour of red heat, or yellow heat, or white heat, is typical of particular temperatures. And instead of blindly reprobating those among us who do not conform to our present theoretical standard, or even the present normal standard, we should regard them as fragments of a different society gone astray in time or space.

Thus we see that diversity should be tolerated up to the limits of the laws that are absolutely necessary to avoid confusion and misunderstanding between members of the same community: and there is no constraining principle which would narrow the variability allowable, short of permitting injustice, hardship, or unfair competition between those who need to work together in mutual confidence and good faith. It may truly be said that civilisation is the means for giving scope to diversity.

Under stagnant and uniform conditions there may be a fossilised form of civilisation; but any living form must yield opportunities for individual effort, and every such opportunity is the making or marring of the man who rises to it or who falls before69 it. The leading tenth and the submerged tenth are equally the proof that a living civilisation is doing its work of sorting out the best and getting rid of the worst stock.

From another point of view, toleration is essential to completion. The enormous variety of character, and ability for special work, is all needed in a complete community. There are many "wrong paradises" in a whole society. We see the necessity for mental diversity, from the pure mathematician who is proud of the inapplicability of his results, through all the successive stages of research work, commercial work, administrative management, and mechanical work, even down to merely automatic work which needs no more mind than a cow's. And it is perfectly clear that such mental diversity must have corresponding variety of external life to accommodate it. The student or experimental worker finds the disturbances of communal life almost insufferable, while the mechanical worker would be miserable almost to suicide in the silence and lack of excitement of a life devoted to abstract thought or to millionths of an inch. If, therefore, the productions of the externals of life differ so profoundly in a complete society, we must expect and allow equally great differences in all the feelings, instincts, and requirements. One man may have a physical repulsion to affecting his mind and condition by stimulants and narcotics, a repulsion that extends more or less to every one addicted to such drugging of the senses. But it would be a misfortune to be without that variety, and the world would be poorer by losing Falstaff, or even Bardolph. The utmost we can say is that we should never be70 blind to the bad effects on the community of a low type if it be too widely diffused.

So long as the extreme parties are but a small portion, and the distribution of variation is normal, most in the middle course and thinning away to the upper and lower limits, the society is stable and benefits by its variations. But if the curve of variation is irregular, and shows two large groups with fewer in the middle course between them, the condition is dangerous. We had such a condition in England in the seventeenth century, and after a long struggle of each group to capture the middle party, the separation into two communities took place. The spiritual ancestors of Clifford and Perks and Byles were happy in their paradise of intolerant puritanism in New England, while Old England had internal peace for a couple of centuries. Another such process of fission now seems growing imminent, and it is again the question as to which group will capture the middle party. The positive danger of a diversity running into two separate groups is notorious in history. The Copts invited the Arab invasion to rid them of Byzantine bondage; the Britons invited the Saxons to save them from their neighbours. The ideals of a County Council which will not tolerate a quiet square in London, or of labour members who promote marches of the unemployed and unlimited taxation at their will, may drive the best thought in England to the tranquillity of a well-governed capital abroad; and as there are many people now who would prefer in England a Boer domination to that of the party represented by Cecil, Halifax, and Riley, so there are many others who would rather submit to a German71 government of London than to a sacking by a hungry mob. The segregation into two groups with an unstable link between them is fatal to the virtues classed as Patriotism. A studious Englishman would sooner have a Japanese or Russian professor for a neighbour, than have the average drinking workman and rowdy family who may be his distant cousins. And assuredly he would make no personal sacrifices to keep out of England any people who were proved to be the moral or intellectual superiors of the rest of his countrymen. We thus see that diversity, however great, must vary about a single centre, if it is to be favourable to society as a whole.

Looking at the general domination of modern law it is truly astonishing how much uniformity is possible. But the fact of a uniform law being in force must not blind us to the existence of a great amount of diversity being now tolerated side by side with it. For instance, we are so accustomed to think of only one type of marriage that the various stages recognised in Roman law seem astonishing. Yet in legal status in England there are ten stages surviving, most of which are tolerated by the law. There is (1) royal assent, needful in the royal family, just as it is needful in every family in some African communities; (2) normal religious or civil marriage; (3) marriage of divorced persons, only civil; (4) within prohibited degrees, but tolerated socially, as deceased wife's sister, or (5) not tolerated, as uncle and niece; (6) quasi-permanent connection with full legal responsibility for children; (7) temporary license. Only in case of lack of full consent does the law step in to punish, in (8) marriage under age, (9) bigamy or72 (10) violence. Every one of these stages has been normal in some conditions of society, and most are normal in some countries even at present. We may, for example, instance (1) normal in Benin; (2) religious marriage only normal in England; (3) normal in Eastern Europe; (4) normal in our colonies; (5) normal in Italy; (6) normal in Islam; (7) normal in Madagascar in interregnum of sovereignty, and in other countries; (8) normal in India; (9) normal in Islam; (10) normal in most warfare. And each of these stages carries with it in England different legal and social conditions. Again, as regards the period of the marriage ceremony, the Church has had a long and hard fight to get it recognised as a hymeneal ceremony and not a maternity ceremony; yet the latter status is recognised in law as equal to the former, and it is still prevalent among a third of marriages in some Australian colonies, and very largely in England, both in the country from end to end and in town life. On the whole some fifteen hundred years of church pressure has not turned the scale very far against the older custom, which we might well call approximation by trial and error. Such is the diversity which is yet uncontrolled.

