{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_54076/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_54076","id":"gutenberg_54076","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54076","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Sociology","Philosophy","Political science","Science"],"text":"ESSAYS: SCIENTIFIC, POLITICAL, & SPECULATIVE.\n\n BY\n HERBERT SPENCER.\n\n LIBRARY EDITION,\n (OTHERWISE FIFTH THOUSAND,)\n _Containing Seven Essays not before Republished,\n and various other additions_.\n\n VOL. III.\n\n WILLIAMS AND NORGATE,\n 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON;\n AND 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH.\n 1891.\n\n\n\n\n LONDON:\n G. NORMAN AND SON, PRINTERS, HART STREET,\n COVENT GARDEN.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS OF VOL. III.\n\n\n                                                        PAGE\n\n MANNERS AND FASHION                                       1\n\n RAILWAY MORALS AND RAILWAY POLICY                        52\n\n THE MORALS OF TRADE                                     113\n\n PRISON-ETHICS                                           152\n\n THE ETHICS OF KANT                                      192\n\n ABSOLUTE POLITICAL ETHICS                               217\n\n OVER-LEGISLATION                                        229\n\n REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT\u2014WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?          283\n\n STATE-TAMPERINGS WITH MONEY AND BANKS                   326\n\n PARLIAMENTARY REFORM: THE DANGERS AND THE SAFEGUARDS    358\n\n \u201cTHE COLLECTIVE WISDOM\u201d                                 387\n\n POLITICAL FETICHISM                                     393\n\n SPECIALIZED ADMINISTRATION                              401\n\n FROM FREEDOM TO BONDAGE                                 445\n\n THE AMERICANS                                           471\n\n THE INDEX.\n\n{1}\n\n\n\n\nMANNERS AND FASHION.\n\n[_First published in_ The Westminster Review _for April 1854_.]\n\n\nWhoever has studied the physiognomy of political meetings, cannot\nfail to have remarked a connexion between democratic opinions and\npeculiarities of costume. At a Chartist demonstration, a lecture\non Socialism, or a _soir\u00e9e_ of the Friends of Italy, there will be\nseen many among the audience, and a still larger ratio among the\nspeakers, who get themselves up in a style more or less unusual.\nOne gentleman on the platform divides his hair down the centre,\ninstead of on one side; another brushes it back off the forehead, in\nthe fashion known as \u201cbringing out the intellect;\u201d a third has so\nlong forsworn the scissors, that his locks sweep his shoulders. A\nsprinkling of moustaches may be observed; here and there an imperial;\nand occasionally some courageous breaker of conventions exhibits a\nfull-grown beard.[1] This nonconformity in hair is countenanced by\nvarious nonconformities in dress, shown by others of the assemblage.\nBare necks, shirt-collars _\u00e0 la_ Byron, waistcoats cut Quaker fashion,\nwonderfully shaggy great coats, numerous oddities in form and\ncolour, destroy the monotony usual in crowds. Even those exhibiting\nno conspicuous peculiarity, frequently indicate by something in the\npattern of their clothes, that they pay small regard to what their {2}\ntailors tell them about the prevailing taste. And when the gathering\nbreaks up, the varieties of head gear displayed\u2014the number of caps,\nand the abundance of felt hats\u2014suffice to prove that were the world at\nlarge like-minded, the black cylinders which tyrannize over us would\nsoon be deposed.\n\n [1] This was written before moustaches and beards had become general.\n\nThis relationship between political discontent and disregard of\ncustoms exists on the Continent also. Red republicanism is everywhere\ndistinguished by its hirsuteness. The authorities of Prussia, Austria,\nand Italy, alike recognize certain forms of hat as indicative of\ndisaffection, and fulminate against them accordingly. In some places\nthe wearer of a blouse runs a risk of being classed among the\n_suspects_; and in others, he who would avoid the bureau of police,\nmust beware how he goes out in any but the ordinary colours. Thus,\ndemocracy abroad, as at home, tends towards personal singularity.\nNor is this association of characteristics peculiar to modern times,\nor to reformers of the State. It has always existed; and it has been\nmanifested as much in religious agitations as in political ones. The\nPuritans, disapproving of the long curls of the Cavaliers, as of\ntheir principles, cut their own hair short, and so gained the name of\n\u201cRoundheads.\u201d The marked religious nonconformity of the Quakers was\naccompanied by an equally-marked nonconformity of manners\u2014in attire,\nin speech, in salutation. The early Moravians not only believed\ndifferently, but at the same time dressed differently, and lived\ndifferently, from their fellow Christians. That the association between\npolitical independence and independence of personal conduct, is not\na phenomenon of to-day only, we may see alike in the appearance of\nFranklin at the French court in plain clothes, and in the white hats\nworn by the last generation of radicals. Originality of nature is sure\nto show itself in more ways than one. The mention of George Fox\u2019s suit\nof leather, or Pestalozzi\u2019s school name, \u201cHarry Oddity,\u201d will at\nonce suggest the {3} remembrance that men who have in great things\ndiverged from the beaten track, have frequently done so in small things\nlikewise. Minor illustrations may be gathered in almost every circle.\nWe believe that whoever will number up his reforming and rationalist\nacquaintances, will find among them more than the usual proportion of\nthose who in dress or behaviour exhibit some degree of what the world\ncalls eccentricity.\n\nIf it be a fact that men of revolutionary aims in politics or religion,\nare commonly revolutionists in custom also, it is not less a fact that\nthose whose office it is to uphold established arrangements in State\nand Church, are also those who most adhere to the social forms and\nobservances bequeathed to us by past generations. Practices elsewhere\nextinct still linger about the head quarters of government. The monarch\nstill gives assent to Acts of Parliament in the old French of the\nNormans; and Norman French terms are still used in law. Wigs, such as\nthose we see depicted in old portraits, may yet be found on the heads\nof judges and barristers. The Beefeaters at the Tower wear the costume\nof Henry VIIth\u2019s body-guard. The University dress of the present year\nvaries but little from that worn soon after the Reformation. The\nclaret-coloured coat, knee-breeches, lace shirt-frills, white silk\nstockings, and buckled shoes, which once formed the usual attire of a\ngentleman, still survive as the court-dress. And it need scarcely be\nsaid that at _lev\u00e9es_ and drawing-rooms, the ceremonies are prescribed\nwith an exactness, and enforced with a rigour, not elsewhere to be\nfound.\n\nCan we consider these two series of coincidences as accidental and\nunmeaning? Must we not rather conclude that some necessary relationship\nobtains between them? Are there not such things as a constitutional\nconservatism, and a constitutional tendency to change? Is there not a\nclass which clings to the old in all things; and another class so in\nlove with progress as often to mistake novelty for {4} improvement? Do\nwe not find some men ready to bow to established authority of whatever\nkind; while others demand of every such authority its reason, and\nreject it if it fails to justify itself? And must not the minds thus\ncontrasted tend to become respectively conformist and nonconformist,\nnot only in politics and religion, but in other things? Submission,\nwhether to a government, to the dogmas of ecclesiastics, or to that\ncode of behaviour which society at large has set up, is essentially\nof the same nature; and the sentiment which induces resistance to the\ndespotism of rulers, civil or spiritual, likewise induces resistance\nto the despotism of the world\u2019s usages. All enactments, alike of the\nlegislature, the consistory, and the saloon\u2014all regulations, formal or\nvirtual, have a common character: they are all limitations of men\u2019s\nfreedom. \u201cDo this\u2014Refrain from that,\u201d are the blank forms into which\nthey may severally be written; and throughout the understanding is\nthat obedience will bring approbation here and paradise hereafter;\nwhile disobedience will entail imprisonment, or sending to Coventry,\nor eternal torments, as the case may be. And if restraints, however\nnamed, and through whatever apparatus of means exercised, are one in\ntheir action upon men, it must happen that those who are patient under\none kind of restraint, are likely to be patient under another; and\nconversely, that those impatient of restraint in general, will, on the\naverage, tend to show their impatience in all directions.\n\nThat Law, Religion, and Manners are thus related, and that they have\nin certain contrasted characteristics of men a common support and a\ncommon danger, will, however, be most clearly seen on discovering\nthat they have a common origin. Little as from present appearances we\nshould suppose it, we shall yet find that at first, the control of\nreligion, the control of laws, and the control of manners, were all\none control. Strange as it now seems, we believe it to be demonstrable\nthat the rules of etiquette, the provisions of the statute-book, and\nthe commands of the {5} decalogue, have grown from the same root. If\nwe go far enough back into the ages of primeval Fetishism, it becomes\nmanifest that originally Deity, Chief, and Master of the Ceremonies\nwere identical. To make good these positions, and to show their bearing\non what is to follow, it will be necessary here to traverse ground that\nis in part somewhat beaten, and at first sight irrelevant to our topic.\nWe will pass over it as quickly as consists with the exigencies of the\nargument.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThat the earliest social aggregations were ruled solely by the will\nof the strong man, few dispute.[2] That from the strong man proceeded\nnot only Monarchy, but the conception of a God, few admit: much as\nCarlyle and others have said in evidence of it. If, however, those who\nare unable to believe this, will lay aside the ideas of God and man\nin which they have been educated, and study the aboriginal ideas of\nthem, they will at least see some probability in the hypothesis. Let\nthem remember that before experience had yet taught men to distinguish\nbetween the possible and the impossible; and while they were ready on\nthe slightest suggestion to ascribe unknown powers to any object and\nmake a fetish of it; their conceptions of humanity and its capacities\nwere necessarily vague, and without specific limits. The man who by\nunusual strength, or cunning, achieved something that others had failed\nto achieve, or something which they did not understand, was considered\nby them as differing from themselves; and, as we see in the belief of\nsome Polynesians that only their chiefs have souls, or in that of the\nancient Peruvians that their nobles were divine by birth, the ascribed\ndifference was apt to be not one of degree only, but one of kind. Let\nthem remember next, how gross were the notions of God, or {6} rather\nof gods, prevalent during the same era and afterwards\u2014how concretely\ngods were conceived as men of specific aspects dressed in specific\nways\u2014how their names were literally \u201cthe strong,\u201d \u201cthe destroyer,\u201d\n\u201cthe powerful one,\u201d\u2014how, according to the Scandinavian mythology, the\n\u201csacred duty of blood-revenge\u201d was acted on by the gods themselves,\u2014and\nhow they were not only human in their vindictiveness, their cruelty,\nand their quarrels with each other, but were supposed to have amours\non earth, and to consume the viands placed on their altars. Add to\nwhich, that in various mythologies, Greek, Scandinavian, and others,\nthe oldest beings are giants; that according to a traditional genealogy\nthe gods, demi-gods, and in some cases men, are descended from these\nafter the human fashion; and that while in the East we hear of sons\nof God who saw the daughters of men that they were fair, the Teutonic\nmyths tell of unions between the sons of men and the daughters of the\ngods. Let them remember, too, that at first the idea of death differed\nwidely from that which we have; that there are still tribes who, on\nthe decease of one of their number, attempt to make the corpse stand,\nand put food into its mouth; that the Peruvians had feasts at which\nthe mummies of their dead Incas presided, when, as Prescott says, they\npaid attention \u201cto these insensible remains as if they were instinct\nwith life;\u201d that among the Fijians it is believed that every enemy has\nto be killed twice; that the Eastern Pagans give extension and figure\nto the soul, and attribute to it all the same members, all the same\nsubstances, both solid and liquid, of which our bodies are composed;\nand that it is the custom among most barbarous races to bury food,\nweapons, and trinkets along with the dead body, under the manifest\nbelief that it will presently need them. Lastly, let them remember\nthat the other world, as originally conceived, is simply some distant\npart of this world\u2014some Elysian fields, some happy hunting-ground,\naccessible even to the living, and to which, {7} after death, men\ntravel in anticipation of a life analogous in general character to that\nwhich they led before. Then, co-ordinating these general facts\u2014the\nascription of unknown powers to chiefs and medicine men; the belief\nin deities having human forms, passions, and behaviour; the imperfect\ncomprehension of death as distinguished from life; and the proximity\nof the future abode to the present, both in position and character\u2014let\nthem reflect whether they do not almost unavoidably suggest the\nconclusion that the aboriginal god is the dead chief: the chief not\ndead in our sense, but gone away, carrying with him food and weapons to\nsome rumoured region of plenty, some promised land, whither he had long\nintended to lead his followers, and whence he will presently return\nto fetch them. This hypothesis once entertained, is seen to harmonize\nwith all primitive ideas and practices. The sons of the deified chief\nreigning after him, it necessarily happens that all early kings are\nheld descendants of the gods; and the fact that alike in Assyria,\nEgypt, among the Jews, Ph\u0153nicians, and ancient Britons, kings\u2019 names\nwere formed out of the names of the gods, is fully explained. The\ngenesis of Polytheism out of Fetishism, by the successive migrations of\nthe race of god-kings to the other world\u2014a genesis illustrated in the\nGreek mythology, alike by the precise genealogy of the deities, and by\nthe specifically-asserted apotheosis of the later ones\u2014tends further\nto bear it out. It explains the fact that in the old creeds, as in the\nstill extant creed of the Otaheitans, every family has its guardian\nspirit, who is supposed to be one of their departed relatives; and that\nthey sacrifice to these as minor gods\u2014a practice still pursued by the\nChinese and even by the Russians. It is perfectly congruous with the\nGrecian myths concerning the wars of the Gods with the Titans and their\nfinal usurpation; and it similarly agrees with the fact that among the\nTeutonic gods proper was one Freir who came among them by adoption,\n\u201cbut was born {8} among the _Vanes_, a somewhat mysterious _other_\ndynasty of gods, who had been conquered and superseded by the stronger\nand more warlike Odin dynasty.\u201d It harmonizes, too, with the belief\nthat there are different gods to different territories and nations,\nas there were different chiefs; that these gods contend for supremacy\nas chiefs do; and it gives meaning to the boast of neighbouring\ntribes\u2014\u201cOur god is greater than your god.\u201d It is confirmed by the\nnotion universally current in early times, that the gods come from this\nother abode, in which they commonly live, and appear among men\u2014speak to\nthem, help them, punish them. And remembering this, it becomes manifest\nthat the prayers put up by primitive peoples to their gods for aid in\nbattle, are meant literally\u2014that their gods are expected to come back\nfrom the other kingdom they are reigning over, and once more fight the\nold enemies they had before warred against so implacably; and it needs\nbut to name the Iliad, to remind every one how thoroughly they believed\nthe expectation fulfilled.[3]\n\n [2] The few who disputed it would be right however. There are stages\n preceding that in which chiefly power becomes established; and in many\n cases it never does become established.\n\n [3] In this paragraph, which I have purposely left standing word for\n word as it did when republished with other essays in Dec. 1857, will be\n seen the outline of the ghost-theory. Though there are references to\n fetishism as a primitive form of belief, and though at that time I had\n passively accepted the current theory (though never with satisfaction,\n for the origin of fetishism as then conceived seemed incomprehensible)\n yet the belief that inanimate objects may possess supernatural powers\n (which is what was then understood as fetishism) is not dwelt upon as\n a primitive belief. The one thing which is dwelt upon is the belief in\n the double of the dead man as continuing to exist, and as becoming an\n object of propitiation and eventually of worship. There are clearly\n marked out the rudiments which, when supplied with the mass of facts\n collected in the _Descriptive Sociology_ developed into the doctrine\n elaborated in Part I. of _The Principles of Sociology_.\n\nAll government, then, being originally that of the strong man who has\nbecome a fetish by some manifestation of superiority, there arises,\nat his death\u2014his supposed departure on a long-projected expedition,\nin which he is accompanied by the slaves and concubines sacrificed\nat his tomb\u2014there arises, then, the incipient division of religious\n{9} from political control, of spiritual rule from civil. His son\nbecomes deputed chief during his absence; his authority is cited\nas that by which his son acts; his vengeance is invoked on all who\ndisobey his son; and his commands, as previously known or as asserted\nby his son, become the germ of a moral code: a fact we shall the more\nclearly perceive if we remember, that early moral codes inculcate\nmainly the virtues of the warrior, and the duty of exterminating some\nneighbouring tribe whose existence is an offence to the deity. From\nthis point onwards, these two kinds of authority, at first complicated\ntogether as those of principal and agent, become slowly more and more\ndistinct. As experience accumulates, and ideas of causation grow more\nprecise, kings lose their supernatural attributes; and, instead of\nGod-king, become God-descended king, God-appointed king, the Lord\u2019s\nanointed, the vicegerent of Heaven, ruler reigning by Divine right.\nThe old theory, however, long clings to men in feeling, after it has\ndisappeared in name; and \u201csuch divinity doth hedge a king,\u201d that even\nnow, many, on first seeing one, feel a secret surprise at finding him\nan ordinary sample of humanity. The sacredness attaching to royalty\nattaches afterwards to its appended institutions\u2014to legislatures,\nto laws. Legal and illegal are synonymous with right and wrong; the\nauthority of Parliament is held unlimited; and a lingering faith\nin governmental power continually generates unfounded hopes from\nits enactments. Political scepticism, however, having destroyed the\ndivine _prestige_ of royalty, goes on ever increasing, and promises\nultimately to reduce the State to a purely secular institution, whose\nregulations are limited in their sphere, and have no other authority\nthan the general will. Meanwhile, the religious control has been little\nby little separating itself from the civil, both in its essence and\nin its forms. While from the God-king of the barbarian have arisen\nin one direction, secular rulers who, age by age, have been losing\n{10} the sacred attributes men ascribed to them; there has arisen in\nanother direction, the conception of a deity, who, at first human in\nall things, has been gradually losing human materiality, human form,\nhuman passions, human modes of action: until now, anthropomorphism\nhas become a reproach. Along with this wide divergence in men\u2019s ideas\nof the divine and civil ruler has been taking place a corresponding\ndivergence in the codes of conduct respectively proceeding from them.\nWhile the king was a deputy-god\u2014a governor such as the Jews looked\nfor in the Messiah\u2014a governor considered, as the Czar still is, \u201cour\nGod upon earth,\u201d\u2014it, of course, followed that his commands were the\nsupreme rules. But as men ceased to believe in his supernatural origin\nand nature, his commands ceased to be the highest; and there arose a\ndistinction between the regulations made by him, and the regulations\nhanded down from the old god-kings, who were rendered ever more sacred\nby time and the accumulation of myths. Hence came respectively, Law\nand Morality: the one growing ever more concrete, the other more\nabstract; the authority of the one ever on the decrease, that of\nthe other ever on the increase; originally the same, but now placed\ndaily in more marked antagonism. Simultaneously there has been going\non a separation of the institutions administering these two codes of\nconduct. While they were yet one, of course Church and State were\none: the king was arch-priest, not nominally, but really\u2014alike the\ngiver of new commands and the chief interpreter of the old commands;\nand the deputy-priests coming out of his family were thus simply\nexpounders of the dictates of their ancestry: at first as recollected,\nand afterwards as ascertained by professed interviews with them. This\nunion between sacred and secular\u2014which still existed practically\nduring the middle ages, when the authority of kings was mixed up\nwith the authority of the pope, when there were bishop-rulers having\nall the powers of feudal lords, and when priests punished {11} by\npenances\u2014has been, step by step, becoming less close. Though monarchs\nare still \u201cdefenders of the faith,\u201d and ecclesiastical chiefs, they\nare but nominally such. Though bishops still have civil power, it is\nnot what they once had. Protestantism shook loose the bonds of union;\nDissent has long been busy in organizing a mechanism for religious\ncontrol, wholly independent of law; in America, a separate organization\nfor that purpose already exists; and if anything is to be hoped from\nthe Anti-State-Church Association\u2014or, as it has been newly named,\n\u201cThe Society for the Liberation of Religion from State Patronage and\nControl\u201d\u2014we shall presently have a separate organization here also.\nThus, in authority, in essence, and in form, political and spiritual\nrule have been ever more widely diverging from the same root. That\nincreasing division of labour which marks the progress of society in\nother things, marks it also in this separation of government into civil\nand religious; and if we observe how the morality which now forms the\nsubstance of religions in general, is beginning to be purified from\nthe associated creeds, we may anticipate that this division will be\nultimately carried much further.\n\nPassing now to the third species of control\u2014that of Manners\u2014we shall\nfind that this, too, while it had a common genesis with the others,\nhas gradually come to have a distinct sphere and a special embodiment.\nAmong early aggregations of men before yet social observances existed,\nthe sole forms of courtesy known were the signs of submission to the\nstrong man; as the sole law was his will, and the sole religion the awe\nof his supposed supernaturalness. Originally, ceremonies were modes of\nbehaviour to the god-king. Our commonest titles have been derived from\nhis names. And all salutations were primarily worship paid to him. Let\nus trace out these truths in detail, beginning with titles.\n\nThe fact already noticed, that the names of early kings among divers\nraces are formed by the addition of certain {12} syllable to the\nnames of their gods\u2014which certain syllables, like our _Mac_ and\n_Fitz_, probably mean \u201cson of,\u201d or \u201cdescended from\u201d\u2014at once gives\nmeaning to the term _Father_ as a divine title. And when we read, in\nSelden, that \u201cthe composition out of these names of Deities was not\nonly proper to Kings: their Grandees and more honorable Subjects\u201d\n(no doubt members of the royal race) \u201chad sometimes the like;\u201d we\nsee how the term _Father_, properly used by these also, and by their\nmultiplying descendants, came to be a title used by the people in\ngeneral. As bearing on this point, it is significant that in the\nleast advanced country of Europe, where belief in the divine nature\nof the ruler still lingers, _Father_ in this higher sense, is still a\nregal distinction. When, again, we remember how the divinity at first\nascribed to kings was not a complimentary fiction but a supposed fact;\nand how, further, the celestial bodies were believed to be personages\nwho once lived among men; we see that the appellations of oriental\nrulers, \u201cBrother to the Sun,\u201d &c., were probably once expressive of\na genuine belief; and have simply, like many other things, continued\nin use after all meaning has gone out of them. We may infer, too,\nthat the titles God, Lord, Divinity, were given to primitive rulers\nliterally\u2014that the _nostra divinitas_ applied to the Roman emperors,\nand the various sacred designations that have been borne by monarchs,\ndown to the still extant phrase, \u201cOur Lord the King,\u201d are the dead and\ndying forms of what were once living facts. From these names, God,\nFather, Lord, Divinity, originally belonging to the God-king, and\nafterwards to God and the king, the derivation of our commonest titles\nof respect is traceable. There is reason to think that these titles\nwere originally proper names. Not only do we see among the Egyptians,\nwhere Pharaoh was synonymous with king, and among the Romans, where to\nbe C\u00e6sar, meant to be Emperor, that the proper names of the greatest\nmen were transferred to their successors, and so became class-names;\n{13} but in the Scandinavian mythology we may trace a human title of\nhonour up to the proper name of a divine personage. In Anglo-Saxon\n_bealdor_, or _baldor_, means _Lord_; and Balder is the name of the\nfavourite of Odin\u2019s sons. How these names of honour became general is\neasily understood. The relatives of the primitive kings\u2014the grandees\ndescribed by Selden as having names formed on those of the gods, and\nshown by this to be members of the divine race\u2014necessarily shared\nin the epithets descriptive of superhuman relationships and nature.