We must regard society, therefore, as in the above definite subject, in the light of a mixture of many stages of evolution. We may still sit at table with palaeolithic man, put into modern dress and eating modern dishes it is true, but absolutely in the palaeolithic stage of thought and intellect; he is entirely absorbed in the interests of hunting wild animals, and devoted to his appliances for the chase, while incapable of making or improving anything73 belonging to a higher kind of civilisation. Crime and illegalities are very largely merely survivals of different conditions of society, which the law of the majority has not succeeded in repressing. As such, the more reasonable and favourable mode of dealing with them would be deportation to communities where such actions are still normal. Instead of five years' sentence for bigamy, let us exile a man to a Muhammedan country. If we were seriously to establish island communities where theft, violence, anarchy, and other phases incompatible with any passable diversity, were still normal and unpunished, we might leave all those who preferred to practise such conditions to work out their own life and views with kindred minds.

Regarding now the individual rather than the community, we see in modern education a very serious force acting against that diversity which is needful for progress. So far as it is a social force, owing to the herding together of large masses of children, and so destroying family types, it is mainly deleterious. The enforcement of trivial and senseless regulations by boys themselves is entirely a detriment to character, as destroying a habit of dealing with matters on their own merits, and creating a terrible bogey of senseless public opinion. The compulsory games and the ordering of the use of personal time, is another detriment, for it certainly destroys some ability which might find its footing in the character permanently. But beside the detriment of the system of herding, there is the more direct question of the influence of the teaching. Most children begin with a great curiosity concerning the world and their74 experience of it, a curiosity which when unguided leads to many unpleasant and inconvenient results. Hence, instead of guiding it aright, and encouraging the benefits of it, the selfish and lazy plan of elders is to destroy and obliterate the reasoning interest in things, and try to enforce in its place a knowledge of matters, which are generally less useful, and certainly less interesting, than those which a child wants to know about. The leading factor of character, the acquisition of knowledge of benefits and injuries, of good and of evil, is mainly rooted out; and the new plants of abstract ideas and bookwork require generally many years to take good root, if they do so at all. This system lies at the base of the unintellectual character of the average educated Englishman, who takes no useful interest in anything. As an example of this, there is a foreign land full of interest, scientific, historical, and social; for a quarter of a century hundreds of Englishmen have been there in comfortable official positions with reasonable leisure. Yet there is not a single good memoir produced, not even a hundred pages of original matter, outside of official work, by all this mass of educated minds during nearly a generation. The possibility of what might have been done in such grand opportunities has been stamped out by the education which they have suffered. They are all of regulation pattern, with as little variation as is possible between different temperaments—amiable upright men, who will leave no trace of anyone being the wiser in future for their existence. Such is the product of the numbing chill of uniformity, and the weeding out of the advancing power of diversity.

We are all familiar with the epigram of England having a hundred religions but only one sauce; but we see a worse misfortune in the absurd incongruity of now having two hundred religions and only one system of elementary education. Amid the great variety of minds, which is illustrated by the free choice of religious belief and practice, we certainly require a great diversity of education to bring out the best development of each type. We require simultaneous experiment on a small scale, instead of vast experiments of Acts which apply to the whole country for a generation at a time. Every Act is only an experiment, and one which is usually spoiled by attempting too much in a compromise, which is neither fish, flesh, nor fowl. Had there been in 1870 a hundred schools used for experiment, say five of twenty different types in different parts of the country, the life-history of the pupils would by now have given us a firm basis for rational adjustment of a system. It is fatuous to suppose it possible to make one Procrustean bed to fit children of the country, the mining centre, the manufacturing district, the commercial town, or the fisher folk—of the Yorkshire tyke, the Suffolk dumpling, or the Hampshire hog. Nor is it merely the success of a system in producing examination results that has to be attained. It is quite possible that the best workers in after life may not be the best to cram with temporary bookwork. Nothing short of twenty years of active life can test the value of the education on which it is based.

Should we not at least try the effect of varying amount of control by the central board, the local76 council, and the teacher himself? May not some latitude in subject be allowed to a teacher, to follow lines which his own mind is best capable of making useful? Should not a great difference be made between the town, where an infant school is needed, to keep children safe while parents are at work, and the country where they can be left to play in the open? Should not country teaching be adapted to making agriculturists? Might it not be possible to leave children entirely in the fields till sixteen, provided that they could pass in reading at nine, and in figures at twelve, however it was learned? A solid two years' half-timing from sixteen to eighteen, when they valued knowledge, might be worth all they gain in the present way. Such are a few of the questions to which answers are necessary, before we can begin to provide for the diversity of education, which is certainly requisite if we are to make it successful—a help instead of a detriment in after life.

And in more detailed education is it not possible to let a child's mind grow on what is of interest to it—to further it on whatever subjects are most attractive and easy to that type of mind, until the habit of learning is so developed that it can be more easily levelled up on the subjects which have been neglected? The mere habit of learning and applying knowledge has to be acquired to begin with, and surely the easier subjects are the best on which to practise the power of concentration of mind. The trainer knows that his monkeys cannot be taught unless they can concentrate attention on the subject in hand. In every direction we need to gain diversity—in types77 of society, in customs, in varieties of mind; and to gain this basis for useful variation we must begin by cultivating diversity and providing for its success, in place of attacking and crushing it wherever it appears.

Before we can imagine what may be lines of possible advance, for the individual or the community, we should base our ideas on observing what have been the means of advance in the past. Many of the Utopian visions which have been sketched by different writers are in flagrant contradiction of all history and human nature. It is at least far more likely that gain in the future will be on similar lines to those which have been successful in the past, rather than on lines opposed to all previous growth.