\nTheir ever-multiplying offspring inheriting these, gradually rendered\nthem comparatively common. And then they came to be applied to every\nman of power: partly from the fact that, in those early days when men\nconceived divinity simply as a stronger kind of humanity, great persons\ncould be called by divine epithets with but little exaggeration; partly\nfrom the fact that the unusually potent were apt to be considered as\nunrecognised or illegitimate descendants of \u201cthe strong, the destroyer,\nthe powerful one;\u201d and partly, also, from compliment and the desire\nto propitiate. As superstition diminished, this last became the sole\ncause. And if we remember that it is the nature of compliment, to\nattribute more than is due\u2014that in the ever widening application of\n\u201cesquire,\u201d in the perpetual repetition of \u201cyour honour\u201d by the fawning\nIrishman, and in the use of the name \u201cgentleman\u201d to any coalheaver or\ndustman by the lower classes of London, we have current examples of the\ndepreciation of titles consequent on compliment\u2014and that in barbarous\ntimes, when the wish to propitiate was stronger than now, this effect\nmust have been greater; we shall see that there naturally arose from\nthis cause an extensive misuse of all early distinctions. Hence the\nfacts that the Jews called Herod a god; that _Father_, in its higher\nsense, was a term used among them by servants to masters; that _Lord_\nwas applicable to any person of worth and power. Hence, too, the fact\nthat, in the later periods of the Roman Empire, every man saluted his\nneighbour as {14} _Dominus_ or _Rex_. But it is in the titles of the\nmiddle ages, and in the growth of our modern ones out of them, that\nthe process is most clearly seen. _Herr_, _Don_, _Signor_, _Seigneur_,\n_Se\u00f1or_, were all originally descriptive names of rulers. By the\ncomplimentary use of these names to all who could, on any pretence,\nbe supposed to merit them, and by successive descents to still lower\ngrades, they have come to be common forms of address. At first the\nphrase in which a serf accosted his despotic chief, _mein Herr_ is now\nfamiliarly applied in Germany to ordinary people. The Spanish title\n_Don_, once proper to noblemen and gentlemen only, is now accorded to\nall classes. So, too, is it with _Signor_ in Italy. _Seigneur_ and\n_Monseigneur_, by contraction in _Sieur_ and _Monsieur_, have produced\nthe term of respect claimed by every Frenchman. And whether _Sire_ be\nor be not a like contraction of _Signor_, it is clear that, as it was\nborne by sundry of the ancient feudal lords of France, who, as Selden\nsays, \u201caffected rather to bee stiled by the name of _Sire_ than Baron,\nas _Le Sire de Montmorencie_, _Le Sire de Beaujeu_, and the like,\u201d\nand as it has been commonly used to monarchs, our word _Sir_, which\nis derived from it, originally meant lord or king. Thus, too, is it\nwith feminine titles. _Lady_, which, according to Horne Tooke, means\n_exalted_, and was at first given only to the few, is now given to\nall women of education. _Dame_, once an honourable name to which, in\nold books, we find the epithets of \u201chigh-born\u201d and \u201cstately\u201d affixed,\nhas now, by repeated widenings of its application, become relatively\na term of contempt. And if we trace the compound of this, _ma Dame_,\nthrough its contractions\u2014_Madam_, _ma\u2019am_, _mam_, _mum_, we find that\nthe \u201cYes\u2019m\u201d of Sally to her mistress is originally equivalent to \u201cYes,\nmy exalted,\u201d or \u201cYes, your highness.\u201d Throughout, therefore, the\ngenesis of words of honour has been the same. Just as with the Jews and\nwith the Romans, has it been with the modern Europeans. Tracing these\neveryday names to their primitive significations of _lord_ and _king_,\nand {15} remembering that in aboriginal societies these were applied\nonly to the gods and their descendants, we arrive at the conclusion\nthat our familiar _Sir_ and _Monsieur_ are, in their primary and\nexpanded meanings, terms of adoration.\n\nFurther to illustrate this gradual depreciation of titles, and to\nconfirm the inference drawn, it may be well to notice in passing, that\nthe oldest of them have, as might be expected, been depreciated to the\ngreatest extent. Thus, _Master_\u2014a word proved by its derivation, and by\nthe similarity of the connate words in other languages (Fr., _ma\u00eetre_\nfor _maistre_; Dutch, _meester_; Dan., _mester_; Ger., _meister_)\nto have been one of the earliest in use for expressing lordship\u2014has\nnow become applicable to children only, and, under the modification\nof \u201cMister,\u201d to persons next above the labourer. Again, knighthood,\nthe oldest kind of dignity, is also the lowest; and Knight Bachelor,\nwhich is the lowest order of knighthood, is more ancient than any\nother of the orders. Similarly, too, with the peerage: Baron is alike\nthe earliest and least elevated of its divisions. This continual\ndegradation of all names of honour has, from time to time, made it\nrequisite to introduce new ones having the distinguishing effects\nwhich the originals had lost by generality of use; just as our habit\nof misapplying superlatives has, by gradually destroying their force,\nentailed the need for fresh ones. And if, within the last thousand\nyears, this process has worked results thus marked, we may readily\nconceive how, during previous thousands, the titles of gods and\ndemi-gods came to be used to all persons exercising power; as they have\nsince come to be used to persons of respectability.\n\nIf from names of honour we turn to phrases of honour, we find similar\nfacts. The oriental styles of address, applied to ordinary people\u2014\u201cI\nam your slave,\u201d \u201cAll I have is yours,\u201d \u201cI am your sacrifice\u201d\u2014attribute\nto the individual spoken to the same greatness that _Monsieur_ and _My\nLord_ do: they ascribe to him the character of an {16} all-powerful\nruler, so immeasurably superior to the speaker as to be his owner. So,\nlikewise, with the Polish expressions of respect\u2014\u201cI throw myself under\nyour feet,\u201d \u201cI kiss your feet.\u201d In our now meaningless subscription\nto a formal letter\u2014\u201cYour most obedient servant\u201d\u2014the same thing is\nvisible. Nay, even in the familiar signature \u201cYours faithfully,\u201d the\n\u201cyours,\u201d if interpreted as originally meant, is the expression of a\nslave to his master. All these dead forms were once living embodiments\nof fact; were primarily the genuine indications of that submission to\nauthority which they verbally assert; were afterwards naturally used by\nthe weak and cowardly to propitiate those above them; gradually grew\nto be considered the due of such; and, by a continually wider misuse,\nhave lost their meanings, as _Sir_ and _Master_ have done. That, like\ntitles, they were in the beginning used only to the God-king, is\nindicated by the fact that, like titles, they were subsequently used\nin common to God and the king. Religious worship has ever largely\nconsisted of professions of obedience, of being God\u2019s servants, of\nbelonging to him to do what he will with. Like titles, therefore, these\ncommon phrases of honour had a devotional origin. Perhaps, however,\nit is in the use of the word _you_ as a singular pronoun that the\npopularizing of what were once supreme distinctions is most markedly\nillustrated. This addressing of a single individual in the plural,\nwas originally an honour given only to the highest\u2014was the reciprocal\nof the imperial \u201cwe\u201d assumed by such. Yet now, by being applied to\nsuccessively lower and lower classes, it has become all but universal.\nOnly by one sect of Christians, and in a few secluded districts, is the\nprimitive _thou_ still used. And the _you_, in becoming common to all\nranks, has simultaneously lost every vestige of the distinction once\nattaching to it.\n\nBut the genesis of Manners out of forms of allegiance and worship, is\nabove all shown in modes of salutation. Note first the significance of\nthe word. Among the Romans, the {17} _salutatio_ was a daily homage\npaid by clients and inferiors to their superiors. This was alike the\ncase with civilians and in the army. The very derivation of our word,\ntherefore, is suggestive of submission. Passing to particular forms of\nobeisance (mark the word again), let us begin with the Eastern one of\nbaring the feet. This was, primarily, a mark of reverence, alike to\na god and a king. The act of Moses before the burning bush, and the\npractice of Mahometans, who are sworn on the Koran with their shoes\noff, exemplify the one employment of it; the custom of the Persians,\nwho remove their shoes on entering the presence of their monarch,\nexemplifies the other. As usual, however, this homage, paid next to\ninferior rulers, has descended from grade to grade. In India it is\na common mark of respect; the lower orders of Turks never enter the\npresence of their superiors but in their stockings; and in Japan,\nthis baring of the feet is an ordinary salutation of man to man.\nTake another case. Selden, describing the ceremonies of the Romans,\nsays:\u2014\u201cFor whereas it was usuall either to kiss the Images of their\nGods, or, adoring them, to stand somewhat off before them, solemnly\nmoving the right hand to the lips, and then, casting it as if they had\ncast kisses, to turne the body on the same hand (which was the right\nforme of Adoration), it grew also by custom, first that the Emperors,\nbeing next to Deities, and by some accounted as Deities, had the like\ndone to them in acknowledgment of their Greatness.\u201d If, now, we call to\nmind the awkward salute of a village school-boy, made by putting his\nopen hand up to his face and describing a semicircle with his forearm;\nand if we remember that the salute thus used as a form of reverence in\ncountry districts, is most likely a remnant of the feudal times; we\nshall see reason for thinking that our common wave of the hand to a\nfriend across the street, represents what was primarily a devotional\nact.\n\nSimilarly have originated all forms of respect depending {18} upon\ninclinations of the body. Entire prostration is the aboriginal sign\nof submission. The passage of Scripture\u2014\u201cThou hast put all under his\nfeet,\u201d and that other one, so suggestive in its anthropomorphism\u2014\u201cThe\nLord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make\nthine enemies thy footstool,\u201d imply, what the Assyrian sculptures\nbear out, that it was the practice of the ancient god-kings of the\nEast to trample on the conquered. As there are existing savages who\nsignify submission by placing the neck under the foot of the person\nsubmitted to, it becomes obvious that all prostration, especially when\naccompanied by kissing the foot, expressed a willingness to be trodden\nupon\u2014was an attempt to mitigate wrath by saying, in signs, \u201cTread on\nme if you will.\u201d Remembering, too, that kissing the foot, as of the\nPope and of a saint\u2019s statue, still continues in Europe to be a mark of\nextreme reverence; that prostration to feudal lords was once general,\nand that its disappearance must have taken place, not abruptly, but by\ngradual change into something else; we have ground for deriving from\nthese deepest of humiliations all inclinations of respect: especially\nas the transition is traceable. The reverence of a Russian serf,\nwho bends his head to the ground, and the salaam of the Hindoo, are\nabridged prostrations; a bow is a short salaam; a nod is a short bow.\nShould any hesitate to admit this conclusion, then perhaps, on being\nreminded that the lowest of these obeisances are common where the\nsubmission is most abject; that among ourselves the profundity of the\nbow marks the amount of respect; and lastly, that the bow is even now\nused devotionally in our churches\u2014by Catholics to their altars, and by\nProtestants at the name of Christ\u2014they will see sufficient reason for\nthinking that this salutation also was originally worship.\n\nThe same may be said, too, of the curtsy, or courtesy, as it is\notherwise written. Its derivation from _courtoisie_, courteousness,\nthat is, behaviour like that at court, at once {19} shows that it\nwas primarily the reverence paid to a monarch. And if we call to mind\nthat falling on the knees, or on one knee, has been a common obeisance\nof subjects to rulers; that in ancient manuscripts and tapestries,\nservants are depicted as assuming this attitude while offering the\ndishes to their masters at table; and that this same attitude is\nassumed towards our own queen at every presentation; we may infer, what\nthe character of the curtsy itself suggests, that it is an abridged act\nof kneeling. As the word has been contracted from _courtoisie_ into\ncurtsy; so the motion has been contracted from a placing of the knee on\nthe floor, to a lowering of the knee towards the floor. Moreover, when\nwe compare the curtsy of a lady with the awkward one a peasant girl\nmakes, which, if continued, would bring her down on both knees, we may\nsee in this last a remnant of that greater reverence required of serfs.\nAnd when, from considering that simple kneeling of the West, still\nrepresented by the curtsy, we pass Eastward, and note the attitude of\nthe Mahommedan worshipper, who not only kneels but bows his head to\nthe ground, we may infer that the curtsy also, is an evanescent form\nof the aboriginal prostration. In further evidence of this it may be\nremarked, that there has but recently disappeared from the salutations\nof men, an action having the same proximate derivation with the curtsy.\nThat backward sweep of the right foot with which the conventional\nstage-sailor accompanies his bow\u2014a movement which prevailed generally\nin past generations, when \u201ca bow and a scrape\u201d went together, and\nwhich, within the memory of living persons, was made by boys to their\nmaster when entering school, with the effect of wearing a hole in the\nfloor\u2014is pretty clearly a preliminary to going on one knee. A motion\nso ungainly could never have been intentionally introduced; even if\nthe artificial introduction of obeisances were possible. Hence we must\nregard it as the remnant of something antecedent: and {20} that this\nsomething antecedent was humiliating may be inferred from the phrase,\n\u201cscraping an acquaintance;\u201d which, being used to denote the gaining of\nfavour by obsequiousness, implies that the scrape was considered a mark\nof servility\u2014that is, of servile position.\n\nConsider, again, the uncovering of the head. Almost everywhere this\nhas been a sign of reverence, alike in temples and before potentates;\nand it yet preserves among us some of its original meaning. Whether\nit rains, hails, or shines, you must keep your head bare while\nspeaking to the monarch; and no one may keep his hat on in a place of\nworship. As usual, however, this ceremony, at first a submission to\ngods and kings, has become in process of time a common civility. Once\nan acknowledgment of another\u2019s unlimited supremacy, the removal of\nthe hat is now a salute accorded to very ordinary persons; and that\nuncovering originally reserved for entrance into \u201cthe house of God\u201d or\nthe residence of the ruler, good manners now dictates on entrance into\na labourer\u2019s cottage.\n\nStanding, too, as a mark of respect, has undergone like extensions\nin its application. Shown, by the practice in our churches, to be\nintermediate between the humiliation signified by kneeling and the\nself-respect which sitting implies, and used at courts as a form of\nhomage when more active demonstrations of it have been made, this\nposture is now employed in daily life to show consideration; as seen\nalike in the attitude of a servant before a master, and in that rising\nwhich politeness prescribes on the entrance of a visitor.\n\nMany other threads of evidence might have been woven into our argument.\nAs, for example, the significant fact, that if we trace back our\nstill existing law of primogeniture\u2014if we consider it as displayed by\nScottish clans, in which not only ownership but government devolved\nfrom the beginning on the eldest son of the eldest\u2014if we look further\nback, and observe that the old titles of lordship, {21} _Signor_,\n_Seigneur_, _Se\u00f1or_, _Sire_, _Sieur_, all originally mean senior, or\nelder\u2014if we go Eastward, and find that _Sheick_ has a like derivation,\nand that the Oriental names for priests, as _Pir_, for instance, are\nliterally interpreted _old man_\u2014if we note in Hebrew records how far\nback dates the ascribed superiority of the first-born, how great the\nauthority of elders, and how sacred the memory of patriarchs\u2014and if,\nthen, we remember that among divine titles are \u201cAncient of Days,\u201d\nand \u201cFather of Gods and men;\u201d\u2014we see how completely these facts\nharmonize with the hypothesis, that the aboriginal god is the first\nman sufficiently great to become a tradition, the earliest whose power\nand deeds made him remembered; that hence antiquity unavoidably became\nassociated with superiority, and age with nearness in blood to \u201cthe\npowerful one;\u201d that so there naturally arose that domination of the\neldest which characterizes the history of all the higher races, and\nthat theory of human degeneracy which even yet survives. We might\nfurther dwell on the facts, that _Lord_ signifies high-born, or, as\nthe same root gives a word meaning heaven, possibly heaven-born; that,\nbefore it became common, Sir or _Sire_, as well as _Father_, was the\ndistinction of a priest; that _worship_, originally worth-ship\u2014a term\nof respect that has been used commonly, as well as to magistrates\u2014is\nalso our term for the act of attributing greatness or worth to the\nDeity; so that to ascribe worth-ship to a man is to worship him. We\nmight make much of the evidence that all early governments are more\nor less distinctly theocratic; and that among ancient Eastern nations\neven the commonest forms and customs had religious sanctions. We\nmight enforce our argument respecting the derivation of ceremonies,\nby tracing out the aboriginal obeisance made by putting dust on the\nhead, which symbolizes putting the head in the dust; by affiliating the\npractice found in certain tribes, of doing another honour by presenting\nhim with a portion of hair torn from the head\u2014an act which {22} seems\ntantamount to saying, \u201cI am your slave;\u201d by investigating the Oriental\ncustom of giving to a visitor any object he speaks of admiringly, which\nis pretty clearly a carrying out of the compliment, \u201cAll I have is\nyours.\u201d\n\nWithout enlarging, however, on these and minor facts, we venture\nto think that the evidence assigned is sufficient. Had the proofs\nbeen few, or of one kind, little faith could have been placed in the\ninference. But numerous as they are, alike in the case of titles, in\nthat of complimentary phrases, and in that of salutes\u2014similar and\nsimultaneous, too, as the process of depreciation has been in all of\nthese; the evidences become strong by mutual confirmation. And when\nwe recollect, also, that not only have the results of this process\nbeen visible in various nations and in all times, but that they are\noccurring among ourselves at the present moment, and that the causes\nassigned for previous depreciations may be seen daily working out\nothers\u2014when we recollect this, it becomes scarcely possible to doubt\nthat the process has been as alleged; and that our ordinary words,\nacts, and phrases of civility originally expressed submission to\nanother\u2019s omnipotence.\n\nThus the general doctrine, that all kinds of government exercised over\nmen were at first one government\u2014that the political, the religious,\nand the ceremonial forms of control are divergent branches of a\ngeneral and once indivisible control\u2014begins to look tenable. When,\nwith the above facts fresh in mind, we read that in Eastern traditions\nNimrod, among others, figures in all the characters of hero, king, and\ndivinity\u2014when we turn to the sculptures exhumed by Mr. Layard, and\ncontemplating in them the effigies of kings driving over enemies, and\nadored by prostrate slaves, then observe how their actions correspond\nto the primitive names for gods, \u201cthe strong,\u201d \u201cthe destroyer,\u201d \u201cthe\npowerful one\u201d\u2014and when, lastly, we discover that among races of men\nstill living, there are current {23} superstitions analogous to those\nwhich old records and old buildings indicate; we begin to realize the\nprobability of the hypothesis that has been set forth. Representing\nto ourselves the conquering chief as figured in ancient myths, and\npoems, and ruins; we may see that all rules of conduct spring from\nhis will. Alike legislator and judge, quarrels among his subjects\nare decided by him; and his words become the Law. Awe of him is\nthe incipient Religion; and his maxims furnish his first precepts.\nSubmission is made to him in the forms he prescribes; and these give\nbirth to Manners. From the first, time developes political allegiance\nand the administration of justice; from the second, the worship of a\nbeing whose personality becomes ever more vague, and the inculcation of\nprecepts ever more abstract; from the third, forms and names of honour\nand the rules of etiquette. In conformity with the law of evolution of\nall organized bodies, that general functions are gradually separated\ninto the special functions constituting them, there have grown up in\nthe social organism for the better performance of the governmental\noffice, an apparatus of law-courts, judges, and barristers; a national\nchurch, with its bishops and priests; and a system of caste, titles,\nand ceremonies, administered by society at large. By the first, overt\naggressions are cognized and punished; by the second, the disposition\nto commit such aggressions is in some degree checked; by the third,\nthose minor breaches of good conduct which the others do not notice,\nare denounced and chastised. Law and Religion control behaviour in\nits essentials; Manners control it in its details. For regulating\nthose daily actions which are too numerous and too unimportant to\nbe officially directed there comes into play this subtler set of\nrestraints. And when we consider what these restraints are\u2014when we\nanalyze the words, and phrases, and movements employed, we see that\nin origin as in effect, the system is a setting up of temporary {24}\ngovernments between all men who come in contact, for the purpose of\nbetter managing the intercourse between them.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFrom the proposition, that these several kinds of government are\nessentially one, both in genesis and function, may be deduced several\nimportant corollaries, directly bearing on our special topic.\n\nLet us first notice, that there is not only a common origin and\noffice for all forms of rule, but a common necessity for them. The\naboriginal man, coming fresh from the killing of bears and from lying\nin ambush for his enemy, has, by the necessities of his condition, a\nnature requiring to be curbed in its every impulse. Alike in war and\nin the chase, his daily discipline has been that of sacrificing other\ncreatures to his own needs and passions. His character, bequeathed\nto him by ancestors who led similar lives, is moulded by this\ndiscipline\u2014is fitted to this existence. The unlimited selfishness,\nthe love of inflicting pain, the blood-thirstiness, thus kept active,\nhe brings with him into the social state. These dispositions put him\nin constant danger of conflict with his equally savage neighbour. In\nsmall things as in great, in words as in deeds, he is aggressive; and\nis hourly liable to the aggressions of others like natured. Only,\ntherefore, by rigorous control exercised over all actions, can the\nprimitive unions of men be maintained. There must be a ruler strong,\nremorseless, and of indomitable will; there must be a creed terrible\nin its threats to the disobedient; there must be servile submission\nof inferiors to superiors. The law must be cruel; the religion must\nbe stern; the ceremonies must be strict. The co-ordinate necessity\nfor these several kinds of restraint might be largely illustrated\nfrom history were there space. Suffice it to point out that where the\ncivil power has been weak, the multiplication of thieves, assassins,\nand banditti, has indicated the approach of social dissolution; that\nwhen, {25} from the corruptness of its ministry, religion has lost\nits influence, as it did just before the Flagellants appeared, the\nState has been endangered; and that the disregard of established social\nobservances has ever been an accompaniment of political revolutions.\nWhoever doubts the necessity for a government of manners proportionate\nin strength to the co-existing political and religious governments,\nwill be convinced on calling to mind that until recently even elaborate\ncodes of behaviour failed to keep gentlemen from quarrelling in the\nstreets and fighting duels in taverns; and on remembering that even now\npeople exhibit at the doors of a theatre, where there is no ceremonial\nlaw to rule them, an aggressiveness which would produce confusion if\ncarried into social intercourse.\n\nAs might be expected, we find that, having a common origin and like\ngeneral functions, these several controlling agencies act during each\nera with similar degrees of vigour. Under the Chinese despotism,\nstringent and multitudinous in its edicts and harsh in the enforcement\nof them, and associated with which there is an equally stern domestic\ndespotism exercised by the eldest surviving male of the family, there\nexists a system of observances alike complicated and rigid. There is a\ntribunal of ceremonies. Previous to presentation at court, ambassadors\npass many days in practising the required forms. Social intercourse\nis cumbered by endless compliments and obeisances. Class distinctions\nare strongly marked by badges. And if there wants a definite measure\nof the respect paid to social ordinances, we have it in the torture to\nwhich ladies submit in having their feet crushed. In India, and indeed\nthroughout the East, there exists a like connexion between the pitiless\ntyranny of rulers, the dread terrors of immemorial creeds, and the\nrigid restraint of unchangeable customs. Caste regulations continue\nstill unalterable; the fashions of clothes and furniture have remained\nthe same for ages; suttees are so ancient as to be mentioned by Strabo\nand {26} Diodorus Siculus; justice is still administered at the\npalace-gates as of old; in short, \u201cevery usage is a precept of religion\nand a maxim of jurisprudence.\u201d A similar relationship of phenomena was\nexhibited in Europe during the Middle Ages. While its governments,\ngeneral and local, were despotic, while the Church was unshorn of its\npower, while the criminal code was full of horrors and the hell of the\npopular creed full of terrors, the rules of behaviour were both more\nnumerous and more carefully conformed to than now. Differences of dress\nmarked divisions of rank. Men were limited by law to certain widths\nof shoe-toes; and no one below a specified degree might wear a cloak\nless than so many inches long. The symbols on banners and shields were\ncarefully attended to. Heraldry was an important branch of knowledge.\nPrecedence was strictly insisted on. And those various salutes of which\nwe now use the abridgments, were gone through in full. Even during our\nown last century, with its corrupt House of Commons and little-curbed\nmonarchs, we may mark a correspondence of social formalities. Gentlemen\nwere still distinguished from lower classes by dress; and children\naddressed their parents as _Sir_ and _Madam_.\n\nA further corollary naturally following this last, and almost, indeed,\nforming part of it, is, that these several kinds of government\ndecrease in stringency at the same rate. Simultaneously with the\ndecline in the influence of priesthoods, and in the fear of eternal\ntorments\u2014simultaneously with the mitigation of political tyranny,\nthe growth of popular power, and the amelioration of criminal codes;\nhas taken place that diminution of formalities and that fading of\ndistinctive marks, now so observable. Looking at home, we may note that\nthere is less attention to precedence than there used to be. No one in\nour day ends an interview with the phrase \u201cyour humble servant.\u201d The\nemployment of the word _Sir_, once general in social intercourse, is\nat present considered bad breeding; and on the occasions {27} calling\nfor them, it is held vulgar to use the words \u201cYour Majesty,\u201d or \u201cYour\nRoyal Highness,\u201d more than once in a conversation. People no longer\nformally drink one another\u2019s healths; and even the taking wine with one\nanother at dinner has ceased to be fashionable. It is remarked of us\nby foreigners, that we take off our hats less than any other nation in\nEurope\u2014a remark which should be coupled with the other, that we are the\nfreest nation in Europe. As already implied, this association of facts\nis not accidental. These modes of address and titles and obeisances,\nbearing about them, as they all do, something of that servility which\nmarks their origin, become distasteful in proportion as men become more\nindependent themselves, and sympathize more with the independence of\nothers. The feeling which makes the modern gentleman tell the labourer\nstanding bareheaded before him to put on his hat\u2014the feeling which\ngives us a dislike to those who cringe and fawn\u2014the feeling which makes\nus alike assert our own dignity and respect that of others\u2014the feeling\nwhich thus leads us more and more to discountenance forms and names\nwhich confess inferiority and submission; is the same feeling which\nresists despotic power and inaugurates popular government, denies the\nauthority of the Church and establishes the right of private judgment.\n\nA fourth fact, akin to the foregoing, is, that with decreasing\ncoerciveness in these several kinds of government, their respective\nforms lose their meanings. The same process which has made our monarch\nput forth as his own acts what are the acts of ministers approved\nby the people, and has thus changed him from master into agent\u2014the\nsame process which, making attendance at church very much a matter of\nrespectability, has done away with the telling of beads, the calling\non saints, and the performance of penances; is a process by which\ntitles and ceremonies that once had a meaning and a power have been\nreduced to empty forms. Coats of arms which served to distinguish\n{28} men in battle, now figure on the carriage panels of retired\nmerchants. Once a badge of high military rank, the shoulder-knot has\nbecome, on the modern footman, a mark of servitude. The name Banneret,\nwhich originally marked a partially-created Baron\u2014a Baron who had\npassed his military \u201clittle go\u201d\u2014is now, under the modification of\nBaronet, applicable to any one favoured by wealth or interest or party\nfeeling. Knighthood has so far ceased to be an honour, that men honour\nthemselves by declining it. The military dignity _Escuyer_ has, in the\nmodern Esquire, become a wholly unmilitary affix.\n\nBut perhaps it is in that class of social observances comprehended\nunder the term Fashion (which we must here discuss parenthetically)\nthat this process is seen with the greatest distinctness. As contrasted\nwith Manners, which dictate our minor acts in relation to other\npersons, Fashion dictates our minor acts in relation to ourselves.\nWhile the one prescribes that part of our deportment which directly\naffects our neighbours; the other prescribes that part of our\ndeportment which is primarily personal, and in which our neighbours\nare concerned only as spectators. Thus distinguished as they are,\nhowever, the two have a common source. For while, as we have shown,\nManners originate by imitation of the behaviour pursued _towards_\nthe great; Fashion originates by imitation of the behaviour _of_ the\ngreat. While the one has its derivation in the titles, phrases, and\nsalutes used _to_ those in power; the other is derived from the habits\nand appearances exhibited _by_ those in power. The Carrib mother who\nsqueezes her child\u2019s head into a shape like that of the chief; the\nyoung savage who makes marks on himself similar to the scars carried\nby the warriors of his tribe; the Highlander who adopts the plaid worn\nby the head of his clan; the courtiers who affect greyness, or limp,\nor cover their necks, in imitation of their king, and the people who\nape the courtiers; are alike acting under a kind of government connate\nwith that of Manners, {29} and, like it too, primarily beneficial.\nFor notwithstanding the numberless absurdities into which this copying\nhas led people, from nose-rings to ear-rings, from painted faces to\nbeauty-spots, from shaven heads to powdered wigs, from filed teeth and\nstained nails to bell-girdles, peaked shoes, and breeches stuffed with\nbran, it must yet be concluded that as the men of will, intelligence,\nand originality, who have got to the top, are, on the average, more\nlikely to show judgment in their habits and tastes than the mass,\nthe imitation of such is advantageous. By and by, however, Fashion,\ndecaying like these other forms of rule, almost wholly ceases to be an\nimitation of the best, and becomes an imitation of quite other than\nthe best. As those who take orders are not those having a special\nfitness for the priestly office, but those who hope to get livings;\nas legislators and public functionaries do not become such by virtue\nof their political insight and power to rule, but by virtue of birth,\nacreage, and class influence; so, the self-elected clique who set the\nfashion, do this, not by force of nature, by intellect, by higher\nworth or better taste, but solely by unchecked assumption. Among the\ninitiated are to be found neither the noblest in rank, the chief in\npower, the best cultured, the most refined, nor those of greatest\ngenius, wit, or beauty; and their reunions, so far from being superior\nto others, are noted for their inanity. Yet, by the example of these\nsham great, and not by that of the truly great, does society at large\nnow regulate its habits, its dress, its small usages. As a natural\nconsequence, these have generally little of that suitableness which\nthe theory of fashion implies they should have. Instead of a progress\ntowards greater elegance and convenience, which might be expected to\noccur did people copy the ways of the really best, or follow their\nown ideas of propriety, we have a reign of mere whim, of unreason,\nof change for the sake of change, of wanton oscillations from either\nextreme to the other. And so life _\u00e0 la mode_, instead of being life\nconducted in the {30} most rational manner, is life regulated by\nspendthrifts and idlers, milliners and tailors, dandies and silly women.\n\nTo these several corollaries\u2014that the various orders of control\nexercised over men have a common origin and a common function, are\ncalled out by co-ordinate necessities and co-exist in like stringency,\ndecline together and decay together\u2014it now only remains to add that\nthey simultaneously become less needful. The social discipline which\nhas already wrought out great changes in men, must go on eventually\nto work out greater ones. That daily curbing of the lower nature and\nculture of the higher, which out of cannibals and devil-worshippers has\nevolved philanthropists, lovers of peace, and haters of superstition,\nmay be expected to evolve out of these, men as much superior to them\nas they are to their progenitors. The causes that have produced past\nmodifications are still in action; must continue in action as long as\nthere exists any incongruity between men\u2019s desires and the requirements\nof the social state; and must eventually make them organically fit\nfor the social state. As it is now needless to forbid man-eating, so\nwill it ultimately become needless to forbid murder, theft, and the\nminor offences of our criminal code. Along with growth of human nature\ninto harmony with the moral law, there will go decreasing need for\njudges and statute-books; when the right course has become the course\nspontaneously chosen, prospects of future reward or punishment will\nnot be wanted as incentives; and when due regard for others has become\ninstinctive, there will need no code of ceremonies to say how behaviour\nshall be regulated.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThus, then, may be recognized the meaning of those eccentricities of\nreformers which we set out by describing. They are not accidental;\nthey are not mere personal caprices. They are inevitable results of\nthe law of relationship above illustrated. That community of genesis,\nfunction, {31} and decay which all forms of restraint exhibit, is\nsimply the obverse of the fact at first pointed out, that they have\nin two sentiments of human nature a common preserver and a common\ndestroyer. Awe of power originates and cherishes them all; love of\nfreedom undermines and weakens them all. The one defends despotism\nand asserts the supremacy of laws, adheres to old creeds and supports\necclesiastical authority, pays respect to titles and conserves forms;\nthe other, putting rectitude above legality, achieves periodical\ninstalments of political liberty, inaugurates Protestantism and works\nout its consequences, ignores the senseless dictates of Fashion and\nemancipates men from dead customs. To the true reformer no institution\nis sacred, no belief above criticism. Everything shall conform itself\nto equity and reason; nothing shall be saved by its prestige. Conceding\nto each man liberty to pursue his own ends and satisfy his own tastes,\nhe demands for himself like liberty; and consents to no restrictions\non this, save those which other men\u2019s equal claims involve. No matter\nwhether it be an ordinance of one man, or an ordinance of all men, if\nit trenches on his legitimate sphere of action, he denies its validity.\nThe tyranny that would impose on him a particular style of dress and\na set mode of behaviour, he resists equally with the tyranny that\nwould limit his buyings and sellings, or dictate his creed. Whether\nthe regulation be formally made by a legislature, or informally\nmade by society at large\u2014whether the penalty for disobedience be\nimprisonment, or frowns and social ostracism, he sees to be a question\nof no moment. He will utter his belief notwithstanding the threatened\npunishment; he will break conventions spite of the petty persecutions\nthat will be visited on him. Show him that his actions are inimical\nto his fellow-men, and he will pause. Prove that he is disregarding\ntheir legitimate claims, and he will alter his course. But until you\ndo this\u2014until you demonstrate that his proceedings are essentially\ninconvenient or {32} inelegant, essentially irrational, unjust, or\nungenerous, he will persevere.\n\nSome, indeed, argue that his conduct _is_ unjust and ungenerous. They\nsay that he has no right to annoy other people by his whims; that the\ngentleman to whom his letter comes with no \u201cEsq.\u201d appended to the\naddress, and the lady whose evening party he enters with gloveless\nhands, are vexed at what they consider his want of respect or want of\nbreeding; that thus his eccentricities cannot be indulged save at the\nexpense of his neighbours\u2019 feelings; and that hence his nonconformity\nis in plain terms selfishness.\n\nHe answers that this position, if logically developed, would deprive\nmen of all liberty whatever. Each must conform all his acts to the\npublic taste, and not his own. The public taste on every point having\nbeen once ascertained, men\u2019s habits must thenceforth remain for ever\nfixed; seeing that no man can adopt other habits without sinning\nagainst the public taste, and giving people disagreeable feelings.\nConsequently, be it an era of pig-tails or high-heeled shoes, of\nstarched ruffs or trunk-hose, all must continue to wear pig-tails,\nhigh-heeled shoes, starched ruffs, or trunk-hose to the crack of doom.\n\nIf it be still urged that he is not justified in breaking through\nothers\u2019 forms that he may establish his own, and so sacrificing the\nwishes of many to the wishes of one, he replies that all religious and\npolitical changes might be negatived on like grounds. He asks whether\nLuther\u2019s sayings and doings were not extremely offensive to the mass of\nhis cotemporaries; whether the resistance of Hampden was not disgusting\nto the time-servers around him; whether every reformer has not shocked\nmen\u2019s prejudices and given immense displeasure by the opinions he\nuttered. The affirmative answer he follows up by demanding what right\nthe reformer has, then, to utter these opinions\u2014whether he is not\nsacrificing the feelings {33} of many to the feelings of one; and so\nhe proves that, to be consistent, his antagonists must condemn not only\nall nonconformity in actions, but all nonconformity in beliefs.\n\nHis antagonists rejoin that _his_ position, too, may be pushed to an\nabsurdity. They argue that if a man may offend by the disregard of some\nforms, he may as legitimately do so by the disregard of all; and they\ninquire\u2014Why should he not go out to dinner in a dirty shirt, and with\nan unshorn chin? Why should he not spit on the drawing-room carpet, and\nstretch his heels up to the mantle-shelf?\n\nThe convention-breaker answers, that to ask this, implies a confounding\nof two widely-different classes of actions\u2014the actions which are\n_essentially_ displeasurable to those around, with the actions which\nare but _incidentally_ displeasurable to them. He whose skin is so\nunclean as to offend the nostrils of his neighbours, or he who talks\nso loudly as to disturb a whole room, may be justly complained of, and\nrightly excluded by society from its assemblies. But he who presents\nhimself in a surtout in place of a dress-coat, or in brown trousers\ninstead of black, gives offence not to men\u2019s senses, or their innate\ntastes, but merely to their bigotry of convention. It cannot be said\nthat his costume is less elegant or less intrinsically appropriate\nthan the one prescribed; seeing that a few hours earlier in the day it\nis admired. It is the implied rebellion, therefore, which annoys. How\nlittle the cause of quarrel has to do with the dress itself, is seen\nin the fact that a century ago black clothes would have been thought\npreposterous for hours of recreation, and that a few years hence some\nnow forbidden style may be nearer the requirements of Fashion than the\npresent one. Thus the reformer explains that it is not against the\nnatural restraints, but against the artificial ones, that he protests;\nand that manifestly the fire of angry glances which he has to bear,\n{34} is poured upon him because he will not bow down to the idol which\nsociety has set up.\n\nShould he be asked how we are to distinguish between conduct which is\nin itself disagreeable to others, and conduct which is disagreeable by\nits implication, he answers, that they will distinguish themselves,\nif men will let them. Actions intrinsically repugnant will ever be\nfrowned upon, and must ever remain as exceptional as now. Actions\nnot intrinsically repugnant will establish themselves as proper. No\nrelaxation of customs will introduce the practice of going to a party\nin muddy boots, and with unwashed hands; for the dislike of dirt would\ncontinue were Fashion abolished to-morrow. That love of approbation\nwhich now makes people solicitous to be _en r\u00e8gle_ would still\nexist\u2014would still make them careful of their personal appearance\u2014would\nstill induce them to seek admiration by making themselves\nornamental\u2014would still cause them to respect the natural laws of good\nbehaviour, as they now do the artificial laws. The change would simply\nbe from a repulsive monotony to a picturesque variety. And if there be\nany regulations respecting which it is uncertain whether they are based\non reality or on convention, experiment will soon decide, if due scope\nbe allowed.\n\nWhen at length the controversy comes round, as controversies often do,\nto the point whence it started, and the \u201cparty of order\u201d repeat their\ncharge against the rebel, that he is sacrificing the feelings of others\nto gratify his own wilfulness, he replies once for all that they cheat\nthemselves by mis-statements. He accuses them of being so despotic,\nthat, not content with being masters over their own ways and habits,\nthey would be masters over his also; and grumble because he will not\nlet them. He merely asks the same freedom which they exercise; they,\nhowever, propose to regulate his course as well as their own\u2014to cut\nand clip his mode of life into {35} agreement with their approved\npattern; and then charge him with wilfulness and selfishness, because\nhe does not quietly submit! He warns them that he shall resist,\nnevertheless; and that he shall do so, not only for the assertion of\nhis own independence, but for their good. He tells them that they are\nslaves, and know it not; that they are shackled, and kiss their chains;\nthat they have lived all their days in prison, and complain because the\nwalls are being broken down. He says he must persevere, however, with a\nview to his own release; and, in spite of their present expostulations,\nhe prophesies that when they have recovered from the fright which the\nprospect of freedom produces, they will thank him for aiding in their\nemancipation.\n\nUnamiable as seems this find-fault mood, offensive as is this defiant\nattitude, we must beware of overlooking the truths enunciated, in\ndislike of the advocacy. It is an unfortunate hindrance to all\ninnovation, that in virtue of their very function, the innovators stand\nin a position of antagonism; and the disagreeable manners, and sayings,\nand doings, which this antagonism generates, are commonly associated\nwith the doctrines promulgated. Quite forgetting that whether the thing\nattacked be good or bad, the combative spirit is necessarily repulsive;\nand quite forgetting that the toleration of abuses seems amiable merely\nfrom its passivity; the mass of men contract a bias against advanced\nviews, and in favour of stationary ones, from intercourse with their\nrespective adherents. \u201cConservatism,\u201d as Emerson says, \u201cis debonnair\nand social; reform is individual and imperious.\u201d And this remains true,\nhowever vicious the system conserved, however righteous the reform to\nbe effected. Nay, the indignation of the purists is usually extreme in\nproportion as the evils to be got rid of are great. The more urgent\nthe required change, the more intemperate is the vehemence of its\npromoters. Let no one, then, confound with the principles {36} of this\nsocial nonconformity the acerbity and the disagreeable self-assertion\nof those who first display it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe most plausible objection raised against resistance to conventions,\nis grounded on its impolicy, considered even from the progressist\u2019s\npoint of view. It is urged by many of the more liberal and\nintelligent\u2014usually those who have themselves shown some independence\nof behaviour in earlier days\u2014that to rebel in these small matters is\nto destroy your own power of helping on reform in greater matters.\n\u201cIf you show yourself eccentric in manners or dress, the world,\u201d they\nsay, \u201cwill not listen to you. You will be considered as crotchety, and\nimpracticable. The opinions you express on important subjects, which\nmight have been treated with respect had you conformed on minor points,\nwill now inevitably be put down among your singularities; and thus, by\ndissenting in trifles, you disable yourself from spreading dissent in\nessentials.\u201d\n\nOnly noting, as we pass, that this is one of those anticipations which\nbring about their own fulfilment\u2014that it is because most who disapprove\nthese conventions do not show their disapproval, that the few who do\nshow it look eccentric\u2014and that did all act out their convictions, no\nsuch argument as the above would have force;\u2014noting this as we pass,\nwe go on to reply that these social restraints are not small evils but\namong the greatest. Estimate their sum total, and we doubt whether they\nwould not exceed most others. Could we add up the trouble, the cost,\nthe jealousies, vexations, misunderstandings, the loss of time and the\nloss of pleasure, which these conventions entail\u2014we should perhaps come\nto the conclusion that the tyranny of Mrs. Grundy is worse than any\nother tyranny. Let us look at a few of its hurtful results; beginning\nwith those of minor importance.\n\nIt produces extravagance. The desire to be _comme il faut_, which\nunderlies all conformities, whether of manners, {37} dress, or styles\nof entertainment, is the desire which makes many a spendthrift and many\na bankrupt. To \u201ckeep up appearances,\u201d to have a house in an approved\nquarter furnished in the latest taste, to give expensive dinners and\ncrowded _soir\u00e9es_, is an ambition forming the natural outcome of the\nconformist spirit. It is needless to enlarge on these follies: they\nhave been satirized by hosts of writers, and in every drawing-room. All\nwhich here concerns us, is to point out that the respect for social\nobservances, which men think so praiseworthy, has the same root with\nthis effort to be fashionable in mode of living; and that, other things\nequal, the last cannot be diminished without the first being diminished\nalso. If, now, we consider what this extravagance entails\u2014if we count\nup the robbed tradesmen, the stinted governesses, the ill-educated\nchildren, the fleeced relatives, who have to suffer from it\u2014if we mark\nthe anxiety and the many moral delinquencies which its perpetrators\ninvolve themselves in; we shall see that this regard for conventions is\nnot quite so innocent as it looks.\n\nAgain, it decreases the amount of social intercourse. Passing over the\nreckless, and those who make a great display on speculation with the\noccasional result of getting on in the world to the exclusion of better\nmen, we come to the far larger class who, being prudent and honest\nenough not to exceed their means, and yet wishing to be \u201crespectable,\u201d\nare obliged to limit their entertainments to the smallest possible\nnumber; and that each of these may be turned to the greatest advantage\nin meeting the claims on their hospitality, issue their invitations\nwith little or no regard to the comfort or mutual fitness of their\nguests. A few inconveniently-large assemblies, made up of people mostly\nstrange to each other or but distantly acquainted, are made to serve\nin place of many small parties of friends intimate enough to have some\nbond of sympathy. Thus the quantity of intercourse is diminished, and\nthe quality deteriorated. Because it is the custom to make costly {38}\npreparations and provide costly refreshments; and because it entails\nboth less expense and less trouble to do this for many persons on few\noccasions than for few persons on many occasions; the reunions of our\nless wealthy classes are rendered alike infrequent and tedious.\n\nLet it be further observed, that the existing formalities of social\nintercourse drive away many who most need its refining influence; and\ndrive them into injurious habits and associations. Not a few men,\nand not the least sensible men either, give up in disgust this going\nout to stately dinners and stiff evening-parties; and instead, seek\nsociety in clubs, and cigar-divans, and taverns. \u201cI\u2019m sick of this\nstanding about in drawing-rooms, talking nonsense, and trying to look\nhappy,\u201d will answer one of them when taxed with his desertion. \u201cWhy\nshould I any longer waste time and money, and temper? Once I was ready\nenough to rush home from the office to dress; I sported embroidered\nshirts, submitted to tight boots, and cared nothing for tailors\u2019 and\nhaberdashers\u2019 bills. I know better now. My patience lasted a good\nwhile; for though I found each night pass stupidly, I always hoped\nthe next would make amends. But I\u2019m undeceived. Cab-hire and kid\ngloves cost more than any evening party pays for; or rather\u2014it is\nworth the cost of them to avoid the party. No, no; I\u2019ll no more of\nit. Why should I pay five shillings a time for the privilege of being\nbored?\u201d If, now, we consider that this very common mood tends towards\nbilliard-rooms, towards long sittings over cigars and brandy-and-water,\ntowards Evans\u2019s and the Coal Hole; it becomes a question whether these\nprecise observances which hamper our set meetings, have not to answer\nfor much of the prevalent dissoluteness. Men must have excitements of\nsome kind or other; and if debarred from higher ones will fall back\nupon lower. It is not that those who thus take to irregular habits\nare essentially those of low tastes. Often it is quite the reverse.\nAmong half a dozen intimate friends, abandoning {39} formalities and\nsitting at ease round the fire, none will enter with greater enjoyment\ninto the highest kind of social intercourse\u2014the genuine communion of\nthought and feeling; and if the circle includes women of intelligence\nand refinement, so much the greater is their pleasure. It is because\nthey will no longer be choked with the mere dry husks of conversation\nwhich society offers them, that they fly its assemblies, and seek\nthose with whom they may have discourse that is at least real, though\nunpolished. The men who thus long for substantial mental sympathy,\nand will go where they can get it, are often, indeed, much better at\nthe core than the men who are content with the inanities of gloved\nand scented party-goers\u2014men who feel no need to come morally nearer\nto their fellow-creatures than they can come while standing, tea-cup\nin hand, answering trifles with trifles; and who, by feeling no such\nneed, prove themselves shallow-thoughted and cold-hearted. It is true,\nthat some who shun drawing-rooms do so from inability to bear the\nrestraints prescribed by a genuine refinement, and that they would be\ngreatly improved by being kept under these restraints. But it is not\nless true that, by adding to the legitimate restraints, which are based\non convenience and a regard for others, a host of factitious restraints\nbased only on convention, the refining discipline, which would else\nhave been borne with benefit, is rendered unbearable, and so misses\nits end. Excess of government defeats itself by driving away those to\nbe governed. And if over all who desert its entertainments in disgust\neither at their emptiness or their formality, society thus loses its\nsalutary influence\u2014if such not only fail to receive that moral culture\nwhich the company of ladies, when rationally regulated, would give\nthem, but, in default of other relaxation, are driven into habits and\ncompanionships which often end in gambling and drunkenness; must we not\nsay that here, too, is an evil not to be passed over as insignificant?\n\nThen consider what a blighting effect these {40} multitudinous\npreparations and ceremonies have upon the pleasures they profess\nto subserve. Who, on calling to mind the occasions of his highest\nsocial enjoyments, does not find them to have been wholly informal,\nperhaps impromptu? How delightful a pic-nic of friends, who forget\nall observances save those dictated by good nature! How pleasant the\nunpretending gatherings of small book-societies, and the like; or those\npurely accidental meetings of a few people well known to each other!\nThen, indeed, we may see that \u201ca man sharpeneth the countenance of his\nfriend.\u201d Cheeks flush, and eyes sparkle. The witty grow brilliant, and\neven the dull are excited into saying good things. There is an overflow\nof topics; and the right thought, and the right words to put it in,\nspring up unsought. Grave alternates with gay: now serious converse,\nand now jokes, anecdotes, and playful raillery. Everyone\u2019s best nature\nis shown; everyone\u2019s best feelings are in pleasurable activity; and,\nfor the time, life seems well worth having. Go now and dress for some\nhalf-past eight dinner, or some ten o\u2019clock \u201cat home;\u201d and present\nyourself in spotless attire, with every hair arranged to perfection.\nHow great the difference! The enjoyment seems in the inverse ratio of\nthe preparation. These figures, got up with such finish and precision,\nappear but half alive. They have frozen each other by their primness;\nand your faculties feel the numbing effects of the atmosphere the\nmoment you enter it. All those thoughts, so nimble and so apt awhile\nsince, have disappeared\u2014have suddenly acquired a preternatural power\nof eluding you. If you venture a remark to your neighbour, there comes\na trite rejoinder, and there it ends. No subject you can hit upon\noutlives half a dozen sentences. Nothing that is said excites any real\ninterest in you; and you feel that all you say is listened to with\napathy. By some strange magic, things that usually give pleasure seem\nto have lost all charm. You have a taste for art. Weary of frivolous\n{41} talk, you turn to the table, and find that the book of engravings\nand the portfolio of photographs are as flat as the conversation. You\nare fond of music. Yet the singing, good as it is, you hear with utter\nindifference; and say \u201cThank you\u201d with a sense of being a profound\nhypocrite. Wholly at ease though you could be, for your own part, you\nfind that your sympathies will not let you. You see young gentlemen\nfeeling whether their ties are properly adjusted, looking vacantly\nround, and considering what they shall do next. You see ladies sitting\ndisconsolately, waiting for some one to speak to them, and wishing\nthey had the wherewith to occupy their fingers. You see the hostess\nstanding about the doorway, keeping a factitious smile on her face,\nand racking her brain to find the requisite nothings with which to\ngreet her guests as they enter. You see numberless traits of weariness\nand embarrassment; and, if you have any fellow feeling, these cannot\nfail to produce a sense of discomfort. The disorder is catching;\nand do what you will, you cannot resist the general infection. You\nstruggle against it; you make spasmodic efforts to be lively; but\nnone of your sallies or your good stories do more than raise a simper\nor a forced laugh: intellect and feeling are alike asphyxiated. And\nwhen, at length, yielding to your disgust, you rush away, how great\nis the relief when you get into the fresh air, and see the stars!\nHow you \u201cThank God, that\u2019s over!