The personal, rather than the communal, advance is the main consideration, inasmuch as it is personal initiative of the most able which helps the rest of the community forward. The greatest improvements are the result of a single mind, animating perhaps a small group of similar minds. We all know how such great benefits as prison reform, the abolition of slavery, the restriction of child labour, and similar movements of which the public are now proud, were each originated by one mind, and worked by a small group in the teeth of the bitterest opposition to start with. It goes without saying that the same is the case in all inventions; it takes not only an inventor, but also a commercial organiser (seldom one and the same man), to help the public to any improvement.79 If ten thousand men could be picked out of any one country, so as to remove the most fruitful minds, that country would come to an entire standstill, and would continue in mechanical repetition until a fresh generation gave a chance of the rise of original minds. Probably not more than one in a thousand minds causes useful advance among the others. And the majority of men lead automatic lives, of which the reflexes have been trained by teaching and experience to do what is required, and the daily actions are performed without a single real thought, but only in response to external stimuli of sights and orders. It is therefore in the development of the able individuals, and in giving every chance to such whenever they arise, that the hopes of the great mass must lie.

It is perhaps not too much to say that all general popular advance of the community at large is based on the prevention of waste. Wherever waste exists improvement is possible; and we need not trouble ourselves much about the construction of the social organism, so long as we can lay our finger on the waste and check it. As with a machine we know the amount of force that is put into it, and can see what percentage is yielded up usefully in its output, so it is with a community. The design of the nature and quality of work done by the community or the machine is another matter; though that again comes under the head of waste if the quality is bad. We will now look more precisely at the gains by prevention of waste in health, life, energy, and renewal.

The saving of health is one of the greatest steps that has been made, as it has been suddenly performed80 within a generation. Man had unconsciously conquered bacteria to a great extent by the invention of cooking, and by the experimental learning of cleanliness; but the scientific attack on bacteria and protozoa has given the prospect of preventing all epidemic disease, and largely increasing the efficiency of man in the most fertile countries. This advance means the economic exploitation of the whole tropical regions, which—with cheap transport—will provide an immense fresh basis for the advantage of other lands. The gain in antiseptic surgery, giving safety for operation on all internal organs, as it only affects the small proportion of sick and injured, is not of so much general importance as the conquest of the microorganisms, which have hitherto ruled the best part of the world. It is in the complete domination over all forms of life, however minute, that we shall find one of the greatest lines for future advance. Only a small band of workers, about one in a hundred million of the world's population, has made this advance possible.

The saving of life is another great step which will give man far higher power; not only in the mere hindrance of death, but far more in the increased power of work per day. The power of continuity of work is a growth of civilisation; and it is obvious that a man who can do twelve hours' work per day, instead of six hours, not only lives virtually twice as long, but costs the community only half as much for what he does. This continuity of work, or industry, is seen in both high and low classes of work. Some races can do more than twice as much agricultural work in the day as others. The same is true of scientific or81 commercial work. And there have been some of the highest minds which could only work for two hours a day, while others could work up to fourteen or sixteen hours daily. This power of continuity of work is obviously then a matter improvable by cultivation, both in the individual and in the race; and as it may easily double a man's effective life it is certainly a line of great promise for the future.

Another direction for saving a portion of life is in the rapidity of thought and action. It is easy to find a difference of two or three times the amount of work per hour between different men. All that we have just said about the continuity of work applies to its rapidity; and a large gain may be looked for in cultivating pace and vigour. We need hardly note that trades-union ideals would destroy instead of promoting these most promising and fruitful lines of advance.

In transport from place to place the movement at fifty miles an hour instead of five means a gain of several years of life to most men. But here we have probably reached the useful limits, as any possible further saving would not yield much more time.

The saving of energy is another form of the question of continuity of work. The ideal of work—as varied as possible, and as interesting as possible—being the joy of life and the greatest good, is an aim hardly yet grasped by more than a very few persons. To the majority, work is a hateful thing, to be done solely in order to get means for enjoyment in some other way. This essentially savage and uncultivated ideal needs to be steadily rooted out by the better adaptation of work to the individual. An education which started by cultivating the natural interests,82 using them for mental development, and only superadding what further knowledge was really requisite for life, would greatly help to eradicate the false and low idea of work which prevails. There is a common feeling that business cannot be interesting in itself; but there are few, if any, businesses which if intelligently followed will not yield scope for some real interest of observation and study. The greater application of mind to the work of life will leave far less scope for fruitless amusement and—as a great painter remarked—"there is nothing of interest in life to be compared with work."

To minds which are incapable of continuity of work, or of relaxation by variation of work, mere amusements are needful. Darwin's health prevented more than two hours' work a day, and the flimsiest of novels was his needful relaxation. But the need of amusement for this purpose must be taken as the index of incapacity for continuity—as an unfortunate failure of mental and physical health—as a disastrous defect when it occurs along with great abilities which can only thus work at low speed. The same may be said of athletics; the need of physical exercise outside of work is an index of incapacity for physical health adapted to the work, an unfortunate failure of those who are of defective condition. The idea that no one can be too strong and robust is a wild exaggeration; physical strength needs to be proportioned to the nature of work, and a slender wiry man will do far better for indoor life than a plethoric mass of brawn and muscle which needs much exercise to keep in health. Unlimited robustness is not an absolute good, to be pursued at all costs, or else we should83 make every schoolboy a Hun, living without shelter, and feeding on flaps of raw meat which form the only saddle of his horse. In brief, the need of athletics shows a weakness of body to be remedied, or a physical over-development unsuited to the person's work in life; it is the mark of unfitness, and the need ceases so soon as a man is adapted to his work. The need of spending any considerable time on amusement is the sign of an incapacity, which has to be removed by strengthening the mind in the individual or in the race. The passion for amusement is the sure evidence of a defective education, which has left the mind incapable of continuity, or bare of interests. An important advance therefore lies in better use of the time which is at present wasted in fruitless action of mind or body; better adaptation and education for the work of life will gradually raise the standard so that this form of waste will be avoided. We do not expect a uniform type of horse to be equally adapted to draught or hunting or racing; and similarly we ought to specialise on different types of men fitted for agriculture, or mechanical work, or office work.