\u201d and half resolve to avoid all such\nboredom for the future! What, now, is the secret of this perpetual\nmiscarriage and disappointment? Does not the fault lie with these\nneedless adjuncts\u2014these elaborate dressings, these set forms, these\nexpensive preparations, these many devices and arrangements that\nimply trouble and raise expectation? Who that has lived thirty years\nin the world has not discovered that Pleasure is coy; and must not\nbe too directly pursued, but must be caught unawares? An air from a\nstreet-piano, heard while at work, will often gratify more than the\n{42} choicest music played at a concert by the most accomplished\nmusicians. A single good picture seen in a dealer\u2019s window, may give\nkeener enjoyment than a whole exhibition gone through with catalogue\nand pencil. By the time we have got ready our elaborate apparatus by\nwhich to secure happiness, the happiness is gone. It is too subtle to\nbe contained in these receivers, garnished with compliments, and fenced\nround with etiquette. The more we multiply and complicate appliances,\nthe more certain are we to drive it away. The reason is patent enough.\nThese higher emotions to which social intercourse ministers, are of\nextremely complex nature; they consequently depend for their production\nupon very numerous conditions; the more numerous the conditions,\nthe greater the liability that one or other of them will not be\nfulfilled. It takes a considerable misfortune to destroy appetite; but\ncordial sympathy with those around may be extinguished by a look or\na word. Hence it follows, that the more multiplied the _unnecessary_\nrequirements with which social intercourse is surrounded, the less\nlikely are its pleasures to be achieved. It is difficult enough to\nfulfil continuously all the _essentials_ to a pleasurable communion\nwith others: how much more difficult, then, must it be continuously to\nfulfil a host of _non-essentials_ also! What chance is there of getting\nany genuine response from the lady who is thinking of your stupidity\nin taking her in to dinner on the wrong arm? How are you likely to\nhave agreeable converse with the gentleman who is fuming internally\nbecause he is not placed next to the hostess? Formalities, familiar\nas they may become, necessarily occupy attention\u2014necessarily multiply\nthe occasions for mistake, misunderstanding, and jealousy, on the part\nof one or other\u2014necessarily distract all minds from the thoughts and\nfeelings which should occupy them\u2014necessarily, therefore, subvert those\nconditions under which only any sterling intercourse is to be had.\n\nAnd this, indeed, is the fatal mischief which these {43} conventions\nentail\u2014a mischief to which every other is secondary. They destroy those\npleasures which they profess to subserve. All institutions are alike in\nthis, that however useful, and needful even, they originally were, they\nin the end cease to be so, but often become detrimental. While humanity\nis growing, they continue fixed; daily get more mechanical and unvital;\nand by and by tend to strangle what they before preserved. Old forms\nof government finally grow so oppressive, that they must be thrown off\neven at the risk of reigns of terror. Old creeds end in being dead\nformulas, which no longer aid but distort and arrest the general mind;\nwhile the State-churches administering them, come to be instruments\nfor subsidizing conservatism and repressing progress. Old schemes\nof education, incarnated in public schools and colleges, continue\nfilling the heads of new generations with what has become relatively\nuseless knowledge, and, by consequence, excluding knowledge which is\nuseful. Not an organization of any kind\u2014political, religious, literary,\nphilanthropic\u2014but what, by its ever-multiplying regulations, its\naccumulating wealth, its yearly addition of officers, and the creeping\ninto it of patronage and party feeling, eventually loses its original\nspirit, and sinks into a lifeless mechanism, worked with a view to\nprivate ends\u2014a mechanism which not merely fails of its first purpose,\nbut is a positive hindrance to it. Thus is it, too, with social usages.\nWe read of the Chinese that they have \u201cponderous ceremonies transmitted\nfrom time immemorial,\u201d which make social intercourse a burden. The\ncourt forms prescribed by monarchs for their own exaltation, have, in\nall times and places, ended in consuming the comfort of their lives.\nAnd so the artificial observances of the dining-room and saloon, in\nproportion as they are many and strict, extinguish that agreeable\ncommunion which they were intended to secure. The dislike with which\npeople commonly speak of society that is \u201cformal,\u201d and \u201cstiff,\u201d and\n\u201cceremonious,\u201d {44} implies a general recognition of this fact; and\nthis recognition involves the inference that all usages of behaviour\nwhich are not based on natural requirements, are injurious. That\nthese conventions defeat their own ends is no new assertion. Swift,\ncriticising the manners of his day, says\u2014\u201cWise men are often more\nuneasy at the over-civility of these refiners than they could possibly\nbe in the conversation of peasants and mechanics.\u201d\n\nBut it is not only in these details that the self-defeating action of\nour arrangements is traceable; it is traceable in the very substance\nand nature of them. Our social intercourse, as commonly managed, is a\nmere semblance of the reality sought. What is it that we want? Some\nsympathetic converse with our fellow-creatures:\u2014some converse that\nshall not be mere dead words, but the vehicle of living thoughts and\nfeelings\u2014converse in which the eyes and the face shall speak, and the\ntones of the voice be full of meaning\u2014converse which shall make us\nfeel no longer alone, but shall draw us closer to others, and double\nour own emotions by adding their\u2019s to them. Who is there that has\nnot, from time to time, felt how cold and flat is all this talk about\npolitics and science, and the new books and the new men, and how a\ngenuine utterance of fellow-feeling outweighs the whole of it? Mark\nthe words of Bacon:\u2014\u201cFor a crowd is not company, and faces are but a\ngallery of pictures, and talk but a tinkling cymbal, where there is no\nlove.\u201d If this be true, then it is only after acquaintance has grown\ninto intimacy, and intimacy has ripened into friendship, that the real\ncommunion which men need becomes possible. A rationally-formed circle\nmust consist almost wholly of those on terms of familiarity and regard,\nwith but one or two strangers. What folly, then, underlies the whole\nsystem of our grand dinners, our \u201cat homes,\u201d our evening parties\u2014crowds\nmade up of many who never met before, many who just bow to one another,\nmany who though well known feel mutual indifference, with just a few\n{45} real friends lost in the general mass! You need but look round\nat the artificial expressions of face, to see at once how it is. All\nhave their disguises on; and how can there be sympathy between masks?\nNo wonder that in private every one exclaims against the stupidity of\nthese gatherings. No wonder that hostesses get them up rather because\nthey must than because they wish. No wonder that the invited go less\nfrom the expectation of pleasure than from fear of giving offence. The\nwhole thing is an organized disappointment.\n\nAnd then note, lastly, that in this case, as in others, an organization\ninoperative for its proper purpose, it is employed for quite other\npurposes. What is the usual plea put in for giving and attending these\ntedious assemblies? \u201cI admit that they are dull and frivolous enough,\u201d\nreplies every man to your criticisms; \u201cbut then, you know, one must\nkeep up one\u2019s connexions.\u201d And could you get from his wife a sincere\nanswer, it would be\u2014\u201cLike you, I am sick of these formal parties; but\nthen, we must get our daughters married.\u201d The one knows that there is a\nprofession to push, a business to extend; or parliamentary influence,\nor county patronage, or votes, or office, to be got: position,\nberths, favours, profit. The other\u2019s thoughts run upon husbands\nand settlements, wives and dowries. Worthless for their ostensible\npurpose of daily bringing human beings into pleasurable relations\nwith each other, these cumbrous appliances of our social intercourse\nare now perseveringly kept in action with a view to the pecuniary and\nmatrimonial results which they indirectly produce.\n\nWho then shall say that the reform of our system of observances\nis unimportant? When we see how this system induces fashionable\nextravagance, with its occasional ruin\u2014when we mark how greatly\nit limits the amount of social intercourse among the less wealthy\nclasses\u2014when we find that many who most need to be disciplined by\nmixing {46} with the refined are driven away by it, and led into bad\ncourses\u2014when we count up the many minor evils it inflicts, the extra\nwork which its costliness entails on all professional and mercantile\nmen, the damage to public taste in dress and decoration by the setting\nup of its absurdities as standards for imitation, the injury to health\nindicated in the faces of its devotees at the close of the London\nseason, the mortality of milliners and the like, which its sudden\nexigencies yearly involve;\u2014and when to all these we add its fatal\nsin, that it withers up and kills that high enjoyment it professedly\nministers to\u2014shall we not conclude that to rationalize etiquette and\nfashion, is an aim yielding to few in urgency?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere needs, then, a protestantism in social usages. Forms which have\nceased to facilitate and have become obstructive\u2014have to be swept\naway. Signs are not wanting that some change is at hand. A host of\nsatirists, led on by Thackeray, have long been engaged in bringing\nour sham-festivities, and our fashionable follies, into contempt; and\nin their candid moods, most men laugh at the frivolities with which\nthey and the world in general are deluded. Ridicule has always been a\nrevolutionary agent. Institutions that have lost their roots in men\u2019s\nrespect and faith are doomed; and the day of their dissolution is not\nfar off. The time is approaching, then, when our system of social\nobservances must pass through some crisis, out of which it will come\npurified and comparatively simple.\n\nHow this crisis will be brought about, no one can say. Whether by the\ncontinuance and increase of individual protests, or whether by the\nunion of many persons for the practice and diffusion of better usages,\nthe future alone can decide. The influence of dissentients acting\nwithout co-operation, seems inadequate. Frowned on by conformists, and\nexpostulated with even by those who secretly sympathize with them;\nsubject to petty persecutions, and {47} unable to trace any benefit\nproduced by their example; they are apt, one by one, to give up their\nattempts as hopeless. The young convention-breaker eventually finds\nthat he pays too heavily for his nonconformity. Hating, for example,\neverything that bears about it any remnant of servility, he determines,\nin the ardour of his independence, that he will uncover to no one.\nBut what he means simply as a general protest, he finds that ladies\ninterpret into a personal disrespect. In other cases his courage\nfails him. Such of his unconventionalities as can be attributed only\nto eccentricity, he has no qualms about; for, on the whole, he feels\nrather complimented than otherwise in being considered a disregarder of\npublic opinion. But when they are liable to be put down to ignorance,\nto ill-breeding, or to poverty, he becomes a coward. However clearly\nthe recent innovation of eating some kinds of fish with knife and fork\nproves the fork-and-bread practice to have had little but caprice for\nits basis, yet he dares not wholly ignore that practice while fashion\npartially maintains it.[4] Though he thinks that a silk handkerchief\nis quite as appropriate for drawing-room use as a white cambric one,\nhe is not altogether at ease in acting out his opinion. Then, too, he\nbegins to perceive that his resistance to prescription brings round\ndisadvantageous results which he had not calculated upon. He had\nexpected that it would save him from a great deal of social intercourse\nof a frivolous kind\u2014that it would offend the silly people, but not the\nsensible people; and so would serve as a self-acting test by which\nthose worth knowing would be separated from those not worth knowing.\nBut the silly people prove to be so greatly in the majority that,\nby offending them, he closes against himself nearly all the avenues\nthrough which the sensible people are to be reached. Thus he finds,\nthat his nonconformity is frequently misinterpreted; that there are\nbut few directions in which he dares {48} to carry it consistently\nout; that the disadvantages it entails are greater than he anticipated;\nand that the chances of his doing any good are very remote. Hence he\ngradually loses resolution, and lapses, step by step, into the ordinary\nroutine of observances.\n\n [4] This was written before the introduction of silver fish-knives.\n\nAbortive as individual protests thus generally turn out, it may\npossibly be that nothing effectual will be done until there arises\nsome organized resistance to this invisible despotism, by which our\nmodes and habits are dictated. It may happen, that the government of\nManners and Fashion will be rendered less tyrannical, as the political\nand religious governments have been, by some antagonistic union.\nAlike in Church and State, men\u2019s first emancipations from excesses\nof restriction were achieved by numbers, bound together by a common\ncreed or a common political faith. What remained undone while there\nwere but individual schismatics or rebels, was effected when there\ncame to be many acting in concert. It is tolerably clear that these\nearliest instalments of freedom could not have been obtained in any\nother way; for so long as the feeling of personal independence was weak\nand the rule strong, there could never have been a sufficient number\nof separate dissentients to produce the desired results. Only in these\nlater times, during which the secular and spiritual controls have been\ngrowing less coercive, and the tendency towards individual liberty\ngreater, has it become possible for smaller and smaller sects and\nparties to fight against established creeds and laws; until now men may\nsafely stand even alone in their antagonism. The failure of individual\nnonconformity to customs, suggests that an analogous series of changes\nmay have to be gone through in this case also. It is true that the\n_lex non scripta_ differs from the _lex scripta_ in this, that, being\nunwritten, it is more readily altered; and that it has, from time to\ntime, been quietly ameliorated. Nevertheless, we shall find that the\nanalogy holds substantially good. For in this case, as {49} in the\nothers, the essential revolution is not the substituting of any one\nset of restraints for any other, but the limiting or abolishing the\nauthority which prescribes restraints. Just as the fundamental change\ninaugurated by the Reformation, was not a superseding of one creed by\nanother, but an ignoring of the arbiter who before dictated creeds\u2014just\nas the fundamental change which Democracy long ago commenced, was not\nfrom this particular law to that, but from the despotism of one to\nthe freedom of all; so, the parallel change yet to be wrought out in\nthis supplementary government of which we are treating, is not the\nreplacing of absurd usages by sensible ones, but the dethronement of\nthat power which now imposes our usages, and the assertion of the\nrights of individuals to choose their own usages. In rules of living,\na West-end clique is our Pope; and we are all papists, with but a mere\nsprinkling of heretics. On those who decisively rebel, comes down the\npenalty of excommunication, with its long catalogue of disagreeable\nand, indeed, serious consequences. The liberty of the subject asserted\nin our constitution, and ever on the increase, has yet to be wrested\nfrom this subtler tyranny. The right of private judgment, which our\nancestors wrung from the church, remains to be claimed from this\ndictator of our habits. Or, as before said, to free us from these\nidolatries and superstitious conformities, there has still to come a\nprotestantism in social usages. Parallel, therefore, as is the change\nto be wrought out, it seems not improbable that it may be wrought out\nin an analogous way. That influence which solitary dissentients fail to\ngain, and that perseverance which they lack, may come into existence\nwhen they unite. That persecution which the world now visits upon them\nfrom mistaking their nonconformity for ignorance or disrespect, may\ndiminish when it is seen to result from principle. The penalty which\nexclusion now entails may disappear when they become numerous enough to\nform {50} visiting circles of their own. And when a successful stand\nhas been made, and the brunt of the opposition has passed, that large\namount of secret dislike to our observances which now pervades society,\nmay manifest itself with sufficient power to effect the desired\nemancipation.\n\nWhether such will be the process, time alone can decide. That community\nof origin, growth, supremacy, and decadence, which we have found among\nall kinds of government, suggests a community in modes of change\nalso. On the other hand, Nature often performs substantially similar\noperations, in ways apparently different. Hence these details can never\nbe foretold.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMeanwhile, let us glance at the conclusions that have been reached. On\nthe one side, government, originally one, and afterwards subdivided\nfor the better fulfilment of its function, must be considered as\nhaving ever been, in all its branches\u2014political, religious, and\nceremonial\u2014beneficial; and, indeed, absolutely necessary. On the other\nside, government, under all its forms, must be regarded as subserving\nan office, made needful by the unfitness of aboriginal humanity for\nsocial life; and the successive diminutions of its coerciveness in\nState, in Church, and in Custom, must be looked upon accompanying the\nincreasing adaptation of humanity to its conditions. To complete the\nconception, there requires to be borne in mind the third fact, that the\ngenesis, the maintenance, and the decline of all governments, however\nnamed, are alike brought about by the humanity to be controlled; from\nwhich may be drawn the inference that, on the average, restrictions of\nevery kind cannot last much longer than they are wanted, and cannot\nbe destroyed much faster than they ought to be. Society, in all its\ndevelopments, undergoes the process of exuviation. These old forms\nwhich it successively throws off, have all been once vitally united\nwith it\u2014have severally served as the protective envelopes within which\na higher humanity {51} was being evolved. They are cast aside only\nwhen they become hindrances\u2014only when some inner and better envelope\nhas been formed; and they bequeath to us all that there was in them\nof good. The periodical abolitions of tyrannical laws have left the\nadministration of justice not only uninjured, but purified. Dead\nand buried creeds have not carried with them the essential morality\nthey contained, which still exists, uncontaminated by the sloughs of\nsuperstition. And all that there is of justice and kindness and beauty,\nembodied in our cumbrous forms of etiquette, will live perennially when\nthe forms themselves have been forgotten.\n\n{52}\n\n\n\n\nRAILWAY MORALS AND RAILWAY POLICY.\n\n[_First published in the_ Edinburgh Review _for October 1854_.]\n\n\nBelievers in the intrinsic virtues of political forms, might draw an\ninstructive lesson from the politics of our railways. If there needs\na conclusive proof that the most carefully-framed constitutions are\nworthless, unless they be embodiments of the popular character\u2014if\nthere needs a conclusive proof, that governmental arrangements in\nadvance of the time will inevitably lapse into congruity with the\ntime; such proof may be found over and over again repeated in the\ncurrent history of joint-stock enterprises. As devised by Act of\nParliament, the administrations of our public companies are almost\npurely democratic. The representative system is carried out in them\nwith scarcely a check. Shareholders elect their directors, directors\ntheir chairman; there is an annual retirement of a certain proportion\nof members of the board, giving facilities for superseding them;\nand, by this means, the whole ruling body may be changed in periods\nvarying from three to five years. Yet, not only are the characteristic\nvices of our political state reproduced in each of these mercantile\ncorporations\u2014some even in an intenser degree\u2014but the very form of\ngovernment, while remaining nominally democratic, is substantially\nso remodelled as to become a miniature of our national constitution.\nThe direction, ceasing to fulfil its theory as a {53} council formed\nof members who possess equal powers, falls under the control of some\none member of superior cunning, will, or wealth, to whom the majority\nbecome so subordinate, that the decision on every question depends on\nthe course he takes. Proprietors, instead of constantly exercising\ntheir franchise, allow it to become on all ordinary occasions a dead\nletter. Retiring directors are so habitually re-elected without\nopposition, and have so great a power of insuring their own election\nwhen opposed, that the board becomes practically a close body; and\nit is only when the misgovernment grows extreme enough to produce a\nrevolutionary agitation among the shareholders, that any change can\nbe effected. Thus, a mixture of the monarchic, the aristocratic, and\nthe democratic elements, is repeated with such modifications only as\nthe circumstances involve. The modes of action, too, are substantially\nthe same; save in this, that the copy outruns the original. Threats of\nresignation, which ministries hold out in extreme cases, are commonly\nmade by railway-boards to stave off disagreeable inquiries. By no\nmeans regarding themselves as servants of the shareholders, directors\nrebel against dictation from them; and construe any amendment to their\nproposals into a vote of want of confidence. At half-yearly meetings,\ndisagreeable criticisms and objections are met by the chairman with\nthe remark, that if the shareholders cannot trust his colleagues and\nhimself, they had better choose others. With most, this assumption of\noffended dignity tells; and, under fear that the company\u2019s interests\nmay suffer from any disturbance, measures quite at variance with the\nwishes of the proprietary are allowed to be carried. The parallel holds\nyet further. If it be true of national administrations, that those in\npower have the support of public _employ\u00e9s_; it is not less true of\nincorporated companies, that the directors are aided by the officials\nin their struggles with shareholders. If, in times past, there have\nbeen ministries who spent public money to secure party ends; there\nare, in {54} times present, railway-boards who use the funds of the\nshareholders to defeat the shareholders. Nay, even in detail, the\nsimilarity is maintained. Like their prototype, joint-stock companies\nhave their expensive election contests, managed by election committees,\nemploying election agents; they have their canvassing with its sundry\nillegitimate accompaniments; they have their occasional manufacture of\nfraudulent votes. And, as a general result, that class-legislation,\nwhich has been habitually charged against statesmen, is now habitually\ndisplayed in the proceedings of these trading associations: constituted\nthough they are on purely representative principles.\n\nThese last assertions will surprise not a few. The general public who\nnever see a railway-journal, and who skip the reports of half-yearly\nmeetings which appear in the daily papers, are under the impression\nthat dishonesties like those gigantic ones so notorious during the\nmania, are no longer committed. They do not forget the doings of\nstags and stock-jobbers and runaway-directors. They remember how\nmen-of-straw held shares amounting to \u00a3100,000, and even \u00a3200,000;\nhow numerous directorates were filled by the same persons\u2014one having\na seat at twenty-three boards; how subscription-contracts were made\nup with signatures bought at 10_s_ and even 4_s_ each, and porters\nand errand-boys made themselves liable for \u00a330,000 and \u00a340,000\na-piece. They can narrate how boards kept their books in cipher, made\nfalse registries, and refrained from recording their proceedings in\nminute-books; how in one company, half-a-million of capital was put\ndown to unreal names; how in another, directors bought for account\nmore shares than they issued, and so forced up the price; and how in\nmany others, they repurchased for the company their own shares, paying\nthemselves with the depositors\u2019 money. But, though more or less aware\nof the iniquities which have been practised, the generality think\nof them solely as the accompaniments {55} of bubble schemes. More\nrecent enterprises they know to have been _bon\u00e2 fide_ ones, mostly\ncarried out by old-established companies; and knowing this, they do\nnot suspect that in the getting-up of branch lines and extensions,\nthere are chicaneries near akin to those of Capel Court; and quite as\ndisastrous in their ultimate results. Associating the ideas of wealth\nand respectability, and habitually using respectability as synonymous\nwith morality, it seems to them incredible that many of the large\ncapitalists and men of station who administer railway affairs, should\nbe guilty of indirectly enriching themselves at the expense of their\nconstituents. True, they occasionally meet with a law-report disclosing\nsome enormous fraud; or read a _Times_ leader, characterising\ndirectorial acts in terms which are held libellous. But they regard\nthe cases thus brought to light as entirely exceptional; and, under\nthat feeling of loyalty which ever idealises men in authority, they\nconstantly tend towards the conviction, if not that directors can do no\nwrong, yet that they are very unlikely to do wrong.\n\nA history of railway management and railway intrigue, however, would\nquickly undeceive them. In such a history, the tricks of projectors\nand the mysteries of the share-market would occupy less space than\nthe analysis of the multiform dishonesties which have been committed\nsince 1845, and the genesis of that elaborate system of tactics\nby which companies are betrayed into ruinous undertakings which\nbenefit the few at the cost of the many. Such a history would not\nonly have to detail the doings of the personage famed for \u201cmaking\nthings pleasant;\u201d nor would it have merely to add the misdeeds of his\ncolleagues; but it would have to describe the kindred corruptness\nof other railway administrations. From the published report of an\ninvestigation-committee, it would be shown how, not many years since,\nthe directors of one of our lines allotted among themselves 15,000\nnew shares then at a premium in the {56} market; how to pay the\ndeposits on these shares they used the company\u2019s funds; and how one of\ntheir number thus accommodated himself in meeting both deposits and\ncalls to the extent of more than \u00a380,000. We should read in it of one\nrailway chairman who, with the secretary\u2019s connivance, retained shares\nexceeding a quarter of a million in amount, intending to claim them as\nhis allotment if they rose to a premium; and who, as they did not do\nso, left them as unissued shares on the hands of the proprietors, to\ntheir vast loss. We should also read in it of directors who made loans\nto themselves out of the company\u2019s floating balances at a low rate of\ninterest, when the market rate was high; and who paid themselves larger\nsalaries than those assigned: entering the difference in an obscure\ncorner of the ledger under the head of \u201cpetty disbursements.\u201d There\nwould be a description of the man\u0153uvres by which a delinquent board,\nunder impending investigation, gets a favourable committee nominated\u2014\u201ca\nwhitewashing committee.\u201d There would be documents showing that the\nproxies enabling boards to carry contested measures, have in some\ncases been obtained by garbled statements; and, again, that proxies\ngiven for a specified purpose have been used for other purposes. One\nof our companies would be proved to have projected a line, serving as\na feeder, for which it obtained shareholders by offering a guaranteed\ndividend, which, though understood by the public to be unconditional,\nwas really contingent upon a condition not likely to be fulfilled.\nThe managers of another company would be convicted of having carried\nparty measures by the aid of preference-shares standing in the names of\nstation-masters; and of being aided by the proxies of the secretary\u2019s\nchildren too young to write.