The great subject of the waste by renewal of the population in each generation has an immense variety of aspects; but the essential importance of it is seen when we reflect that about half the labour of the world is swallowed up in this renewal. The burden of production, of rearing, of education, and the waste and loss in the process, exceeds that of any other activity, such as supply of food or shelter, for the adult. Hence any possible saving in this great mass of labour, or reduction of waste, is of the first importance to the individual and the race.

Those who have proposed temporary marriage hardly seem to have considered that one of the most important economies adopted, perhaps dating from a pre-human period, was that of permanent marriage. This saved at a stroke the enormous loss of time and energy in the rivalries of repeated mating. The gain to the race by leaving the members free for continuous work is greater than the loss by reproducing inferior stocks. There is no need for the system to have been intentionally adopted for this purpose; but merely a race which economised the time of repeated mating would soon oust a race in which it was customary. For this reason any fancied reconstruction of society without permanent marriage is entirely futile; even if it could be universal, yet the advantage given to the lazy and emotional type of man above the continuous worker would soon pull down the race. One frequent argument for a more revocable union is the number of divorces effected or desired. But nearly all such are among people whose judgment in any other line of life would certainly not be trusted, and who habitually get into trouble over other communal obligations. To abolish marriage for their benefit would be as reasonable as allowing all debts to be repudiated because such people cannot pay their I.O.U.'s. There is moreover a great gain in permanent marriage when judiciously effected, by the new mental pivot of a sense of permanent ensurance of various of the conditions of life, which liberates the attention of both parties from a large number of points, and leaves each free to concentrate attention on a partial phase of feelings and duties. It is a far higher and a spiritual counterpart85 of a successful business partnership, where each member trusts the other to manage a different part of the affair. All this mental economy and help would be impossible without permanence.

Another wastage which has been greatly reduced in modern times is that of high birth rate and high death rate. The allusions in mediaeval times show a state much like that now described among the Slovenes, where incessant maternity is only balanced by the reduction of children due to filth, neglect, and bad conditions. The modern ideal of a small family carefully tended is an immense advance, both for the individual life and for the saving of waste. But its benefits should be sought and not commanded. If the neglectful, dirty, and wasteful stocks of low type in our midst let their children die off, it is the only balance to their overgrowth, which would soon outnumber the better class of population. The right end to begin at is by insisting on hard work and tidy living, under penal enactments; the saving of the children may then be left to take care of itself. To begin at the sentimental end, as is now the fashion, is to degrade the whole race by swamping it with the worst stocks.

The line of progress in invention is the remorseless "scrapping" of poorer machines. The more serious the progress becomes, the more scrapping needs to be done. We must not be surprised then if a sign of human progress of mind and body should be the large number of inefficients who are thrown out of work on the scrap heap of society.

In another direction advance has been made by general lengthening of the stages of life. The early86 marriage and early deaths of past times brought the cost of renewal at every twenty years, which was a much severer tax on the community than renewal in thirty or forty years. There is probably also a great benefit in the higher development of parents before each generation. It is well recognised how the later children of a family are more able, and of a more finished quality than the earlier; great examples of such a view in older literature being Joseph and David, and in our own history, Alfred. The longer growth of mind before each generation appears to be a great gain of advance for the race. Among the lower races, by far the most advanced are those like the Zulu, which have a long period of hard training and active life before settling down to family duties.

The often debated problem dealing with the human refuse of bad stocks is one which presses most on an advanced civilisation. We will not do like the Christian Norseman, when he put the ne'er-do-weel family into a wide grave in the churchyard, and wiped his hands of them. We will not even leave them to exterminate themselves by their own follies, vices, and ignorance. But if the state takes up the burden of such wastrels it must have an entire control of them. Responsibility without rule is worse than rule without responsibility. The only safe course is a rigorous enforcement of parental duties; with the alternative of penal servitude in state workshops, the mother and children together, the father elsewhere. There is no middle course, of semi-maintenance by school meals, which will not injure the children by their being correspondingly neglected at home, injure87 the parents by lowering the spur of necessity to work, and injure the state by flooding it with the worst types.

Much more drastic treatment of the unfit has been advocated, as by Dr. Rentoul. In a future period of civilisation a logical course of treatment might have a chance of adoption; but in our age any serious changes of the habits of thought and action will not be tolerated, unless brought about very gradually under small influences, such as we have noticed as acting through taxation. What we need is to try to give effect to the gospel of giving to him that hath, and taking away from him that hath not. The most likely opening for such a line of advance would be giving partial state maintenance to the best stocks, so as to ensure large returns from them, and taxing down the worst stocks—exactly the opposite course to the present craze. Let us try to realise if there be a practical system for this advance.

We should need a Board of Health in each area of about 10,000 inhabitants, composed of three examining doctors. Every child on leaving school, or at about fifteen, should be examined, merely by a glance at the greater bulk of normal cases, but carefully in extreme cases. The finest 5 per cent. both mentally (shown by school-leaving certificates) and physically as well, should be premiated by assisted higher education of suitable type. The worst 10 per cent. should be remanded to a training school where physical and mental development would be scientifically carried out, and as much profit as possible made from their labour toward self-support. This would reclaim the hooligan class effectually before they run amuck, and88 help on those who need care and assistance to get a good footing in life. No course could possibly be kinder for the weaklings. At the age of twenty a further examination of both the best and the worst classes should ensue. The best half of the most able should receive a certificate granting them practically free support for all children they may have after they have reached the age of twenty-five. The worst half of the most incapable, or 5 per cent. of all, should be required to report residence during their lives to the Board of Health of their district, and informed that if they had any children they must pay a heavy fine, or else go into servitude. This would practically mean the segregation of the lowest class of the unfits under compulsory work. It would be cheaper to the state to keep them thus at work, than to pay poor rates to maintain this submerged twentieth and their helpless families.

In all these proposals there would be no Socialistic constraint of the great majority, which is normal in mind and body. But such attention to the unfit would be merely adding a porch to the poorhouse, the hospital, and the asylum, and there sorting over the material which can be possibly saved from a bad end. The nine-tenths of people who were ordinary would be thus left even more free for individual growth than they now are, when hampered by the inefficient residue.

We might not exclude the thought of another favourite idea of some reformers which in a modified shape might be allowed to gradually take root. Since Spencer Wells familiarised the world with an operation for which he will always be remembered, hundreds89 of women have gladly improved their health by a safe treatment, which, if anything, threatened to become too fashionable. Every woman who was, as above, required to report her residence as being unfit, and being liable to heavy penalties on having children, should be offered the option of perfect freedom if she chose the operation. The marriage of such women, with men who were condemned as unfit, would entirely free both parties from reporting and inspection in future, and give the best prospect of happy lives to the weakest and less capable of the community, free from what would be only too truly "encumbrances" to such people. This course might give a permanently safe line of improvement, without any consequent stigma or hardship in the world around; and so gentle a change—beneficial to the individual as well as the community—seems not outside of future possibilities. At least such a course would be the more practicable form of such a proposed change. Of course, no such legislation would be complete in its action, and evasions would often occur. But if it checked even one half of the growth of bad stock it would be an enormous gain.

We now turn to other lines of advance from the communal point of view. The old system of community, in which all the nations of northern Europe lived, was based on each man being his brother's keeper; every one was liable to fines if any relative committed a crime, in proportion to their closeness of relation. To this succeeded individual responsibility, both in property and in penalties. This raises the question whether it is possible to separate property and penalty in communism. At present the tendency90 is to a state communism, begun by heavy death duties and taxation (for a variety of purposes which the taxed do not use or require), amounting to a quarter of all property. If this system is extended, and property becomes more largely hypothecated to public purposes, then when a man is condemned in heavy damages or fines his neighbours will suffer by reduction of the rateable property. Will it not be thought more fair for his relatives to be responsible for the public loss? And if so, we indirectly revert to the payment by relatives of a share of all fines.

To anyone who has had experience of combined labour, it is obvious how two people working together do not perform twice as much as one alone. There is always a loss by one waiting on the action of another; and it appears as if the amount of work done only increased as the square root of the number of people working together. Hence the group-work of communistic taste is very wasteful. This is practically seen among the Slavs in Russia, where communal agriculture—which is extolled by its admirers—produces far less per acre on fine land, than is obtained by individual agriculture on poor land in England. Again it is notorious how the Irishman who goes to work apart among individualist people, then flourishes as he never does when held down by the communal claims socially enforced among his own countrymen. This is the root of the success of the Irish out of their own land. Thus we see how communal action is the more wasteful form of labour; and how it was a great advance for man when he made individual success entirely depend upon individual labour.

Another question is what form of government will91 most favour the strong breeds and the new strains of ability as they arise? Certainly any system which ties the actions of one person with those of others is detrimental to ability. The better man is held back by the co-operation with others, by their lower example, and by their direct disfavour. Any communistic tie is unfavourable to advance; and it was a great step in favour of new and improved variations when each individual stood entirely on his own resources, and was not bound by his inferior kin. In every way, therefore, individualism was a line of advance for men in the past; and the principles which are involved promise that it will yet likewise be the main line of future advance. If we look practically at which class of government is associated with advance of ideas, of inventions, and new types of thought, let us put on one hand the more individualist countries, America, England, Germany, and perhaps France, and on the other hand the more communist countries, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, Greece, Australia, and especially New Zealand. Can we question for a moment which type of country is most advancing the intellect and abilities of man?

But we must not forget that Union is strength, the motto that Belgium strangely took on separating from Holland; and combined action has great advantages. In this view the beneficial combination is that to which all contribute without one being a hindrance to the other. How far can these benefits be gained without loss to the improved individual? The main principle is that all combinations must be entirely voluntary, and have no suspicion of coercion about them. Where even "peaceful persuasion" comes in, ability92 is crushed, and the whole community is the loser by it. Coercive union of individuals is the unpardonable sin against human nature, because it kills the hopes of the future. The safe line of advance is combination by large clubs for every purpose, with healthy rivalry between similar institutions—benefit clubs, co-operative stores, co-operative works, holiday clubs, and insurance of all kinds. Every inducement should be held out to join in such combinations, giving them the assistance and security of official auditors, as is provided for friendly societies at present Every line in which any class can profitably unite for economic action, on an entirely voluntary basis, and without any tie on the individual beyond his share in the enterprise, is a clear gain to society. In this way the taxation for these ends would fall on those who benefit by them, and not on those who do not want them. Thus the individual would be free to take, or leave alone, the benefits provided; and many purposes to which taxation is now applied would be far better effected by gigantic clubs of those classes who want such assistance. Taxation must be strictly limited to those purposes in which all persons must necessarily share, such as protection and justice.

Hence a future line of advance lies in a great development of purely voluntary co-operation in any one class, in order to obtain the advantages of combination. In one direction it is clear what immense savings might be thus effected. Co-operative purchase of supplies and cooking, with distribution of hot meals to subscribers, would save perhaps a third of the cost of living to the working classes. And if the prepaid weekly subscriptions might be deducted93 before wages were received, such a system would go far to solve the question of proper feeding of children. Again, the education of hand-workers in the subject of economics can be best furthered by the experience gained in co-operative works, and even on this ground alone every encouragement should be given to such combinations of workers.