\n\nThat the corruptions here glanced at are not exceptional evils, but\nresult from some deep-seated vice in our system of railway-government,\nis sufficiently proved by the fact, that notwithstanding the falling\nof railway-dividends {57} produced by the extension policy, that\npolicy has been year after year continued. Does any tradesman, who,\nhaving enlarged his shop, finds a proportionate diminution in his\nrate of profits, go on, even under the stimulus of competition,\nmaking further enlargements at the risk of further diminutions? Does\nany merchant, however strong his desire to take away an opponent\u2019s\nmarkets, make successive mortgages on his capital, and pay for each sum\nthus raised a higher interest than he gains by trading with it? Yet\nthis course, so absurd that no one would insult a private individual\nby asking him to follow it, is the course which railway-boards, at\nmeeting after meeting, persuade their clients to pursue. Since 1845,\nwhen the dividends of our leading lines ranged from 8 to 10 per cent.,\nthey have, notwithstanding an ever-growing traffic, fallen from 10\nper cent. to 5, from 8 to 4, from 9 to 3\u202f1/4; and yet the system of\nextensions, leases, and guarantees, notoriously the cause of this,\nhas been year by year persevered in. Is there not something needing\nexplanation here\u2014something more than the world is allowed to see?\nIf there be any one to whom the broad fact of obstinate persistence\nin unprofitable expenditure does not alone carry the conviction\nthat sinister influences are at work, let him read the seductive\nstatements by which shareholders are led to authorize new projects,\nand then compare these with the proved results. Let him look at the\nestimated cost, anticipated traffic, and calculated dividend on some\nproposed branch line; let him observe how the proprietary before whom\nthe scheme is laid, are induced to approve it as promising a fair\nreturn; and then let him contemplate, in the resulting depreciation\nof stock, the extent of their loss. Is there any avoiding the\ninference? Railway-shareholders can never have habitually voted for\nnew undertakings which they knew would be injurious to them. Every\none knows, however, that these new undertakings have almost uniformly\nproved injurious to them. Obviously, therefore, railway-shareholders\nhave been {58} continually deluded by false representations. The\nonly possible escape from this conclusion is in the belief that\nboards and their officers have been themselves deceived; and were the\ndiscrepancies between promises and results occasional only, there\nwould be grounds for this lenient interpretation. But to suppose\nthat a railway-government should repeatedly make such mistakes,\nand yet gain no wisdom from disastrous experiences\u2014should after a\ndozen disappointments again mislead half-yearly meetings by bright\nanticipations into dark realities, and all in good faith\u2014taxes\ncredulity somewhat too far. Even, then, were there no demonstrated\niniquities to rouse suspicion, we think that the continuous\ndepreciation in the value of railway-stock, the determined perseverance\nof boards in the policy which has produced this depreciation, and\nthe proved untruth of the statements by which they have induced\nshareholders to sanction this policy, would of themselves suffice to\nshow the viciousness of railway-administration.\n\nThat the existing evils, and the causes conspiring to produce them,\nmay be better understood, it will be needful to glance at the mode in\nwhich the system of extensions grew up. Earliest among the incentives\nto it was a feeling of rivalry. Even while yet their main lines were\nunfinished, a contest for supremacy arose between our two greatest\ncompanies. This presently generated a confirmed antagonism; and the\nsame impulse which in election contests has sometimes entailed the\nsquandering of a fortune to gain a victory, has largely aided to make\neach of these great rivals submit to repeated sacrifices rather than be\nbeaten. Feuds of like nature are in other cases perpetually prompting\nboards to make aggressions on each other\u2019s territories\u2014every attack\non the one side leading to a reprisal on the other; and so violent is\nthe hostility occasionally produced, that directors might be pointed\nout whose votes are wholly determined by the desire to be revenged\non their opponents. {59} Among the first methods used by leading\ncompanies to strengthen themselves and weaken their competitors, was\nthe leasing or purchase of subordinate neighbouring lines. Of course\nthose to whom overtures were made, obtained bids from both sides; and\nit naturally resulted that the first sales thus effected, being at\nprices far above the real values, brought great profits to the sellers.\nWhat resulted? A few recurrences of this proceeding, made it clear to\nquick-witted speculators, that constructing lines so circumstanced as\nto be bid for by competing companies, would be a lucrative policy.\nShareholders who had once pocketed these large and easily-made gains,\nwere eager to repeat the process; and cast about for districts in which\nit might be done. Even the directors of the companies by whom these\nhigh prices were given, were under the temptation to aid in this; for\nit was manifest to them that by obtaining a larger interest in any such\nnew undertaking than they possessed in the purchasing company, and\nby using their influence in the purchasing company to obtain a good\nprice or guarantee for the new undertaking, a great advantage would be\ngained. That this motive has been largely operative, railway history\nabundantly proves. Once commenced, sundry other influences conspired\nto stimulate this making of feeders and extensions. The non-closure\nof capital-accounts rendered possible the \u201ccooking\u201d of dividends,\nwhich was at one period carried to a great extent. Expenditure that\nshould have been charged against revenue was charged against capital;\nworks and rolling stock were allowed to go unrepaired, or insufficient\nadditions made to them, by which means the current expenses were\nrendered delusively small; long-credit agreements with contractors\npermitted sundry disbursements that had virtually been made, to be\nkept out of the accounts; and thus the net returns were made to\nappear greater than they really were. Naturally new undertakings put\nbefore the moneyed world by companies whose stock and dividends had\nbeen thus artificially raised, {60} were received with proportionate\nfavour. Under the prestige of their parentage their shares came out\nat high premiums, bringing large profits to the projectors. The hint\nwas soon taken; and it presently became an established policy, under\nthe auspices of a prosperity either real or mock, to get up these\nsubsidiary lines\u2014\u201ccalves,\u201d as they were called in the slang of the\ninitiated\u2014and to traffic in the premiums their shares commanded.\nMeanwhile had been developing, a secondary set of influences which\nalso contributed to foster unwise enterprises; namely, the business\ninterests of the lawyers, engineers, contractors, and others directly\nor indirectly employed in railway construction. The ways of getting up\nand carrying new schemes, could not fail, in the course of years, to\nbecome familiar to all concerned; and there could not fail to grow up\namong them a system of concerted tactics for achieving their common\nend. Thus, partly from the jealousy of rival boards, partly from\nthe greediness of shareholders in purchased lines, partly from the\ndishonest schemings of directors, partly from the man\u0153uvres of those\nwhose occupation it is to carry out the projects legally authorized,\npartly, and perhaps mainly, from the delusive appearance of prosperity\nmaintained by many established companies, there came the wild\nspeculations of 1844 and 1845. The consequent disasters, while they\npretty well destroyed the last of these incentives, left the rest much\nas they were. Though the painfully-undeceived public have ceased to aid\nas they once did, the various private interests that had grown up have\nsince been working together as before\u2014have developed their methods of\nco-operation into still more complex and subtle forms; and are even now\ndaily thrusting unfortunate shareholders into losing undertakings.\n\nBefore proceeding to analyze the existing state of things, however,\nwe would have it clearly understood that we do not suppose those\nimplicated to be _on the average_ morally lower than the community\nat large. Men taken at random {61} from any class, would, in all\nprobability, behave much in the same way when placed in like positions.\nThere are unquestionably directors grossly dishonest. Unquestionably\nalso there are others whose standard of honour is far higher than that\nof most persons. And for the remainder, they are, doubtless, as good as\nthe mass. Of the engineers, parliamentary agents, lawyers, contractors,\nand others concerned, it may be admitted that though custom has\ninduced laxity of principle, yet they would be harshly judged were the\ntransactions which may be recorded against them, used as tests. Those\nwho do not see how in these involved affairs, bad deeds may be wrought\nout by men not correspondingly bad, will readily do so on considering\nall the conditions. In the first place, there is the familiar fact that\nthe corporate conscience is inferior to the individual conscience\u2014that\na body of men will commit as a joint act, that which each one of them\nwould shrink from, did he feel personally responsible. And it may\nbe remarked that not only is the conduct _of_ a corporate body thus\ncomparatively lax, but also the conduct _towards_ one. There is ever a\nmore or less distinct perception, that a broad-backed company scarcely\nfeels what would be ruinous to a private person; and this perception is\nin constant operation on all railway-boards and their _employ\u00e9s_, as\nwell as on all contractors, landowners, and others concerned: leading\nthem to show a want of principle foreign to their general behaviour.\nAgain, the indirectness and remoteness of the evils produced, greatly\nweaken the restraints on wrongdoing. Men\u2019s actions are proximately\ncaused by mental representations of the results to be anticipated; and\nthe decisions come to, largely depend on the vividness with which these\nresults can be imagined. A consequence, good or bad, that is immediate\nand clearly apprehended, influences conduct far more potently than\na consequence that has to be traced through a long chain of actions\nor influences, and, as eventually reached, is not a particular and\n{62} readily conceivable one, but a general and vaguely conceivable\none. Hence, in railway affairs, a questionable share-transaction,\nan exorbitant charge, a proceeding which brings great individual\nadvantage without apparently injuring any one, and which, even if\ntraced to its ultimate results, can but very circuitously affect\nunknown persons living no one knows where, may be brought home to\nmen who, could the results be embodied before them, would be shocked\nat the cruel injustices they had committed\u2014men who in their private\nbusiness, where the results _can_ be thus embodied, are sufficiently\nequitable. Further, it requires to be noted that most of these great\ndelinquencies are ascribable not to the extreme dishonesty of any one\nman or group of men, but to the combined self-interest of many men\nand groups of men, whose minor delinquencies are cumulative. Much as\na story which, passing from mouth to mouth, and receiving a slight\nexaggeration at each repetition, comes round to the original narrator\nin a form scarcely to be recognised; so, by a little improper influence\non the part of landowners, a little favouritism on the part of members\nof Parliament, a little intriguing of lawyers, a little man\u0153uvring\nby contractors and engineers, a little self-seeking on the part of\ndirectors, a little under-statement of estimates and over-statement\nof traffic, a little magnifying of the evils to be avoided and the\nbenefits to be gained\u2014it happens that shareholders are betrayed into\nruinous undertakings by grossly untrue representations, without any\none being guilty of more than a small portion of the fraud. Bearing\nin mind then, the comparative laxity of the corporate conscience; the\ndiffusion and remoteness of the evils which malpractices produce;\nand the composite origin of these malpractices; it becomes possible\nto understand how, in railway affairs, gigantic dishonesties can be\nperpetrated by men who, on the average, are little if at all below the\ngenerality in moral character.\n\nWith this preliminary mitigation we proceed to detail the {63} various\nillegitimate influences by which these seemingly insane extensions and\nthis continual squandering of shareholders\u2019 property are brought about.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nConspicuous among these is the self-interest of landowners. Once the\ngreatest obstacles to railway enterprise, owners of estates have of\nlate years been among its chief promoters. Since the Liverpool and\nManchester line was first defeated by landed opposition, and succeeded\nwith its second bill only by keeping out of sight of all mansions, and\navoiding game preserves\u2014since the time when the London and Birmingham\nCompany, after seeing their project thrown out by a committee of peers\nwho ignored the evidence, had to \u201cconciliate\u201d opponents by raising\nthe estimate for land from \u00a3250,000 to \u00a3750,000\u2014since the time when\nParliamentary counsel justified resistance by the flimsiest excuses,\neven to reproaching engineers with having \u201ctrodden down the corn\nof widows\u201d and \u201cdestroyed the strawberry-beds of gardeners\u201d\u2014since\nthen, a marked change of policy has taken place. Nor was it in\nhuman nature that it should be otherwise. When it became known that\nrailway-companies commonly paid for \u201cland and compensation,\u201d sums\nvarying from \u00a34000 to \u00a38000 per mile; that men were indemnified\nfor supposed injury to their property, by sums so inordinate that\nthe greater part has been known to be returned by the heir as\nconscience-money; that in one case \u00a3120,000 was given for land said\nto be worth but \u00a35000\u2014when it was noised abroad that large bonuses\nin the shape of preference shares and the like, were granted to buy\noff opposition\u2014when it came to be an established fact that estates\nare greatly enhanced in value by the proximity of railways; it is not\nsurprising that country gentlemen should have become active friends of\nschemes to which they were once the bitterest enemies. On considering\nthe many temptations, we shall see nothing wonderful in the fact that\nin 1845 they were zealous {64} provisional committee-men; nor in the\nfact that their influence as promoters enabled them to get large sums\nfor their own acres. If we are told of squires soliciting interviews\nwith the engineer of a projected railway; prompting him to take their\nside of the country; promising support if he did, and threatening\nopposition if he did not; dictating the course to be followed through\ntheir domains; and hinting that a good price would be expected; we are\nsimply told of the special modes in which certain private interests\nshow themselves. If we hear of an extensive landowner using his\ninfluence as chairman of a board of directors, to project a branch\nrunning for many miles through his own estate, and putting his company\nto the cost of a parliamentary contest to carry this line; we hear\nonly of that which was likely to occur under such circumstances. If\nwe find now before the public, a line proposed by a large capitalist,\nserving among other ends to effect desirable communications with his\nproperty, and the estimates for which line, though considered by the\nengineering world insufficient, are alleged by him to be ample; we have\nbut a marked case of the distorted representations which under such\nconditions self-interest is sure to engender. If we discover of this or\nthat scheme, that it was got up by the local nobility and gentry\u2014that\nthey employed to make the survey a third-rate engineer, who was ready\nin anticipation of future benefit to do this for his bare expenses\u2014that\nprincipals and agent wearied the directors of an adjacent trunk-line\nto take up their project; threatened that if they did not their great\nrival would; alarmed them into concession; asked for a contribution\nto their expenses; and would have gained all these points but for\nshareholders\u2019 resistance\u2014we do but discover the organized tactics\nwhich, in course of time, naturally grow up under such stimuli. It\nis not that these facts are particularly remarkable. From the gross\ninstance of the landowner who asked \u00a38000 for that which he eventually\naccepted \u00a380 for, down to the {65} every-day instances of influence\nused to get railway accommodation for the neighbourhood, the acts of\nthe landed class are simply manifestations of the average character\nacting under special conditions. All that it now behoves us to notice,\nis, that we have here a large and powerful body whose interests are\never pressing on railway extension, irrespective of its intrinsic\npropriety.\n\nThe great change in the attitude of the Legislature towards railways,\nfrom \u201cthe extreme of determined rejection or dilatory acquiescence,\nto the opposite extreme of unlimited concession,\u201d was simultaneous\nwith the change above described. It could not well fail to be so.\nSupplying, as the landowning community does, so large a portion of both\nHouses of Parliament, it necessarily follows that the play of private\ninterests seen in the first, repeats itself in the last under modified\nforms, and complicated by other influences. Remembering the extent to\nwhich legislators were themselves implicated in the speculations of\nthe mania, it is unlikely that they should since have been free from\npersonal bias. A return proved, that in 1845 there were 157 members of\nParliament whose names were on the registers of new companies for sums\nvarying from \u00a3291,000 downwards. The supporters of new projects boasted\nof the numbers of votes they could command in the House. Members\nwere personally canvassed, and peers were solicited. It was publicly\ncomplained in the upper chamber, that \u201cit was nearly impossible to\nbring together a jury, some members of which were not interested in\nthe railway they were about to assess.\u201d Doubtless this state of things\nwas in a great degree exceptional; and there has since been not only\na diminution of the temptations, but a marked increase of equitable\nfeeling. Still, it is not to be expected that private interests should\ncease to act. It is not to be expected that a landowner who, out of\nParliament, exerts himself to get a railway for his district, should,\nwhen in Parliament, not employ the power his new position gives him to\nthe same {66} end. It is not to be expected that the accumulation of\nsuch individual actions should leave the legislative policy unchanged.\nHence the fact, that the influence once used to throw out railway bills\nis now used to carry them. Hence the fact, that railway committees no\nlonger require a good traffic case to be made out in justification\nfor the powers asked. Hence the fact, that railway directors having\nseats in the House of Commons, are induced to pledge their companies\nto carry out extensions. We could name a member of Parliament who,\nhaving bought an estate fitly situated, offered to an engineer, also\nin Parliament, the making of a railway running through it; and having\nobtained the Act (in doing which the influence of himself and his\nfriend was of course useful), pitted three railway companies against\neach other for the purchase of it. We could name another member of\nParliament who, having projected and obtained powers for an extension\nthrough his property, induced the directors of the main line, with\nwhom he had great influence, to subscribe half the capital for his\nextension, to work it for fifty per cent. of the gross receipts, and to\ngive up all traffic brought by it on to the main line until he received\nfour per cent. on his capital; which was tantamount to a four per\ncent. guarantee. But it is not only, nor indeed mainly, from directly\npersonal motives that legislators have of late years unduly fostered\nrailway enterprises. Indirectly personal motives of various kinds have\nbeen largely operative. The wish to satisfy constituents has been one.\nInhabitants of an unaccommodated district, are naturally urgent with\ntheir representatives to help them to a line. Not unfrequently such\nrepresentatives are conscious that their next elections may perhaps\nturn upon their successful response to this appeal. Even when there is\nno popular pressure there is the pressure of their leading political\nsupporters\u2014of large landholders whom it will not do to neglect; of\nlocal lawyers, important as electioneering friends, to whom a railway\nalways brings {67} business. Thus, without having immediately private\nends, members of Parliament are often almost coerced into urging\nforward schemes which, from a national point of view, or from a\nshareholder\u2019s point of view, are very unwise ones. Then there come the\nstill less direct stimuli. Where neither personal nor political ends\nare to be gained, there are still the interests of a relative to be\nsubserved; or, if not those of a relative, still those of a friend.\nAnd where there is no decided impulse to the contrary, these motives,\nof course, have their weight. Moreover, it requires in fairness to be\nsaid, that possessed as most members of Parliament are, with the belief\nthat all railway-making is nationally beneficial, there exist in their\nminds few or no reasons for resisting the influences brought to bear on\nthem. True, shareholders may be injured; but that is their own affair.\nThe public will be better served; constituents will be satisfied;\nfriends will be pleased; perhaps private ends gained: and under some\nor all of these incentives, affirmative votes are readily given.\nThus, from the Legislature also, there has of late years proceeded a\nfactitious stimulus to railway extensions.\n\nFrom Parliament to Parliamentary agents, and the general body of\nlawyers concerned in railway enterprise, is a ready transition. With\nthese, the getting up and carrying of new lines and branches is a\nmatter of business. Whoever traces the process of obtaining a railway\nAct, or considers the number of legal transactions involved in the\nexecution of railway works, or notes the large sums that figure in\nhalf-yearly reports under the head of \u201claw charges;\u201d will at once\nsee how strong are the temptations which a new project holds out to\nsolicitors, conveyancers, and counsel. It has been shown that in past\nyears, parliamentary expenses have varied from \u00a3650 to \u00a33000 per\nmile; of which a large proportion has gone into the pockets of the\nprofession. In one contest, \u00a357,000 was spent among six counsel and\ntwenty solicitors. At a late {68} meeting of one of our companies\nit was pointed out, that the sum expended in legal and parliamentary\nexpenses during nine years, had reached \u00a3480,000; or had averaged\n\u00a353,500 a-year. With these and scores of like facts before them, it\nwould be strange did not so acute a body of men as lawyers use vigorous\nefforts and sagacious devices to promote fresh enterprises. Indeed, if\nwe look back at the proceedings of 1845, we shall suspect, not only\nthat lawyers are still the active promoters of fresh enterprises, but\noften the originators of them. Many have heard how in those excited\ntimes the projects daily announced were not uncommonly set afloat by\nlocal solicitors\u2014how these looked over maps to see where plausible\nlines could be sketched out\u2014how they canvassed the local gentry to\nobtain provisional committeemen\u2014how they agreed with engineers to make\ntrial surveys\u2014how, under the wild hopes of the day, they found little\ndifficulty in forming companies\u2014and how most of them managed to get as\nfar as the Committee on Standing Orders, if no farther. Remembering\nall this, and remembering that those who were successful are not\nlikely to have forgotten their cunning, but rather to have yearly\nexercised and increased it, we may expect to find railway lawyers\namong the most influential of the many parties conspiring to urge\nrailway proprietaries into disastrous undertakings; and we shall not be\ndeceived. To a great extent they are in league with engineers. From the\nproposal to the completion of a new line, the lawyer and the engineer\nwork together; and their interests are throughout identical. While the\none makes the survey, the other prepares the book of reference. The\nparish plans which the one gets ready, the other deposits. The notices\nto owners and occupiers which the one fills in, the other serves upon\nthose concerned. And there are frequent consultations between them\nas to the dealing with local opposition and the obtainment of local\nsupport. In the getting up of {69} their case for Parliament, they\nnecessarily act in concert. While, before committee, the one gets\nhis ten guineas per day for attending to give evidence, the other\nmakes profits on all the complicated transactions which carrying a\nbill involves. During the execution of the works they are in constant\ncorrespondence; and alike profit by any expansion of the undertaking.\nThus there naturally arises in each, the perception that in aiding the\nother he is aiding himself; and gradually as, in course of years, the\nproceedings come to be often repeated, and a perfect familiarity with\nrailway politics gained, there grows up a well-organized system of\nco-operation between them\u2014a system rendered the more efficient by the\nwealth and influence which each has year by year accumulated.\n\nAmong the man\u0153uvres employed by railway solicitors thus established\nand thus helped, not the least remarkable is that of getting their own\nnominees elected as directors. It is a fact, which we state on good\nauthority, that there are puppet-directors who vote for this or that at\nthe instigation of the company\u2019s lawyer. The obtainment of such tools\nis not difficult. Vacancies are about to occur in the directorate.\nAlmost always there are men over whom a solicitor, conducting the\nextensive law-business of a railway, has considerable power: not only\nconnexions and friends, but persons to whom in his legal capacity he\ncan do great benefit or great injury. He selects the most suitable of\nthese; giving the preference, if other things are equal, to one living\nin the country near the line. On opening the matter to him, he points\nout the sundry advantages attendant on a director\u2019s position\u2014the free\npass and the many facilities it gives; the annual \u00a3100 or so which the\noffice brings; the honour and influence accruing; the opportunities for\nprofitable investment that are likely to occur; and so forth. Should\nignorance of railway affairs be raised as an objection, the tempter, in\nwhose eyes this ignorance is a chief recommendation, {70} replies that\nhe shall always be at hand to guide his votes. Should non-possession of\na due amount of the company\u2019s stock be pleaded, the tempter meets the\ndifficulty by offering himself to furnish the needful qualification.\nThus incited and flattered, and perhaps conscious that it would be\ndangerous to refuse, the intended puppet allows himself to be put in\nnomination; and as it is the habit of half-yearly meetings, unless\nunder great indignation, to elect any one proposed to them by those in\nauthority, the nomination is successful. On subsequent occasions this\nproceeding can, of course, be repeated; and thus the company\u2019s legal\nagent and those leagued with him, may command sufficient votes to turn\nthe scale in their own favour.\n\nThen, to the personal interest and power of the head solicitor, have\nto be added those of the local solicitors, with whom he is in daily\nintercourse. They, too, profit by new undertakings; they, therefore,\nare urgent in pressing them forwards. Acting in co-operation with\ntheir chief, they form a dispersed staff of great influence. They are\nactive canvassers; they stimulate and concentrate the feeling of their\ndistricts; they encourage rivalry with other lines; they alarm local\nshareholders with rumours of threatened competition. When the question\nof extension or non-extension comes to a division, they collect\nproxies for the extension party. They bring pressure to bear on their\nshareholding clients and relatives. Nay, so deep an interest do they\nfeel in the decision, as sometimes to create votes with the view of\ninfluencing it. We have before us the case of a local solicitor, who,\nbefore the special meeting called to adopt or reject a contemplated\nbranch, transferred portions of his own shares into the names of sundry\nmembers of his family, and so multiplied his seventeen votes into\nforty-one; all of which he recorded in favour of the new scheme.\n\nThe morality of railway engineers is not much above {71} that of\nrailway lawyers. The gossip of Great George Street is fertile in\ndiscreditable revelations. It tells how So-and-so, like others before\nhim, testified to estimates which he well knew were insufficient. It\nmakes jocose allusion to this man as being employed to do his senior\u2019s\n\u201cdirty work\u201d\u2014his hard-swearing; and narrates of the other that, when\ngiving evidence before committee, he was told by counsel that he was\nnot to be believed even on his knees. It explains how cheaply the\nprojector of a certain line executed the parliamentary survey, by\nemploying on it part of the staff in the pay of another company to\nwhich he was engineer. Now it alludes to the suspicion attaching to a\ncertain member of the fraternity from his having let a permanent-way\ncontract, for a term of years, at an extravagant sum per mile. Again it\nrumours the great profits which some of the leaders of the profession\nmade in 1845, by charging for the use of their names at so much the\nprospectus: even up to a thousand guineas. And then, it enlarges on the\nimportant advantages possessed by engineers who have seats in the House\nof Commons.\n\nThus lax as is the ethical code of engineers, and greatly as they are\ninterested in railway enterprise, it is to be expected that they should\nbe active and not very scrupulous promoters of it. To illustrate the\nvigour and skill with which they further new undertakings, a few facts\nmay be cited. Not far from London, and lying between two lines of\nrailway, is an estate lately purchased by one of our engineers. He has\nsince obtained Acts for branches to both of the adjacent lines. One\nof these branches he has leased to the company whose line it joins;\nand he has tried to do the like with the other, but as yet without\nsuccess. Even as it is, however, he is considered to have doubled the\nvalue of his property. Again, an engineer of celebrity once nearly\nsucceeded in smuggling through Parliament, in the bill for a proposed\nrailway, a clause extending the limits of deviation, to several miles\non each side of the line, {72} throughout a certain district\u2014the\nusual limits being but five chains on each side; and the attempt is\naccounted for by the fact, that this engineer possessed mines in this\ndistrict. To press forward extensions by the companies with which they\nare connected, they occasionally go to great lengths. Not long since,\nat a half-yearly meeting, certain projects which the proprietary had\nalready once rejected, were again brought forward by two engineers\nwho attended in their capacity of shareholders. Though known to be\npersonally interested, one of them moved and the other seconded, that\nsome new proposals from the promoters of these schemes be considered\nwithout delay by the directors. The motion was carried; the directors\napproved the proposals; and again, the proprietors negatived them. A\nthird time a like effort was made; a third time a conflict arose; and\nwithin a few days of the special meeting at which the division was to\ntake place, one of these engineers circulated among the shareholders a\npamphlet denying the allegations of the dissentient party and making\ncounter-statements which it was then too late to meet. Nay, he did\nmore: he employed agents to canvass the shareholders for proxies in\nsupport of the new undertaking; and was obliged to confess as much when\ncharged with it at the meeting.\n\nTurn we now to contractors. Railway-enterprise has given to this class\nof men a gigantic development; not only in respect of numbers, but\nin respect of the vast wealth to which some of them have acquired.\nOriginally, half a dozen miles of earthwork, fencing, and bridges, was\nas much as any single contractor undertook. Of late years, however it\nhas become common for one man to engage to construct an entire railway;\nand deliver it to the company in a fit condition for opening. Great\ncapital is required for this. Great profits are made by it. And the\nfortunes accumulated in course of time have been such, that sundry\ncontractors are named as being each able to make a railway at his own\n{73} cost. But they are as insatiable as millionaires in general;\nand so long as they continue in business at all, are, in some sort,\nforced to provide new undertakings to keep their plant employed. As\nmay be imagined, enormous stocks of working appliances are needed:\nmany hundreds of earth-waggons and of horses; many miles of temporary\nrails and sleepers; some dozen locomotive engines, and several fixed\nones; innumerable tools; besides vast stores of timber, bricks, stone,\nrails, and other constituents of permanent works, that have been bought\non speculation. To keep the capital thus invested, and also a large\nstaff of _employ\u00e9s_, standing idle, entails loss, partly negative,\npartly positive. The great contractor, therefore, is both under a\nstrong stimulus to get fresh work, and enabled by his wealth to do\nthis. Hence the not unfrequent inversion of the old arrangement under\nwhich companies and engineers employed contractors, into an arrangement\nunder which contractors employ engineers and form companies. Many\nrecent undertakings have been thus set on foot. The most gigantic\nproject which private enterprise has yet dared, originated with a\ndistinguished contracting firm. In some cases this mode of procedure\nmay, perhaps, be advantageous; but in far more numerous cases its\nresults are disastrous. Interested in promoting railway extensions,\neven in a greater degree than engineers and lawyers, contractors\nhabitually co-operate with these, either as agents or as coadjutors.\nLines are fostered into being, which it is known from the beginning,\nwill not pay. Of late, it has become common for landowners, merchants,\nand others personally interested, who, under the belief that their\nindirect gains will compensate for their meagre dividends, have\nthemselves raised part of the capital for a local railway, but cannot\nraise the rest\u2014it has become common for such to make an agreement with\na wealthy contractor to construct the line, taking in part payment\na portion of the shares, amounting to perhaps a third of the whole,\nand to charge for his work according to {74} a schedule of prices to\nbe thereafter settled between himself and the engineer. By this last\nclause the contractor renders himself secure. It would never answer\nhis purpose to take part payment in shares likely to return some \u00a32\nper cent., unless he compensated himself by unusually high profits;\nand this subsequent settlement of prices with one whose interests,\nlike his own, are wrapped up in the prosecution of the undertaking,\nensures him high profits. Meanwhile, it is noised abroad that all the\ncapital has been subscribed and the line contracted for; these facts\nunduly raise the public estimate of the scheme; the shares are quoted\nat much above their true worth; unwary persons buy; the contractor\nfrom time to time parts with his moiety at fair prices; and the new\nshareholders ultimately find themselves part owners of a railway which,\nunprofitable as it originally promised to be, had been made yet more\nunprofitable by expensiveness of construction. Nor are these the only\ncases in which contractors gain after this fashion. They do the like\nwith lines of their own projecting. To obtain Acts for these, they\nsign the subscription-contracts for large amounts; knowing that in the\nway above described, they can always make it answer to do this. So\ngeneral had the practice latterly become, as to attract the attention\nof committees. As was remarked by a personage noted for his complicity\nin these transactions\u2014\u201cCommittees are getting too knowing; they won\u2019t\nstand that dodge now.\u201d Nevertheless, the thing is still done under a\ndisguised form. Though contractors no longer enter their own names on\nsubscription lists for thousands of shares; yet they effect the same\nend by making nominal holders of their foremen and others: themselves\nbeing the real ones.\n\nOf directorial misdoings some samples have already been given; and more\nmight be added. Besides those arising from directly personal aims,\nthere are sundry others. One of these is the increasing community\nbetween railway {75} boards and the House of Commons. There are\neighty-one directors sitting in Parliament; and though some of these\ntake little part in the affairs of their respective railways, many of\nthem are the most active members of the boards to which they belong.\nWe have but to look back a few years, and mark the unanimity with\nwhich companies adopted the policy of getting themselves represented\nin the Legislature, to see that the furtherance of their respective\ninterests\u2014especially in cases of competition\u2014was the incentive. How\nwell this policy is understood by the initiated, may be judged from\nthe fact, that gentlemen are now in some cases elected on boards,\nsimply because they are members of Parliament. Of course this implies\nthat railway legislation is affected by a complicated play of private\ninfluences; and that these influences generally work towards the\nfacilitation of new enterprises, is obvious. It naturally happens that\ndirectors having seats in the House of Commons can more or less smooth\nthe way of their annual batch of new bills through committees. It\nnaturally happens that those whose companies are not opposed, exchange\ngood offices. Not only do they aid the passing of schemes in which they\nare interested, but they are solicited to undertake further schemes by\nthose around them. It is a common-sense conclusion that representatives\nof small towns and country districts needing railway accommodation, who\nare daily thrown in contact with the chairman of a company capable of\ngiving this accommodation, do not neglect the opportunity of furthering\ntheir ends. It is a common-sense conclusion that by hospitalities,\nby favours, by flattery, by the many means used to bias men, they\nseek to obtain his assistance. And it is an equally common-sense\nconclusion that in many cases they succeed\u2014that by some complication of\npersuasions and temptations they swerve him from his calmer judgment;\nand so introduce into the company he represents, influences at variance\nwith its welfare.\n\nUnder some motives however\u2014whether those of direct {76} self-interest,\nof private favour, or of antagonistic feeling, matters not here\u2014it is\ncertain that directors are constantly committing their constituents\nto unwise enterprises; and that they frequently employ unjustifiable\nmeans for either eluding or overcoming their opposition. Shareholders\noccasionally find that their directors have given to Parliament,\npledges of extension much exceeding any they were authorised to\ngive; and they are then persuaded that they are bound to endorse\nthe promises made for them by their agents. In some cases, among\nthe misleading statements laid before shareholders to obtain their\nconsent to a new project, will be found an abstract of the earnings\nof a previously-executed branch to which the proposed one bears some\nanalogy. These earnings are shown (not always without \u201ccooking\u201d)\nto be tolerably good and improving; and it is argued that the new\nproject, having like prospects, offers a fair investment. Meanwhile,\nit is not stated that the capital for this previously-executed branch\nwas raised on debentures or by guaranteed shares at a higher rate of\ninterest than the dividend pays; it is not stated that as the capital\nfor this further undertaking will be raised on like terms, the annual\ninterest on debt will swallow up more than the annual revenue; and\nthus unsuspecting shareholders\u2014some unacquainted with the company\u2019s\nantecedents, some unable to understand its complicated accounts\u2014give\ntheir proxies, or raise their hands, for new works which will tell\nwith disastrous effect on their future dividends. In pursuit of their\nends, directors will from time to time go directly in the teeth of\nestablished regulations. Where it has been made a rule that proxies\nshall be issued only by order of a meeting of the proprietors, they\nwill yet issue them without any such order, when by so doing they can\nsteal a march on dissentients. If it suits their purpose, they will\noccasionally bring forward most important measures without due notice.\nIn stating the amount of the company\u2019s stock which has {77} voted with\nthem on a division, they have been known to include thousands of shares\non which a small sum only was paid up, counting them as though fully\npaid up.\n\nTo complete the sketch, something must be said on the management of\nboard meetings and meetings of shareholders. For the first\u2014their\ndecisions are affected by various man\u0153uvres. Of course, on fit\noccasions, there is a whipping-up of those favourable to any project\nwhich it is desired to carry. Were this all, there would be little to\ncomplain of; but something more than this is done. There are boards\nin which it is the practice to defeat opposition by stratagem. The\nextension party having summoned their forces for the occasion, and\nhaving entered on the minutes of business a notice worded with the\nrequisite vagueness, shape their proceedings according to the character\nof the meeting. Should their antagonists muster more strongly than\nwas expected, this vaguely-worded notice serves simply to introduce\nsome general statement or further information concerning the project\nnamed in it; and the matter is passed over as though nothing more\nhad been meant. On the contrary, should the proportion of the two\nsides be more favourable, the notice becomes the basis of a definite\nmotion committing the board to some important act. If due precautions\nhave been taken, the motion is passed; and once passed, those who,\nif present, would have resisted it, have no remedy; for in railway\ngovernment there is no \u201csecond reading,\u201d much less a third. So\ndetermined and so unscrupulous are the efforts sometimes made by the\nstronger party to overcome and silence their antagonists, that when\na contested measure, carried by them at the board, has to go before\na general meeting for confirmation, they have been known to pass a\nresolution that their dissentient colleagues shall not address the\nproprietary!\n\nThat, at half-yearly and special meetings, shareholders should be so\nreadily misled by boards, even after repeated {78} experience of their\nuntrustworthiness, seems at first sight difficult to understand. The\nmystery disappears, however, on inquiry. Very frequently, contested\nmeasures are carried against the sense of the meetings before which\nthey are laid, by means of the proxies previously collected by the\ndirectors. These proxies are obtained from proprietors scattered\neverywhere throughout the kingdom, who are mostly weak enough to\nsign the first document sent to them. Then, of those present when\nthe question is brought to an issue, not many dare attempt a speech.\nOf those who dare, but few are clear-headed enough to see the full\nbearings of the measure they are about to vote upon; and such as\ncan see them are often prevented by nervousness from doing justice\nto the views they hold. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that\nproprietors displaying antagonism to the board are usually regarded\nby their brother proprietors with more or less reprobation. Unless\nthe misconduct of the governing body has been very glaring and very\nrecent, there ever arises in the mass a prejudice against all playing\nthe part of an opposition. They are condemned as noisy, and factious,\nand obstructive; and often only by determined courage avoid being put\ndown. Besides these negative reasons for the general inefficiency of\nshareholders\u2019 resistance, there are sundry positive ones. As writes to\nus a Member of Parliament who has been an extensive holder of stock in\nmany companies from the first days of railway enterprise:\u2014\u201cMy large\nand long acquaintance with Railway Companies\u2019 affairs, enables me\nto say, that a large majority of shareholders trust wholly to their\ndirectors, having little or no information, nor caring to have any\nopinion of their own. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Some others, better informed but timid,\nare afraid, by opposing the directors, of causing a depreciation\nof the value of their stock in the market, and are more alarmed at\nthe prospect of this temporary depreciation than at the permanent\nloss entailed on the company by the useless, and therefore {79}\nunprofitable, outlay of additional capital. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Others again,\nbelieving that the impending permanent evil is inevitable, resolve on\nthe spot to sell out immediately, and to keep up the prices of their\nshares, also give their support to the directors.\u201d Thus, from lack of\norganization and efficiency among those who express their opposition,\nand from the timidity and double-facedness of those who do not, it\nhappens that extremely unwise projects are carried by large majorities.\nNor is this all. The tactics of the aggressive party are commonly as\nskilful as those of their antagonists are bungling. The chairman, who\nis generally the chief promoter of the contested scheme, has it in his\npower to favour those who take his own side, and to throw difficulties\nin the way of opponents; and this he not unfrequently does to a great\nextent\u2014refusing to hear, putting down on some plea of breach of order,\nbrowbeating, even using threats.[5] It generally turns out too, that,\nwhether intentionally or not, some of the most important motions are\npostponed until nearly the close of the meeting, when the greater part\nof the shareholders are gone. Large money-votes, extensive powers,\nunlimited permits to directors to take, in certain matters, \u201csuch\nsteps as in their judgment they may deem most expedient,\u201d\u2014these, and\nthe like, are hurried over during the last half-hour, when the tired\nand impatient remnant will no longer listen to objectors; and when\nthose who have personal ends to serve by outstaying the rest, carry\neverything their own way. Indeed, in some cases, the arrangements\nare such as almost ensure the meeting becoming a pro-extension one\ntowards the end. {80} This result is brought about thus:\u2014A certain\nportion of the general body of proprietors are also proprietors of\nsome subordinate work\u2014some branch line, or canal, or steamboats, which\nthe Company has purchased or leased; and as holders of guaranteed\nstock, ready to take up further such stock if they can get it, these\nlean towards projects that are to be executed on the preference-share\nsystem. They hold their meeting for the declaration of dividend, &c.,\nas soon as the meeting of the Company at large has been dissolved; and\nin the same room. Hence it happens that being kept together by the\nprospect of subsequent business, they gradually, towards the close of\nthe general meeting, come to form the majority of those present; and\nthe few ordinary shareholders who have been patient enough to stay, are\noutvoted by those having interests distinct from their own and quite at\nvariance with the welfare of the Company.\n\n [5] We may remark in passing, that the practice of making the chairman\n of the board also chairman of the half-yearly meetings, is a very\n injudicious one. The directors are the servants of the proprietary; and\n meet them from time to time to render an account of their stewardship.\n That the chief of these servants, whose proceedings are about to\n be examined, should himself act as chief of the jury is absurd.\n Obviously, the business of each meeting should be conducted by some one\n independently chosen for the purpose; as the Speaker is chosen by the\n House of Commons.\n\nAnd here this allusion to the preference-share system, introduces\nus to a fact which may fitly close this detail of private interests\nand questionable practices\u2014a fact serving at once to illustrate the\nsubtlety and concert of railway officialism, and the power it can\nexert. That this fact may be fully appreciated, it must be premised,\nthat though preference-shares do not usually carry votes, they\nare sometimes specially endowed with them; and further, that they\noccasionally remain unpaid up until the expiration of a time after\nwhich no further calls can be legally made. In the case in question,\na large number of \u00a350 preference-shares had thus long stood with but\n\u00a35 paid. Promoters of extensions, &c., had here a fine opportunity of\ngetting great power in the Company at small cost; and, as we shall see,\nthey duly availed themselves of it. Already had their party twice tried\nto thrust the proprietors into a new undertaking of great magnitude.\nTwice had they entailed on them an expensive and harassing contest. A\nthird time, notwithstanding a professed relinquishment of it, they {81}\nbrought forward substantially the same scheme, and were defeated only\nby a small majority. The following extracts from the division lists we\ntake from the statement of one of the scrutineers.\n\n +\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\n \u2502                          \u2502  50_l._  \u2502                      \u2502Recorded\u2502 Total  \u2502 Number   \u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502Preference\u2502 Additional Stock or  \u2502Stock at\u2502 actual \u2502of Votes  \u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502  Shares  \u2502        Shares        \u2502the Poll\u2502Capital \u2502 scored   \u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502with 5_l._\u2502                      \u2502as held.\u2502paid up.\u2502 for the  \u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502 paid up. \u2502                      \u2502        \u2502        \u2502Extension.\u2502\n +\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\n \u2502                          \u2502          \u2502                      \u2502    \u00a3   \u2502   \u00a3    \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502          +\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502          \u2502 7,500_l._ stock, and \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502The Company\u2019s solicitor   \u2502      500 \u2502  100 50_l._ shares,  \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502          \u2502  with 42_l._ 10_s._  \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502          \u2502  paid up.            \u2502 75,650 \u2502 18,140 \u2502      188 \u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502          \u2502                      \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502Ditto in joint account    \u2502          \u2502                      \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502  with another            \u2502      778 \u2502        None.         \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502          +\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2502\n \u2502The solicitor\u2019s partner   \u2502       60 \u2502        None.         \u2502  3,000 \u2502    300 \u2502       20 \u2502\n \u2502The Company\u2019s engineer    \u2502      150 \u2502        None.         \u2502  7,500 \u2502    750 \u2502       33 \u2502\n \u2502The engineer\u2019s partner    \u2502    1,354 \u2502   4,266_l._ stock.   \u2502 71,966 \u2502 11,036 \u2502      161 \u2502\n \u2502One of the Company\u2019s      \u2502          \u2502                      \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502  parliamentary counsel   \u2502      200 \u2502   1,000_l._ stock.   \u2502 11,000 \u2502  2,000 \u2502       40 \u2502\n \u2502Another ditto, ditto      \u2502      125 \u2502     200_l._ stock.   \u2502  6,450 \u2502    825 \u2502       30 \u2502\n \u2502Local solicitor for       \u2502          \u2502                      \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502  the proposed extension  \u2502        7 \u2502        None.         \u2502    350 \u2502     35 \u2502        7 \u2502\n \u2502The Company\u2019s contractor  \u2502          \u2502                      \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502  for permanent-way       \u2502      347 \u2502      52,833_l._      \u2502 70,183 \u2502 54,568 \u2502      158 \u2502\n \u2502The Company\u2019s conveyancer \u2502    1,003 \u2502     333_l._ stock.   \u2502 50,483 \u2502  5,348 \u2502      118 \u2502\n \u2502The Company\u2019s furniture   \u2502          \u2502                      \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502  printer                 \u2502       35 \u2502  10,000_l._ stock.   \u2502 11,750 \u2502 10,175 \u2502       41 \u2502\n \u2502The Company\u2019s surveyor    \u2502      360 \u2502   1,250_l._ stock.   \u2502 19,250 \u2502  3,050 \u2502       56 \u2502\n \u2502The Company\u2019s architect   \u2502      217 \u250214,916_l._ stock; 119 \u2502 32,230 \u2502 20,416 \u2502       82 \u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502          \u2502  50_l._ shares, with \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502          \u2502  42_l._ 10_s._ paid  \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502          \u2502  up; and 13 40_l._   \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502          \u2502  shares, with 34_l._ \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502                          \u2502          \u2502  paid up.            \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502One of the Company\u2019s      \u2502          \u2502                      \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502  carriers.               \u2502       17 \u2502     833_l._ stock.   \u2502  1,683 \u2502    918 \u2502       14 \u2502\n \u2502The Company\u2019s bankers:\u2014   \u2502          \u2502                      \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502  One Partner             \u2502  .. ..   \u2502        ..    ..      \u2502 33,666 \u2502 32,366 \u2502       90 \u2502\n \u2502  Another partner         \u2502  .. ..   \u2502        ..    ..      \u2502  2,500 \u2502  2,500 \u2502       18 \u2502\n \u2502  Ditto in joint account  \u2502          \u2502                      \u2502        \u2502        \u2502          \u2502\n \u2502    with another          \u2502  .. ..   \u2502        ..    ..      \u2502  1,000 \u2502    850 \u2502       12 \u2502\n +\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500+\n\nTo this list, some seven or eight of the Company\u2019s tradesmen, similarly\narmed, might be added; raising the number of the almost factitious\nshares held by functionaries to about 5200, and increasing the votes\ncommanded by them, from its present total of 1068 to upwards of\n1100. If now we separate the \u00a3380,000, which these gentlemen bring\nto bear against their brother shareholders, into real and nominal;\nwe find that while not quite \u00a3120,000 of it is _bon\u00e2 fide_ property\ninvested, the remaining \u00a3260,000 is nine {82} parts shadow and one\npart substance. And thus it results, that by virtue of certain stock\nactually representing but \u00a326,000, these lawyers, engineers, counsel,\nconveyancers, contractors, bankers, and others interested in the\npromotion of new schemes, outweigh more than a quarter of a million of\nthe real capital held by shareholders whom these schemes will injure!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNeed we any longer wonder, then, at the persistence of Railway\nCompanies in seemingly reckless competition and ruinous extensions?\nIs not this obstinate continuance of a policy that has year after\nyear proved disastrous, sufficiently explicable on contemplating the\nmany illegitimate influences at work? Is it not manifest that the\nsmall organized party always out-man\u0153uvres the large unorganized one?