Another line of advance now coming into practical view is the use of various nationalities, according to their abilities for different kinds of works in foreign countries. We have seen, in Europe, Italian miners taken to many lands for tunnelling and submarine work, we have Norwegians largely employed in our shipping, and English engineers find many careers abroad. Of recent years the great mass of cheap skilled labour of China and Japan has been getting its due share of the world's work. The infamous manner in which the Chinese have been treated in America is apparently now nearly at an end; the Republic where all men are free and equal will be coerced into fairness by the reasonable refusal to take American goods as long as the Americans will not take Chinese labour. In British Columbia the Japanese are objected to because they are more industrious, more economical, more sober and quiet than the white, who, as their inferior in these principal respects, cannot bear their competition. The Americans are likewise trying to prevent their industry, while at the same time wishing to make the Panama Canal with Chinese labour; in this they will probably be rebuffed, unless the whole national position is put on a fair basis. The objections to Chinese labour in South Africa have never been put94 on the real fact—tacitly felt, though unexpressed—that the white dreads the competition of an economical people. First they were said to be tortured in slavery, a lie which served its big political purpose until it was found that they would not leave; then the danger of public crime and burglary was put forward, until it was shown that there were fewer criminals in proportion than among other inhabitants; then a cry of immorality was raised, until the Colonial Secretary stated that the Kaffirs who would replace them had just the same habits. Now the Transvaal refuses to destroy its own welfare by the falseness of playing with any of these cries; but such hatred to free labour has all served the political ends which were intended by an unscrupulous party that revels in keeping a conscience. Meanwhile the Prussian Board of Agriculture desires to import Chinese agriculturists into Germany; and it will be strange if the great German coalfields in South Wales are not run by the cheapest labour that can be obtained. We have no laws to prevent Chinese working freely in England, and we cannot afford to wreck our great China trade by starting a gross injustice of exclusion.

If objections are felt—by a people so immoral as ourselves—to the toleration of any habit of foreign residents, let it be legislated upon equally for all nationalities in England. In this way the Canadians expelled the rowdy negroes who had taken refuge with them in the days of slavery. A rigid and impartial punishment of rowdyism cleared out the undesirable negro, and left the inoffensive behind. The only possible course of safety is not by any laws directed against any one race; for when such95 laws break down in the growth of the future there will be a terrible economic—if not political—catastrophe. Rigid laws to check evils of all inhabitants of a country alike are sound and safe, and will prevent most of the objectionable results of immigration, Jewish, Italian, Chinese, or any other. With such laws a great advance can be made by the free use of that kind of labour which is most adapted to the work, whatever source it may come from. Such must inevitably be the course of the distant future; and those who play with holding what they please to call a "white man's land" will find that "mean whites" of hot countries are wholly inferior to other races which are fitted for such a position. Bret Harte has well stated "the conscious hate and fear with which inferiority always regards the possibility of even-handed justice, and which is the key-note to the vulgar clamour about servile and degraded races."

Another subject which has seemed to be a most promising line of advance is that of the reduction or abolition of warfare. We must not limit our view in this to open and direct violence, there are other forms of warfare quite as effective, and causing as much, or more, misery in the total. The warfare of trade is always going on, each nation is pushing its neighbours as much as it can for its own benefit. Some gain benefit by closed markets and bleeding a monopoly, others benefit by open markets, and each fights for what it wants by trade methods backed with force. The free trader honestly believes that all this can and should be abolished by each country producing what it is best fitted for, and a tacit or96 legal understanding that there is to be no trade rivalry on the various lines thus assigned to different countries. Such would be the only system which could abolish trade warfare. Under such a system advance would be greatly checked, if not killed. Look at the history of quinine; only twenty years ago it was 10s. an ounce, and the growers (though competing among themselves) did not think they could improve the process or reduce the price. The chemist in Europe stepped into the market and smashed the old system by much cheaper artificial quinine. But the growers, sooner than be ruined, invented extraction by petroleum, and brought down the price to 1s. 6d. an ounce. Now here were two acts of violent trade warfare between countries; the result being such an improvement that instead of one of the most life-saving medicines being a luxury, it can now be used six times more freely than before. Without trade war this would never have come about. Free trade implies free competition, and that is trade-warfare.

Another form of trade war is holding a country for the sake of a monopoly of trade, thus enabling a group of manufacturers—say of France—to tax all the inhabitants under their government, especially in colonies—as Algiers, Madagascar, Tahiti, &c. This is simply a form of tribute, like the taxation levied by Rome on various conquered countries; it holds back the taxed countries. If other countries wish to get a share of that trade they will have to fight, by trade or by violence, to conquer the right to join in it. And a trade war which shut, say, all English markets to France, until all French markets were open to97 England, would not violate any economic principle. It is meeting force by force, exclusion by exclusion; and no shudder at our using trade war ourselves will prevent for an instant the trade war which is used against us. Our principles will not weigh a feather in other nations' practice. But warfare is a temporary measure, and retaliation must only be temporary. The great danger would be in establishing a permanent system of taxation of foreign productions, which would be worked to the utmost by trades unions at home, in order to enable them to bleed the country to death by high prices. This terrible danger of ruin is the main reason against protective duties, though seldom, if ever, noticed in public discussion of the subject.