\nConsider their respective characters and circumstances. Here are the\nshareholders diffused throughout the kingdom, in towns and country\nhouses; knowing nothing of each other, and too remote to co-operate\nwere they acquainted. Very few of them see a railway journal; and\nscarcely any know much of railway politics. Necessarily a fluctuating\nbody, only a small number are familiar with the Company\u2019s history\u2014its\nacts, engagements, policy, management. A great proportion are\nincompetent to judge of the matters that come before them, and lack\ndecision to act out such judgments as they may form\u2014executors who do\nnot like to take steps involving much responsibility; trustees fearful\nof interfering with the property under their care, lest possible loss\nshould entail a lawsuit; widows who have never in their lives acted for\nthemselves in any affair of moment; maiden ladies, alike nervous and\ninnocent of all business knowledge; clergymen whose daily discipline\nhas been little calculated to make them acute men of the world;\nretired tradesmen whose retail transactions have given them small\nability for grasping large considerations; servants possessed of {83}\naccumulated savings and cramped notions; with sundry others of like\nhelpless characters\u2014all of them rendered more or less conservative by\nignorance or timidity, and proportionately inclined to support those in\nauthority. To these should be added the temporary shareholders, who,\nhaving bought stock on speculation, and knowing that a revolution in\nthe Company is likely to depress prices for a time, have an interest in\nsupporting the board irrespective of the goodness of its policy. Turn\nnow to those whose efforts are directed to railway expansion. Consider\nthe constant pressure of local populations\u2014of small towns, of rural\ndistricts, of landowners: all of them eager for branch accommodation;\nall of them with great and definite advantages in view; few of them\nconscious of the loss those advantages may entail on others. Remember\nthe influence of legislators, prompted, some by their constituents,\nsome by personal aims, and encouraged by the belief that additional\nrailway facilities are in every case nationally beneficial; and then\ninfer the extent to which as stated to Mr. Cardwell\u2019s committee,\nParliament has \u201cexcited and urged forward\u201d Companies into rivalry.\nNote the temptations under which lawyers are placed\u2014the vast profits\naccruing to them from every railway contest, whether ending in success\nor failure; and then imagine the range and subtlety of their extension\nman\u0153uvring. Conceive the urgency of engineers; to the richer of whom\nmore railway-making means more wealth; to the mass of whom more\nrailway-making means daily bread. Estimate the capitalist-power of\ncontractors; whose unemployed plant brings heavy loss; whose plant when\nemployed brings great gain. Then recollect that to lawyers, engineers,\nand contractors the getting up and executing of new undertakings is a\nbusiness\u2014a business to which every energy is directed; in which many\nyears of practice have given great skill; and to the facilitation of\nwhich, all means tolerated by men of the world are thought justifiable.\n{84} Finally, consider that the classes interested in carrying out\nnew schemes, are in constant communication, and have every facility\nfor combined action. A great part of them live in London, and most\nof these have offices at Westminster\u2014in Great George Street, in\nParliament Street, clustering round the Legislature. Not only are they\nthus concentrated\u2014not only are they throughout the year in frequent\nbusiness intercourse; but during the session they are daily together,\nin Palace-Yard Hotels, in the lobbies, in the committee-rooms, in the\nHouse of Commons itself. Is it any wonder then, that the wide-spread,\nill-informed unorganized body of shareholders, standing severally\nalone, and each pre-occupied with his private affairs, should be\ncontinually out-generalled by the comparatively small but active,\nskilful, combined body opposed to them, whose very occupation is at\nstake in gaining the victory?\n\n\u201cBut how about the directors?\u201d it will perhaps be asked. \u201cHow can they\nbe parties to these obviously unwise undertakings? They are themselves\nshareholders; they gain by whatever benefits the proprietary at large;\nthey lose by whatever injures it. And if without their consent, or\nrather their agency, no new scheme can be adopted by the Company, the\nclasses interested in fostering railway enterprise are powerless to do\nharm.\u201d\n\nThis belief in the identity of directorial and proprietary interests,\nis the fatal error commonly made by shareholders. It is this which,\nin spite of bitter experiences, leads them to be so careless and so\ntrustful. \u201cTheir profit is our profit; their loss is our loss; they\nknow more than we do; therefore let us leave the matter to them.\u201d\nSuch is the argument which more or less definitely passes through the\nshareholding mind\u2014an argument of which the premises are delusive, and\nthe inference disastrous. Let us consider it in detail.\n\nNot to dwell on the disclosures that have in years past {85} been made\nrespecting the share-trafficking of directors, and the large profits\nrealized by it\u2014disclosures which alone suffice to disprove the assumed\nidentity between the interests of board and proprietary\u2014and taking for\ngranted that little, if any, of this now takes place; let us go on\nto notice the still-prevailing influences which render this apparent\ncommunity of aims illusive. The immediate interests which directors\nhave in the prosperity of the Company, are often much less than is\nsupposed. Occasionally they possess only the bare qualification of\n\u00a31000 worth of stock. In some instances even this is partly nominal.\nAdmitting, however, as we do frankly, that in the great majority of\ncases the full qualification, and much more than the qualification, is\nheld; yet it must be borne in mind that the indirect advantages which\na wealthy member of a board may gain from the prosecution of a new\nundertaking, will often far outweigh the direct injury it will inflict\non him by lowering the value of his shares. A board usually consists,\nto a considerable extent, of gentlemen residing at different points\nthroughout the tract of country traversed by the railway they control:\nsome of them landowners; some merchants or manufacturers; some owners\nof mines or shipping. Almost always some or all of them are advantaged\nby a new branch or feeder. Those in close proximity to it, gain either\nby enhanced value of their lands, or by increased facilities of transit\nfor their commodities. Those at more remote parts of the main line,\nthough less directly interested, are still frequently interested in\nsome degree; for every extension opens up new markets either for\nproduce or raw materials; and if it is one effecting a junction with\nsome other system of railways, the greater mercantile conveniences\nafforded to directors thus circumstanced, become important. Obviously,\ntherefore, the indirect profits accruing to such from one of these\nextensions, may more than counterbalance the direct loss upon their\nrailway investments; {86} and though there are, doubtless, men too\nhonourable to let such considerations sway them, yet the generality can\nscarcely fail to be affected by temptations so strong. Then we have to\nremember the influences brought to bear upon directors having seats in\nParliament. Already these have been noticed; and we recur to them only\nfor the purpose of pointing out that the immediate evil of an increased\ndiscount on his \u00a31000 worth of stock, may be to a director of much less\nconsequence than the favours, patronage, connexions, which his aid in\ncarrying a new scheme will bring him. So that here too the supposed\nidentity of interests between directors and shareholders does not hold.\n\nMoreover, this disunion of interests is increased by the system of\npreference-stock. Were there no other cause in action, the raising\nof capital for supplementary undertakings, by issuing shares bearing\na guaranteed interest of 5, 6, and 7 per cent., would destroy that\ncommunity of motives supposed to exist between a railway proprietary\nand its executive. Little as the fact is recognized, it is yet readily\ndemonstrable that by raising one of these mortgages, a Company is\nforthwith divided into two classes; the one consisting of the richer\nshareholders, inclusive of the directors, and the other of the poorer\nshareholders; of which classes the richer one can protect itself from\nthe losses which the poorer one has to bear\u2014nay, can even profit by the\nlosses of the poorer one. This assertion, startling as it will be to\nmany, we will proceed to prove.\n\nWhen the capital required for a branch or extension is raised by\nmeans of guaranteed shares, it is the custom to give each proprietor\nthe option of taking up a number of such shares proportionate to the\nnumber of his original shares. By availing himself of this offer, he\npartially protects himself against any loss which the new undertaking\nmay entail. Should this, not fulfilling the promises of its advocates,\ndiminish in some degree the general {87} dividend; yet, a high\ndividend on the due proportion of preference-stock, may nearly or\nquite compensate for this. Hence, it becomes the policy of all who\ncan do so, to take up as many guaranteed shares as they can get.\nBut what happens when the circular announcing this apportionment of\nguaranteed shares is sent round? Those who possess much stock, being\ngenerally capitalists, accept as many as are allotted to them. On the\nother hand, the smaller holders, constituting as they do the bulk of\nthe Company, having no available funds with which to pay the calls\non new shares, are obliged to part with their letters of allotment.\nWhat results? When this additional line has been opened, and it turns\nout, as usual, that its revenue is insufficient to meet the guaranteed\ndividend on its shares\u2014when the general income of the Company is\nlaid under contribution to make up this guaranteed dividend\u2014when as\na consequence, the dividend on the original stock is diminished;\nthen the poorer shareholders who possess original stock only, find\nthemselves losers; while the richer ones, possessing guaranteed shares\nin addition, find that their gain on preference-dividends nearly or\nquite counterbalances their loss on general dividends. Indeed, as above\nhinted, the case is even worse. For as the large share-proprietor who\nhas obtained his proportion of guaranteed stock, is not obliged to\nretain his original stock\u2014as, if he doubts the paying character of the\nnew undertaking, he can always sell such of his shares as will suffer\nfrom it; it is obvious that he may, if he pleases, become the possessor\nof preference-shares only; and may so obtain a handsome return for his\nmoney at the expense of the Company at large and the small shareholders\nin particular. How far this policy is pursued we do not pretend to\nsay; though the table given some pages back suggests extensive pursuit\nof it. All which it here concerns us to notice, is, that directors,\nbeing mostly men of large means, and being therefore able to avail\nthemselves of this guaranteed {88} stock, are liable to be swayed\nby motives different from those of the general proprietary. And that\nthey often are so swayed there cannot be a doubt. Without assuming\nthat any of them deliberately intend to benefit at the cost of their\nco-proprietors; and believing, as we do, that few of them duly perceive\nthat the protection they will have, is a protection not available by\nthe shareholders at large; we think it is a rational deduction from\ncommon experience, that this prospect of compensation often turns the\nscale in the minds of those who are hesitating, and diminishes the\nopposition of those who disapprove.\n\nThus, the belief which leads most railway shareholders to place\nimplicit faith in their directors, is an erroneous one. It is not true\nthat there is an identity of interest between the proprietary and its\nexecutive. It is not true that the board forms an efficient guard\nagainst the intrigues of lawyers, engineers, contractors, and others\nwho profit by railway-making. Contrariwise, its members are not only\nliable to be drawn from their line of duty by various indirect motives,\nbut by the system of guaranteed shares they are placed under a positive\ntemptation to betray their constituents.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd now what is the proximate origin of these corruptions? and what is\nthe remedy for them? What error in railway legislation is it that has\nmade possible such complicated chicaneries? Whence arises this facility\nwith which interested persons thrust companies into unwise enterprises?\nWe believe there is a very simple answer to these questions. It is an\nanswer, however, which will at first sight seem quite irrelevant; and\nwe doubt not that the corollary we propose drawing from it, will be\nforthwith condemned by so-called practical men. Nevertheless, we are\nnot without hope of showing, both that the evils laboured under would\nbe excluded were this corollary recognized, and that recognition of it\nis not only feasible, but would {89} even open the way out of sundry\nperplexities in which railway legislation is at present involved.\n\nWe conceive, then, that the fundamental vice of our system, as hitherto\ncarried out, lies in _the misinterpretation of the proprietary\ncontract_\u2014the contract tacitly entered into between each shareholder\nand the body of shareholders with whom he unites; and that the remedy\nfor these evils which have now become so great, lies simply in the\nenforcement of an equitable interpretation of this contract. In reality\nthe contract is a strictly limited one. In practice it is treated\nas altogether unlimited. And the thing needed is, that it should be\nclearly defined and abided by.\n\nOur popular form of government has so habituated us to seeing public\nquestions decided by the voice of the majority, and the system is\nso manifestly equitable in the cases daily before us, that there\nhas been produced in the general mind, an unhesitating belief that\nthe majority\u2019s right is unbounded. Under whatever circumstances men\nco-operate, it is held that if difference of opinion arises among\nthem, justice requires that the will of the greater number shall be\nexecuted rather than that of the smaller number; be the question at\nissue what it may. So confirmed is this conviction, that to most this\nmere suggestion of a doubt will cause astonishment. Yet it needs but\na brief analysis to show that the conviction is little better than\na political superstition. Instances may readily be selected which\nprove, by _reductio ad absurdum_, that the right of a majority is a\npurely conditional right, valid only within specific limits. Let us\ntake a few. Suppose that at the general meeting of some philanthropic\nassociation, it was resolved that in addition to relieving distress\nthe association should employ home-missionaries to preach down popery.\nMight the subscriptions of Catholics, who had joined the body with\ncharitable views, be rightfully used for this end? Suppose that of the\nmembers of a book-club, the greater number, thinking {90} that under\nexisting circumstances rifle-practice is more important than reading,\nshould decide to change the purpose of their union, and to apply the\nfunds in hand for the purchase of powder, ball, and targets. Would the\nrest be bound by this decision? Suppose that under the excitement of\nnews from Australia, the majority of a Freehold Land Society should\ndetermine, not simply to start in a body for the gold diggings, but\nto use their accumulated capital to provide outfits. Would this\nappropriation of property be just to the minority? and must these join\nthe expedition? Scarcely any one would venture an affirmative answer\neven to the first of these questions; much less to the others. And why?\nBecause everyone must perceive that by joining with others, no man\ncan equitably be committed to acts utterly foreign to the purpose for\nwhich he joined them. Each of these supposed minorities would properly\nreply to those seeking to coerce them:\u2014\u201cWe combined with you for a\ndefined object; we gave money and time for the furtherance of that\nobject; on all questions thence arising, we tacitly agreed to conform\nto the will of the greater number; but we did not agree to conform\non any other questions. If you induce us to join you by professing a\ncertain end, and then undertake some other end of which we were not\napprised, you obtain our support under false pretences; you exceed\nthe expressed or understood compact to which we committed ourselves;\nand we are no longer bound by your decisions.\u201d Clearly this is the\nonly rational interpretation of the matter. The general principle\nunderlying the right government of every incorporated body, is, that\nits members contract with each other severally to submit to the will of\nthe majority _in all matters concerning the fulfilment of the objects\nfor which they are incorporated; but in no others_. To this extent\nonly can the contract hold. For as it is implied in the very nature of\na contract, that those entering into it must know what they contract\nto do; and as those who unite with others for a specified object,\n{91} cannot contemplate all the unspecified objects which it is\nhypothetically possible for the union to undertake; it follows that the\ncontract entered into cannot extend to such unspecified objects. And if\nthere exists no expressed or understood contract between the union and\nits members respecting unspecified objects, then for the majority to\ncoerce the minority into undertaking them, is nothing less than gross\ntyranny.\n\nNow this almost self-evident principle is wholly ignored, alike in our\nrailway legislation and the proceedings of our companies. Definite as\nis the purpose with which the promoters of a public enterprise combine,\nmany other purposes not dreamed of at the outset are commonly added\nto it; and this, apparently, without any suspicion that such a course\nis unwarrantable, unless taken with the _unanimous_ consent of the\nproprietors. The unsuspecting shareholder who signed the subscription\ncontract for a line from Greatborough to Grandport, did so under the\nbelief that this line would not only be a public benefit but a good\ninvestment. He was familiar with the country. He had been at some\ntrouble to estimate the traffic. And, fully believing that he knew\nwhat he was embarking in, he put down his name for a large amount.\nThe line has been made; a few years of prosperity have justified his\nforesight; when, at some fatal special meeting, a project is put before\nhim for a branch from Littlehomestead to Stonyfield. The will of the\nboard and the intrigues of the interested, overbear all opposition;\nand in spite of the protests of many who like him see its impolicy,\nhe presently finds himself involved in an undertaking which, when he\njoined the promoters of the original line, he had not the remotest\nconception would ever be proposed. From year to year this proceeding is\nrepeated. His dividends dwindle and his shares go down; and eventually\nthe congeries of enterprises to which he is committed, grows so vast\nthat the first enterprise of the series becomes but a small fraction\nof the whole. Yet it is in virtue of his {92} consent to this first\nof the series, that all the rest are thrust upon him. He feels that\nthere is injustice somewhere; but, believing in the unlimited right of\na majority, fails to detect it. He does not see that when the first of\nthese extensions was proposed, he should have denied the power of his\nbrother-shareholders to implicate him in an undertaking not named in\ntheir deed of incorporation. He should have told its proposers that\nthey were perfectly free to form a separate Company for the execution\nof it; but that they could not rightfully compel dissentients to\njoin in a new undertaking, any more than they could rightfully have\ncompelled dissentients to join in the original. Had such a shareholder\nunited with others for the specified purpose of _making railways_, he\nwould have had no ground for protest. But he united with others for\nthe specified purpose of _making a particular railway_. Yet such is\nthe confusion of ideas on the subject, that there is absolutely no\ndifference recognized between these cases!\n\nIt will doubtless be alleged in defence of all this, that these\nsecondary enterprises are supplementary to the original one\u2014are in\npart undertaken for the furtherance of it; professedly minister to\nits prosperity; cannot, therefore, be regarded as altogether separate\nenterprises. And it is true that they have this for their excuse. But\nif it is a sufficient excuse for accessories of this kind, it may\nbe made a sufficient excuse for any accessories whatever. Already,\nCompanies have carried the practice beyond the making of branches and\nextensions. Already, under the plea of bringing traffic to their lines,\nthey have constructed docks; bought lines of steam-packets; built vast\nhotels; deepened river-channels. Already, they have created small towns\nfor their workmen; erected churches and schools; salaried clergymen and\nteachers. Are these warranted on the ground of advancing the Companies\u2019\ninterests? Then thousands of other undertakings are similarly\nwarranted. If a view to the development of traffic, justifies the\nmaking {93} of a branch to some neighbouring coal-mines; then, should\nthe coal-mines be inefficiently worked, the same view would justify\nthe purchase of them\u2014would justify the Company in becoming coal-miner\nand coal-seller. If anticipated increase of goods and passengers is a\nsufficient reason for carrying a feeder into an agricultural district;\nthen, it is a sufficient reason for organizing a system of coaches and\nwaggons to run in connexion with this feeder; for making the requisite\nhorse-breeding establishments; for hiring the needful farms; for buying\nestates; for becoming agriculturists. If it be allowable to purchase\nsteamers plying in conjunction with the railway; it must be allowable\nto purchase merchant vessels to trade in conjunction with it; it must\nbe allowable to set up a yard for building such vessels; it must be\nallowable to erect dep\u00f4ts at foreign ports for the receipt of goods;\nit must be allowable to employ commission agents for collecting such\ngoods; it must be allowable to extend a mercantile organization all\nover the world. From making its own engines and carriages, a Company\nmay readily progress to manufacturing its own iron and growing\nits own timber. From giving its _employ\u00e9s_ secular and religious\ninstruction, and providing houses for them, it may go on to supply them\nwith food, clothing, medical attendance, and all the needs of life.\nBeginning simply as a corporation to make and work a railway between\nA and B; it may become a miner, manufacturer, merchant, shipowner,\ncanal-proprietor, hotel-keeper, landowner, house-builder, farmer,\nretail-trader, priest, teacher\u2014an organization of indefinite extent\nand complication. There is no logical alternative between permitting\nthis, and strictly limiting the corporation to the object first agreed\nupon. A man joining with others for a specific purpose, must be held to\ncommit himself to that purpose only; or else to all purposes whatever\nwhich they may choose to undertake.\n\nBut proprietors dissenting from one of these supplementary projects\nare told that they have the option of {94} selling out. So might the\ndissentients from a new State-enforced creed be told, that if they\ndid not like it they might leave the country. The one reply is little\nmore satisfactory than the other would be. The opposing shareholder\nsees himself in possession of a good investment\u2014one perhaps which,\nas an original subscriber, he ran some risk in obtaining. This\ninvestment is about to be endangered by an act not named in the deed of\nincorporation. And his protests are met by saying, that if he fears the\ndanger he may part with his investment. Surely this choice between two\nevils scarcely meets his claims. Moreover, he has not even this in any\nfair sense. It is often an unfavourable time to sell. The very rumour\nof one of these extensions frequently causes a depreciation of stock.\nAnd if many of the minority throw their shares on the market, this\ndepreciation is greatly increased; a fact which further hinders them\nfrom selling. So that each is in a dilemma: he has to part with a good\ninvestment at much less than its value; or to run the risk of having\nits value greatly diminished.\n\nThe injustice thus inflicted on minorities is, indeed, already\nrecognized in a vague way. The recently-established Standing Order\nof the House of Lords, that before a Company carry out any new\nundertaking, three-fourths of the votes of the proprietors shall be\nrecorded in its favour, clearly implies a perception that the usual\nrule of the majority does not apply. And again, in the case of The\nGreat Western Railway Company _versus_ Rushout, the decision that the\nfunds of the Company could not be used for purposes not originally\nauthorized, without a special legislative permit, involves the doctrine\nthat the will of the greater number is not of unlimited validity. In\nboth these cases, however, it is taken for granted that a State-warrant\ncan justify an act which without it would be unjustifiable. We must\ntake leave to question this. If it be held that an Act of Parliament\ncan make murder proper, or can give rectitude to robbery; it may be\nconsistently held that it {95} can sanctify a breach of contract;\nbut not otherwise. We are not about to enter upon the vexed question\nof the standard of right and wrong; and to inquire whether it is the\nfunction of a government to make rules of conduct, or simply to enforce\nrules deducible from the laws of social life. We are content, for the\noccasion, to adopt the expediency-hypothesis; and adopting it, must\nyet contend that, rightly interpreted, it gives no countenance to this\nsupposed power of a Government to alter the limits of an equitable\ncontract against the wishes of some of the contracting parties. For,\nas understood by its teachers and their chief disciples, the doctrine\nof expediency is not a doctrine implying that each particular act is\nto be determined by the particular consequences that may be expected\nto flow from it; but that the general consequences of entire classes\nof acts having been ascertained by induction from experience, rules\nshall be framed for the regulation of such classes of acts, and each\nrule shall be uniformly applied to every act coming under it. Our whole\nadministration of justice proceeds on this principle of invariably\nenforcing an ordained course, regardless of special results. Were\nimmediate consequences to be considered, the verdict gained by the rich\ncreditor against the poor debtor would generally be reversed; for the\nstarvation of the last is a much greater evil than the inconvenience\nof the first. Most thefts arising from distress would go unpunished; a\nlarge proportion of men\u2019s wills would be cancelled; many of the wealthy\nwould be dispossessed of their fortunes. But it is clearly seen that\nwere judges thus guided by proximate evils and benefits, the ultimate\nresult would be social confusion; that what was immediately expedient\nwould be ultimately inexpedient; and hence the aim at rigorous\nuniformity, spite of incidental hardships. Now, the binding nature\nof agreements is one of the commonest and most important principles\nof civil law. A large part of the causes daily heard in our courts,\ninvolve the {96} question, whether in virtue of some expressed or\nunderstood contract, some of those concerned are, or are not, bound to\ncertain acts or certain payments. And when it has been decided what\nthe contract implies, the matter is settled. The contract itself is\nheld sacred. This sacredness of a contract being, according to the\nexpediency-hypothesis, justified by the experience of all nations in\nall times that it is generally beneficial, it is _not_ competent for\na Legislature to declare that contracts are violable. Assuming that\nthe contracts are themselves equitable, there is no rational system\nof ethics which warrants the alteration or dissolving of them, save\nby the consent of all concerned. If then it be shown, as we think it\nhas been shown, that the contract tacitly entered into by railway\nshareholders with each other, has definite limits; it is the function\nof the Government to _enforce_, and not to _abolish_, those limits. It\ncannot decline to enforce them without running counter, not only to all\ntheories of moral obligation, but to its own judicial system. It cannot\nabolish them without glaring self-stultification.\n\nReturning, now, to the manifold evils of which the cause was asked;\nit only remains to point out that, were the just construction of the\nproprietary contract insisted upon, such evils would, in great part, be\nexcluded. The various illicit influences by which Companies are daily\nbetrayed into disastrous extensions, would necessarily be inoperative\nwhen such extensions could not be undertaken by them. When such\nextensions had to be undertaken by independent bodies of shareholders,\nwith no one to guarantee them good dividends, those who are locally\nand professionally interested would find it a less easy matter than at\npresent to aggrandize themselves at the expense of others.