Another form of warfare is the relative burden of armaments. This may be called slow combustion, in contrast to the open flame of war. Now if there is no joint limitation—as at present—the most long-sighted and powerful nation stands to win at this game; the result is the same as if actual war were in progress, but the terrors and destruction of war are avoided. But if there be a joint limitation of armament—as some hope may be established—it must be on such a basis that no one state is left in a condition of clear superiority to another, otherwise it would tie the inferior state to be in a permanently inferior condition. And the qualities which will win will be subterfuge, evasion, and bad faith; whichever state contrives to be better prepared than another behind the agreement will stand to win when the war does come. In the unlimited condition the qualities win which are those best for mankind in all other respects; in the limited98 condition the qualities will win which are worst for mankind otherwise. The real fact is that great armaments are like great states, a needful condition of the new speed of communication. When it took two or three months to move an army from central Europe to England, we had two or three months to prepare; when it takes only two or three days we must be always prepared. No one can put the clock back, and steam is the end of small armaments. Within a generation of quick transport being started, big armaments were found needful, and will never cease to be needful. Great permanent combinations of states are the only line of relief under the new conditions, which bind mankind for ever in the future.

Let us look now at direct war. What are the qualities which tell for success, looking to the wars of recent times with which we are familiar? In the brains of the army the main qualities have been (1) Foresight; (2) Combining power; (3) Honesty; (4) Imagination; (5) Skill; and in the muscle of the army (6) Physique; (7) Industry; (8) Tenacity. In short, success in war requires precisely the same qualities as success in peace. Even if the cause is bad, yet it is the best man all round that wins. In each case recently the winner has been the better power for future civilisation. War then may be defined as the concentration into a year of the same results which would take place by economic causes within perhaps a generation or a century. So far as violent changes are undesirable—as we have noticed before—so far war is undesirable. But on the purely humanitarian view it may be better to flee before one's99 enemies for three months than have three years' famine; it may be better to kill 100,000 in a brief campaign than starve a million during a whole generation by bad trade owing to slow economic changes. War strikes the imagination and impresses the thoughtless with its horror, but a starving peace may be a far more painful process.

It is difficult to see that any of the causes of trade war, armament war, or open war are at all likely to be less in the future than they have been in the past; and if the causes are the same we must expect like effects. Nor do we see that any result of these different kinds of war is injurious to that character of man which is requisite for his advance in better lines. Each of these forms of competition tends to give an advantage to the best qualified race, and to promote the most beneficial strains of character. On the general principle that slow evolution is preferable to violent changes we must look for advance by intensified trade war rather than by armaments, and by the strain of armament rather than by open war.

A direction in which great improvements of organisation may be attained would be in better adaptation of checks. So far as possible, checks should be abolished by establishing interests in the same direction between different parties. The profit-sharing movement is an excellent beginning of what needs to be fully and exactly carried out. The checks of inspection, which have been so greatly multiplied lately, are peculiarly liable to abuses; and a system of fewer and far superior inspectors, much less inspection, and much heavier penalties to correspond, would in the long run prove the safer line. The great check100 by popular election is very wasteful, a general election costing the country over a million pounds in various ways. Precisely as fair a check would be gained by summoning one in a hundred of the electors by lot at the day of election; and the nursing of a constituency would be much diminished.

Lastly, let us look at the final type to which man will probably be led by natural survival. This enquiry is limited throughout to those qualities which are the product of external causes; and no attempt is made to estimate the more spiritual side of man or his higher mental development. For that we have not the same physical basis of research, and it would be a fruitless mixture to include such considerations—however important—in an enquiry which by its scope might be similarly applicable to lower organisms. We are therefore dealing here only with the physical basis of civilisation.

For the sake of safety from aggression and prevention of small quarrels, federations of great size must prevail; while those federations which allow for the greatest diversity between the states will prove more adaptable and vigorous. Similarly, states which allow of the greatest diversity of life to the individual will succeed best, by the promotion of the most vigorous strains. More systematic law will be needed between states. This may perhaps be on the line of all contracts being on the seller's law, and all marriage on the husband's law, regardless of change of residence; and all contracts being suable on their own law in any state.

The greatest empires have in the past allowed great diversity between states. Persia left each land to its101 own laws, and only required the control of a satrap, a small tribute, and unification of army and navy. Rome interfered very little with local law, and left the principal cities autonomous throughout the empire. Britain has carefully preserved local law where a system existed, as in India, the Cape, and many varieties nearer home, even in England itself. The United States have kept local laws of states and local legislatures. Hence it is likely that groups of states with great variety of type will prevail, only unified by a common system of defence and compulsory taxation for that purpose. It is even conceivable that such a system might be established in England, if the Privy Council was supplemented by Colonial ex-ministers of long standing, and was granted powers of assessment over all parliaments for the common defence.

The type of man which must prevail is that of the greatest industry and greatest individuality; each man belonging to many voluntary societies for various united benefits. Agriculture, the main industry of man, will be far more elaborate and economical; as much so as the present Chinese system, or even carried to further detail with machinery. And the unlimited supply of atmospheric nitrates, now in sight, will also greatly increase production. Profit-sharing or the shareholding of all workers must gradually prevail in all industries. The growth of rapidity of thought and action, and the economy of organisation, will enable a living to be earned with perhaps half a day's labour, or less. The large balance of time, beyond that which will be needed for bare necessities, will be spent on a much greater102 development of natural resources and conveniences of life; each man will thus enjoy the result of an immense accumulated capital of improvements and benefits. In short, each one will be rich, either by the cheapness of articles or abundance of money, a merely relative question. The accumulated wealth of improvement will leave a smaller profit on labour, or in other words capital will command a very low interest. Therefore there will be less inducement to work for saving; and hence spare time will be more readily employed in the personal quest of knowledge, and enlargement of mental interests, in literature, in science, in history, and in the arts, or among the less capable in mere amusements. But the higher the social organisation and reward of ability, the more intense will be the weeding of the less capable, and the more highly sustained will be the general level of ability.

That fluctuation will occur is inevitable; but it will be gradually understood that the utmost freedom of labour and communication is the only way to allow changes to be gradual, and so to avert the great and disgraceful catastrophes of forcible migration of hordes. Hence there will tend to be an incessant flow of labour from country to country, assisted by international labour bureaus: thus the wage of any given ability will be equalised over the world, and hence prices of all produce will equalise also. The whole of this action will further enforce the power of ability, and tend to end or mend the less capable.

We must, then, look for a world with approximately equal civilisation and prices in all lands; but with each people developed in their own lines of ability, in103–104 accord with climate and conditions, to such a point that no other people can compete with them in their own conditions. The equatorial races tending to have less initiative and vigour than those of colder climates, the equatorial lands will therefore tend to be each attached to a temperate land which will supply more energy to their development; while a steady drift of population from colder to hotter lands will take place, as for a generation or two they will retain a greater vigour. Thus the tropics will be the seat of the keenest competition and extinction of races; while the borders of the arctic regions will always afford most room for human increase.

So far as peoples turn their backs on the inevitable goal, they will have to painfully retrace their course, or else disappear by extinction; while the peoples who move toward the lines of success will be the fathers of the future. Will they be found in East or West?

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JANUS IN MODERN LIFE ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

	PAGE
Preface	v
CHAPTER I. CHARACTER, THE BASIS OF SOCIETY.
Production of character the most important object, p. 1. The known conditions of physical variation, p. 2. Mental equivalents of physical variation in (1) benefits of ability, p. 4; (2) Inheritance, p. 4; (3) Artificial increase of variation, p. 5; (4) Excitement of variation, p. 6; (5) Gain by use, p. 6; (6) Loss by atrophy, p. 7; (7) Variation made permanent by competition, p. 10. Immutability of general type, physical and mental, p. 11.
CHAPTER II. PRESENT CHANGES OF CHARACTER.
Loss of national character by emigration, p. 13; by promotion of sloth, p. 16. Lack of adaptability, p. 16. Low type of public pleasure, p. 17. Repression of character by communism, p. 20. Conditions of successful communism, p. 20. Communism in early Christianity, p. 23. Intense competition among herbivora, p. 25. Communism fatalistic, p. 26. Destruction of character by municipal communism, p. 26.
xCHAPTER III. TRADE UNIONISM, ITS FLOWER AND FRUITION.
Town influence in Rome, p. 28. Decay of the country, p. 29. Growth of trade unions, p. 30. Trade unions compulsory, p. 30. Cheap production for the proletariat, p. 32. Sharing of proletariat burden by a trade, p. 32. All property hypothecated to the Trade Unions, p. 33. The social burden the destruction of Rome, p. 34. The growth of the little-Italy party, p. 35. Devolution of government, p. 36. The state regulation of prices and wages, p. 37.
CHAPTER IV. REVOLUTION OR EVOLUTION?
Great effects best produced by small causes, p. 40. Revolution leads to greater tyranny, p. 40; also leads to military despotism, p. 41. Radical changes show ignorance, p. 42. Scope to be allowed for gradual change, p. 43. Variability tolerated by bye-laws, p. 44. Effects of small changes as seen in Death Duties and reduced colonising power, p. 44. Income tax and expulsion of trade, p. 47; benefits of taxing extravagance, p. 52; Irish tenant right, p. 53; high interest on loans, p. 55; equalisation of land values, p. 56; growth of cities, p. 57. Effect of workmen's compensation, p. 58; of old age pensions, p. 59; of state help for children, p. 60. Effects of wealth in the hands of different classes, p. 60.
CHAPTER V. THE NEED OF DIVERSITY.
Variability needful for advance of a species, p. 65. Large states a necessary result of rapid communication, p. 66. Diversity needed therefore within the state, as well as between states, p. 67. No moral obligation to uniformity, p. 67. Separate states needed for a doubled-centred diversity, p. 70. Diversity as yet remaining in marriage-law and custom, p. 71. Society a mixture of many past stages of culture, p. 72. Present xieducation a bar to progress by diversity, p. 73. Need of diversity in education, p. 75.
CHAPTER VI. LINES OF ADVANCE.
Personal initiative essential, p. 78. Prevention of waste the main principle of advance, p. 79. Gain in health, p. 79. Gain in amount of activities of life, p. 80. Gain in rapidity, p. 81. Gain by working instead of playing, p. 81. Gain by saving waste in renewal, p. 83. Gain by permanent marriage, p. 84. Gain by high-tending of families, p. 85. Gain by improving or weeding of bad stocks, p. 86. Gain by individualism, p. 89. Gain by free combinations, p. 92. Gain by international labour, p. 93. The meaning of war, by trade, by armament, and by violence, p. 95. Improvement of checks, p. 99. The ultimate type of states, p. 100. The ultimate type of man, p. 101.
Index	105

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Janus in Modern Life

JANUS
IN
MODERN LIFE

PREFACE.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
CHARACTER, THE BASIS OF SOCIETY.

CHAPTER II.
PRESENT CHANGES OF CHARACTER.

CHAPTER III.
TRADE UNIONISM, ITS FLOWER AND FRUITION.

CHAPTER IV.
REVOLUTION OR EVOLUTION?

CHAPTER V.
THE NEED OF DIVERSITY.

CHAPTER VI.
LINES OF ADVANCE.

INDEX.

Transcriber's Note

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Janus in Modern Life

JANUS IN MODERN LIFE

PREFACE.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I. CHARACTER, THE BASIS OF SOCIETY.

CHAPTER II. PRESENT CHANGES OF CHARACTER.

CHAPTER III. TRADE UNIONISM, ITS FLOWER AND FRUITION.

CHAPTER IV. REVOLUTION OR EVOLUTION?

CHAPTER V. THE NEED OF DIVERSITY.

CHAPTER VI. LINES OF ADVANCE.