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd now as to the policy of thus modifying railway legislation\u2014the\ncommercial policy we mean. Leaving out of sight the more general social\ninterests, let us glance at {97} the effects on business interests\u2014the\nproximate instead of the ultimate effects. The implication contained\nin the last paragraph, that the making of supplementary lines would\nno longer be so facile, will be thought to prove the disadvantage of\nany such limit as the one advocated. Many will argue, that to restrict\nCompanies to their original undertakings would fatally cripple railway\nenterprise. Many others will remark, that, however detrimental to\nshareholders this extension system may have been, it has manifestly\nproved beneficial to the public. Both these positions seem to us more\nthan questionable. We will first look at the last of them.\n\nEven were travelling accommodation the sole thing to be considered, it\nwould not be true that prodigality in new lines has been advantageous.\nThe districts supplied have, in many cases, themselves been injured\nby it. It is shown by the evidence given before the Select Committee\non Railway and Canal Bills, that in Lancashire, the existence of\ncompeting lines has, in some cases, both diminished the facilities\nof communication and increased the cost. It is further shown by this\nevidence, that a town obtaining branches from two antagonist Companies,\nby-and-by, in consequence of a working arrangement between these\nCompanies, comes to be worse off than if it had but one branch; and\nHastings is quoted as an example. It is again shown that a district may\nbe wholly deprived of railway accommodation by granting a superfluity\nof lines; as in the case of Wilts and Dorset. In 1844\u20135, the Great\nWestern and the South Western Companies projected rival systems of\nlines, supplying these and parts of the adjacent counties. The Board of\nTrade, \u201casserting that there was not sufficient traffic to remunerate\nan outlay for two independent railways,\u201d reported in favour of the\nGreat Western schemes; and bills were granted for them: a certain\nagreement, suggested by the Board of Trade, being at the same time\nmade with the South Western, which, in {98} return for specified\nadvantages, conceded this district to its rival. Notwithstanding\nthis agreement, the South Western, in 1847, projected an extension\ncalculated to take most of the traffic from the Great Western\nextensions; and in 1848, Parliament, though it had virtually suggested\nthis agreement, and though the Great Western Company had already spent\na million and a half in part execution of the new lines, authorized\nthe South Western project. The result was, that the Great Western\nCompany suspended their works; the South Western Company were unable,\nfrom financial difficulties, to proceed with theirs; the district has\nremained for years unaccommodated; and only since the powers granted\nto the South Western have expired from delay, has the Great Western\nrecommenced its long-suspended undertakings.\n\nAnd if this undue multiplication of supplementary lines has often\ndirectly decreased the facilities of communication, still more has\nit done this indirectly, by maintaining the cost of travelling on\nthe main lines. Little as the public are conscious of the fact,\nit is nevertheless true, that they pay for the accommodation of\nunremunerative districts, by high fares in remunerative districts.\nBefore this reckless branch-making commenced, 8 and 9 per cent. were\nthe dividends returned by our chief railways; and these dividends were\nrapidly increasing. The maximum dividend allowed by their Acts is 10\nper cent. Had there not been unprofitable extensions, this maximum\nwould have been reached many years since; and in the absence of the\npower to undertake new works, the fact that it had been reached could\nnot have been hidden. Lower rates for goods and passengers would\nnecessarily have followed. These would have caused much additional\ntraffic; and with the aid of the natural increase otherwise going on,\nthe maximum would shortly again have been reached. There can scarcely\nbe a doubt that repetitions of this process would, before now, have\nreduced the fares and {99} freights on our main lines by at least\none-third. This reduction, be it remembered, would have affected those\nrailways which subserve commercial and social intercourse in the\ngreatest degree\u2014would, therefore, have applied to the most important\npart of the traffic throughout the kingdom. As it is, however, this\ngreater proportion of the traffic has been heavily taxed for the\nbenefit of the smaller proportion. That the tens who travel on branches\nmight have railway communication, the hundreds who travel along\nmain lines have been charged 30, or 40 per cent. extra. Nay, worse:\nthat these few might be accommodated, the many who would have been\nbrought on to the main lines by lower fares have gone unaccommodated.\nIs it then so clear that undertakings which have been disastrous to\nshareholders have yet been beneficial to the public?\n\nBut it is not only in greater cost of transit that the evil has been\nfelt; it has been felt also in diminished safety. The multiplication of\nrailway accidents, which has of late years drawn so much attention, has\nbeen in no inconsiderable degree caused by the extension policy. The\nrelation is not obvious; and we had ourselves no conception that such\na relation existed, until the facts illustrative of it were furnished\nto us by a director who had witnessed the whole process of causation.\nWhen preference-share dividends and guarantees began to make large\ndraughts upon half-yearly returns\u2014when original stock was greatly\ndepreciated, and the dividends upon it fell from 9 and 8 per cent. to\n4\u202f1/2 and 4 and 3\u202f1/2, great dissatisfaction necessarily arose\namong shareholders. There were stormy meetings, motions of censure,\nand committees of investigation. Retrenchment was the general cry;\nand retrenchment was carried to a most imprudent extent. Directors\nwith an indignant proprietary to face, and under the fear that their\nnext dividend would be no greater, perhaps less, than the last,\ndared not to lay out money for the needful repairs. {100} Permanent\nway, reported to them as requiring to be replaced, was made to serve\nawhile longer. Old rolling stock was not superseded by new to the\nproper extent; nor increased in proportion to the demand. Committees,\nappointed to examine where the expenditure could be cut down, went\nround discharging a porter here, dispensing with a clerk there, and\ndiminishing the salaries of the officials in general. To such a length\nwas this policy carried, that in one case, to effect a saving of \u00a31200\nper annum, the working staff was so crippled as to cause, in the course\nof a few years, a loss of probably \u00a3100,000: such, at least, is the\nopinion of the gentleman on whose authority we make this statement,\nwho was himself one of the retrenchment committee. What, now, was the\nnecessary result of all this? With the line out of condition; with\nengines and carriages neither sufficient in number nor in the best\nworking order; with drivers, guards, porters, clerks, and the rest,\ndecreased to the smallest number with which it was possible to work;\nwith inexperienced managers in place of the experienced ones driven\naway by reduced salaries; what was likely to occur? Was it not certain\nthat an apparatus of means just competent to deal with the ordinary\ntraffic, would be incompetent to deal with extraordinary traffic? that\na decimated body of officials under inferior regulation, would fail\nin the emergencies sure from time to time to occur? that with way and\nworks and rolling stock all below par, there would occasionally be a\nconcurrence of small defects, permitting something to go wrong? Was\nnot a multiplication of accidents inevitable? No one can doubt it. And\nif we trace back this result step by step to its original cause\u2014the\nreckless expenditure on new lines\u2014we shall see further reason to doubt\nwhether such expenditure has been as advantageous to the public as\nis supposed. We shall hesitate to indorse the opinion of the Select\nCommittee on Railway and Canal Bills, that it is {101} desirable \u201cto\nincrease the facility for obtaining lines of local convenience.\u201d\n\nStill more doubtful becomes the alleged benefit accruing to the\npublic from extensions which cause loss to shareholders, when, from\nconsidering the question as one of traffic, we turn to consider it as\na general commercial question\u2014a question of political economy. Were\nthere no facts showing that the travelling facilities gained were\ncounterbalanced, if not more than counterbalanced, by the travelling\nfacilities lost; we should still contend that the making of branches\nwhich do not return fair dividends, is a national evil, and not a\nnational good. The prevalent error committed in studying matters of\nthis nature, consists in looking at them separately, rather than in\nconnexion with other social wants and social benefits. Not only does\none of these undertakings, when executed, affect society in various\nways, but the effort put forth in the execution of it affects society\nin various ways; and to form a true estimate, the two sets of results\nmust be compared. The axiom that \u201caction and re-action are equal, and\nin opposite directions,\u201d is true, not only in mechanics\u2014it is true\neverywhere. No power can be put forth by a nation to achieve a given\nend, without producing, for the time being, a corresponding inability\nto achieve some other end. No amount of capital can be abstracted\nfor one purpose, without involving an equivalent lack of capital for\nanother purpose. Every advantage wrought out by labour, is purchased\nby the relinquishment of some alternative advantage which that labour\nmight else have wrought out. In judging, therefore, of the benefits\nflowing from any public undertaking, it is requisite to consider\nthem not by themselves, but as compared with the benefits which the\ninvested capital would otherwise have secured. But how can these\nrelative benefits be measured? it may be asked. Very simply. The rate\nof interest which the capital will bring as thus respectively {102}\nemployed, is the measure. Money which, if used for a certain end,\ngives a smaller return than it would give if otherwise used, is used\ndisadvantageously, not only to its possessors, but to the community.\nThis is a corollary from the commonest principles of political\neconomy\u2014a corollary so obvious that we can scarcely understand how,\nafter the free-trade controversy, a committee, numbering among its\nmembers Mr. Bright and Mr. Cardwell, should have overlooked it. Have\nwe not been long ago taught, that in the mercantile world capital\ngoes where it is most wanted\u2014that the business which is at any time\nattracting capital by unusually high returns, is a business proved by\nthat very fact to be unusually active\u2014that its unusual activity shows\nsociety to be making great demands upon it; giving it high profits;\nwanting its commodities or services more than other commodities or\nservices? Do not comparisons among our railways demonstrate that\nthose paying large dividends are those subserving the public needs\nin a greater degree than those paying small dividends? and is it not\nobvious that the efforts of capitalists to get these large dividends\nled them to supply the greater needs before the lesser needs? Surely,\nthe same law which holds in ordinary commerce, and also holds between\none railway investment and another, holds likewise between railway\ninvestments and other investments. If the money spent in making\nbranches and feeders is yielding an average return of from 1 to 2 per\ncent.; while if employed in land-draining or ship-building, it would\nreturn 4 or 5 per cent.; it is a conclusive proof that money is more\nwanted for land-draining and ship-building than for branch-making. And\nthe general conclusions to be drawn are, that that large proportion\nof railway capital which does not pay the current rate of interest,\nis capital ill laid out; that if the returns on such proportion were\ncapitalized at the current rate of interest, the resulting sum would\nrepresent its real value; and that {103} the difference between this\nsum and the amount expended, would indicate the national loss\u2014a loss\nwhich, on the lowest estimate, would exceed \u00a3100,000,000. And however\ntrue it may be that the sum invested in unprofitable lines will go on\nincreasing in productiveness; yet as, if more wisely invested, it would\nsimilarly have gone on increasing in productiveness, perhaps even at a\ngreater rate, this vast loss must be regarded as a permanent and not as\na temporary one.\n\nAgain then, we ask, is it so obvious that undertakings which have\nbeen disastrous to shareholders have been advantageous to the public?\nIs it not obvious, rather, that, in this respect, as in others, the\ninterests of shareholders and the public are in the end identical? And\ndoes it not seem that instead of recommending \u201cincreased facilities\nfor obtaining lines of local convenience,\u201d the Select Committee might\nproperly have reported that the existing facilities are abnormally\ngreat, and should be decreased?\n\nThere remains still to be considered the other of the two objections\nabove stated as liable to be raised against the proposed interpretation\nof the proprietary contract\u2014the objection, namely, that it would be a\nserious hindrance to railway enterprise. After what has already been\nsaid, it is scarcely needful to reply, that the hindrance would be no\ngreater than is natural and healthful\u2014no greater than is requisite\nto hold in check the private interests at variance with public ones.\nThis notion that railway enterprise will not go on with due activity\nwithout artificial incentives\u2014that bills for local extensions \u201crather\nneed encouragement,\u201d as the Committee say, is nothing but a remnant\nof protectionism. The motive which has hitherto led to the formation\nof all independent railway companies\u2014the search of capitalists for\ngood investments\u2014may safely be left to form others as fast as local\nrequirements become great enough to promise fair returns\u2014as fast, that\nis, as local requirements {104} should be satisfied. This would be\nmanifest enough without illustration; but there are facts proving it.\n\nAlready we have incidentally referred to the circumstance, that it has\nof late become common for landowners, merchants, and others locally\ninterested, to get up railways for their own accommodation, which they\ndo not expect to pay satisfactory dividends; and in which they are\nyet content to invest considerable sums, under the belief that the\nindirect profits accruing to them from increased facilities of traffic,\nwill outbalance the direct loss. To so great an extent is this policy\nbeing carried that, as stated to the Select Committee, \u201cin Yorkshire\nand Northumberland, where branch lines are being made through mere\nagricultural districts, the landowners are _giving their land_ for the\npurpose, and taking shares.\u201d With such examples before us, it cannot\nrationally be doubted that there will always be capital forthcoming\nfor making local lines as soon as the sum of the calculated benefits,\ndirect and indirect, justifies its expenditure.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d it will be urged, \u201ca branch that would be unremunerative as an\nindependent property, is often remunerative to the company which has\nmade it, in virtue of the traffic it brings to the trunk line. Though\nyielding meagre returns on its own capital, yet, by increasing the\nreturns on the capital of the trunk line, it compensates, or more than\ncompensates. Were the existing company, however, forbidden to extend\nits undertaking, such a branch would not be made; and injury would\nresult.\u201d This is all true, with the exception of the last assertion,\nthat such a branch would not be made. Though in its corporate capacity\nthe company owning the trunk line would be unable to execute a work of\nthis nature, there would be nothing to prevent individual shareholders\nin the trunk line from uniting to execute it; and were the prospects as\nfavourable as is assumed, this course, being manifestly advantageous to\nindividual shareholders, would be pursued by many of them. If, acting\nin concert with others similarly {105} circumstanced, the owner of\n\u00a310,000 worth of stock in the trunk line, could aid the carrying out\nof a proposed feeder promising to return only 2 per cent. on its cost,\nby taking shares to the extent of \u00a31000, it would answer his purpose\nto do this, providing the extra traffic it brought would raise the\ntrunk-line dividend by one-fourth per cent. Thus, under a limited\nproprietary contract, companies would still, as now, foster extensions\nwhere they were wanted: the only difference being that, in the absence\nof guaranteed dividends, due caution would be shown; and the poorer\nshareholders would not, as at present, be sacrificed to the richer.\n\nIn brief, our position is, that whenever, by the efforts of all parties\nto be advantaged\u2014local landowners, manufacturers, merchants, trunk-line\nshareholders, &c., the capital for an extension can be raised\u2014whenever\nit becomes clear to all such, that their indirect profits plus their\ndirect profits will make the investment a paying one; the fact is proof\nthat the line is wanted. On the contrary, whenever the prospective\ngains to those interested are insufficient to induce them to undertake\nit, the fact is proof that the line is not wanted so much as other\nthings are wanted, and therefore _ought not to be made_. Instead, then,\nof the principle we advocate being objectionable as a check to railway\nenterprise, one of its merits is, that by destroying the artificial\nincentives to such enterprise, it would confine it within normal limits.\n\nA perusal of the evidence given before the Select Committee will show\nthat it has sundry other merits, which we have space only to indicate.\n\nIt is estimated by Mr. Laing\u2014and Mr. Stephenson, while declining to\ncommit himself to the estimate, \u201cdoes not believe he has overstated\nit,\u201d\u2014that out of the \u00a3280,000,000 already raised for the construction\nof our railways, \u00a370,000,000 has been needlessly spent in contests,\nin duplicate lines, in \u201cthe multiplication of an immense number of\nschemes prosecuted at an almost reckless {106} expense;\u201d and Mr.\nStephenson believes that this sum is \u201ca very inadequate representative\nof the actual loss in point of convenience, economy, and other\ncircumstances connected with traffic, which the public has sustained\nby reason of parliamentary carelessness in legislating for railways.\u201d\nUnder an equitable interpretation of the proprietary contract, the\ngreater part of this would have been avoided.\n\nThe competition between rival companies in extension and branch-making,\nwhich has already done vast injury, and the effects of which, if not\nstopped, will, in the opinion of Mr. Stephenson, be such that \u201cproperty\nnow paying 5\u202f1/2 per cent. will in ten years be worth only 3 per\ncent., and that on twenty-one millions of money\u201d\u2014this competition\ncould never have existed in its intense and deleterious form under the\nlimiting principle we advocate.\n\nPrompted by jealousy and antagonism, our companies have obtained powers\nfor 2000 miles of railway which they have never made. The millions thus\nsquandered in surveys and parliamentary contests\u2014\u201cfood for lawyers and\nengineers\u201d\u2014would nearly all have been saved, had each supplementary\nline been obtainable only by an independent body of proprietors with no\none to shield them from the penalties of reckless scheming.\n\nIt is admitted that the branches and feeders constructed from\ncompetitive motives have not been laid out in the best directions for\nthe public. To defeat, or retaliate upon, opponents, having been one of\nthe ends\u2014often the chief end\u2014in making them, routes have been chosen\nespecially calculated to effect this end; and the local traffic has\nin consequence been ill provided for. Had these branches and feeders,\nhowever, been left to the enterprise of their respective districts,\naided by such other enterprise as they could attract, the reverse would\nhave been the fact; seeing that on the average, in these smaller cases\nas in the greater ones, the routes which most accommodate the public\nmust be the routes most profitable to projectors.\n\nWere the illegitimate competition in extension-making {107} done away,\nthere would remain between companies just that normal competition which\nis advantageous to all. It is not true, as is alleged, that there\ncannot exist between railways a competition analogous to that which\nexists between traders. The evidence of Mr. Saunders, the secretary of\nthe Great Western Company, proves the contrary. He shows that where\nthe Great Western and the North Western railways communicate with the\nsame towns, as at Birmingham and Oxford, each has tacitly adopted the\nfare which the other was charging; and that while there is thus no\ncompetition in fares, there is competition in speed and accommodation.\nThe results are, that each takes that portion of the traffic which, in\nvirtue of its position and local circumstances, naturally falls to its\nshare; that each stimulates the other to give the greatest advantages\nit can afford; and that each keeps the other in order by threatening\nto take away its natural share of the traffic if, by ill-behaviour or\ninefficiency, it counterbalances the special advantages it offers. Now,\nthis is just the form which competition eventually assumes between\ntraders. After it has been ascertained by underselling what is the\nlowest remunerative price at which any commodity can be sold, the\ngeneral results are, that that becomes the established price; that\neach trader is content to supply those only who, from proximity or\nother causes, naturally come to him; and that only when he treats his\ncustomers ill, need he fear that they will inconvenience themselves by\ngoing elsewhere for their goods.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIs there not, then, pressing need for an amendment of the laws\naffecting the proprietary contract\u2014an amendment which shall transform\nit from an unlimited into a limited contract; or rather\u2014not _transform_\nit into such, but _recognize_ it as such? If there be truth in our\nargument, the absence of any limitation has been the chief cause of the\nmanifold evils of our railway administration. The share-trafficking\n{108} of directors; the complicated intrigues of lawyers, engineers,\ncontractors, and others; the betrayal of proprietaries\u2014all the\ncomplicated corruptions which we have detailed, have primarily arisen\nfrom it, have been made possible by it. It has rendered travelling more\ncostly and less safe than it would have been; and while apparently\nfacilitating traffic, has indirectly hindered it. By fostering\nantagonism, it has led to the ill laying-out of supplementary lines;\nto the wasting of enormous sums in useless parliamentary contests; to\nthe loss of an almost incredible amount of national capital in the\nmaking of railways for which there is no due requirement. Regarded in\nthe mass, the investments of shareholders have been reduced by it to\nless than half the average productiveness which such investments should\npossess; and, as all authorities admit, railway property is, even\nnow, kept below its real value, by the fear of future depreciations\nconsequent on future extensions. Considering, then, the vastness of\nthe interests at stake\u2014considering that the total capital of our\ncompanies will soon reach \u00a3300,000,000\u2014considering, on the one hand,\nthe immense number of persons owning this capital (many of them with\nno incomes but what are derived from it), and, on the other hand, the\ngreat extent to which the community is concerned, both directly as to\nits commercial facilities, and indirectly as to the economy of its\nresources\u2014considering all this, it becomes extremely important that\nrailway property should be placed on a secure footing, and railway\nenterprise confined within normal bounds. The change is demanded\nalike for the welfare of shareholders and the public. No charge of\nover-legislation can be brought against it. It is simply an extension\nto joint-stock contracts, of the principle applied to all other\ncontracts; it is merely a fulfilment of the State\u2019s judicial function\nin cases hitherto neglected; it is nothing but a better administration\nof justice.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT.\u2014That the proprietary contract should be {109} strictly\nadhered to, and no undertakings beyond those specified in the\ndeed of incorporation entered upon, is a doctrine unpalatable to\nthose in authority. A friend who, as chairman of one of our great\nrailway-companies, has been familiar with railway-politics and\nparliamentary usages in connexion with them, contends that such a\nrestrictive interpretation would be unworkable; and, further, that the\nlegislature would never allow itself to be shackled in the implied way.\n\nThat he is right in the last of these assertions I think highly\nprobable. In face of the currently accepted dogma that an Act of\nParliament can do anything, it is foolish to expect that Parliament\nwould, by ethical considerations, be restrained from breaking\ncontracts and authorizing the breaking of contracts. When we see this\ndogma habitually acted upon to the extent of trampling under foot\nState-guarantees (as in the case of those who purchased land under\nthe Irish Encumbered Estates Act, or as in the case of agreements\noriginally entered into with companies to confer on them certain powers\nunder certain conditions) it would be absurd to suppose that any tender\nregard for the claims of dissentient proprietors would deter the\nruling body from cancelling the understanding under which shareholders\nconsented to co-operate. Men must be much more conscientious than they\nare before any such check is likely to be effective.\n\nTo the other objection\u2014that such a restriction would entail an\nunworkable complication\u2014I entirely demur. That its consequences would\nbe awkward under our present form of railway-administration may be\ntrue; but it is also true that had such a restriction been insisted on,\nanother and better form of railway-administration would have arisen.\nThis will probably be thought an unwarranted assertion. Nevertheless\nI make it with some confidence, since the form of administration to\nwhich I refer is one which was, in a different guise, contemplated\nwhen railways {110} were originally authorized. To those whose only\nconception of the mode of carrying on railway-traffic is that derived\nfrom their daily observations, this will be an incomprehensible\nstatement; but those who remember how railways were originally intended\nto be used will know what I mean.\n\nNovel schemes are always more or less shaped by old habits. At the time\nwhen the first railways were authorized, the experience men had of\ncoach-travelling on high roads, affected in various ways the structures\nof the new appliances and the natures of the new arrangements. The\nrailway gauge was determined by the width between the wheels of a\nstage-coach. Early first-class carriages were made to appear like the\ncentral parts of three stage-coaches joined together: preserving their\nconvex panels and curved outlines, and frequently having, on the centre\none, the words \u201c_Tria juncta in uno_.\u201d The inside of the first-class\ncarriage was fitted up to resemble the inside of a stage-coach; and\nthe original second-class carriage, having bare wooden seats over\nwhich, on vertical iron rods, was supported a roof allowing the wind\nand rain to blow through from side to side, was so designed as to be\nscarcely more comfortable than the outside of a coach. For some years\nthe guard had a seat on the outside, at the end of a carriage, as on\na coach; and for many years the luggage, covered with tarpaulin, was\nplaced on the roofs of carriages, as on the outsides of coaches. Once\nmore the booking-offices were at first like the booking-offices for\nstage-coaches\u2014places where passengers entered their names to secure\nseats. Little as the fact is now recognized, this kinship of ideas\nextended to the contemplated arrangements for working. Men thought\nthat traffic on railways might be carried on after the same manner as\ntraffic on high roads. It was assumed that on lines of rails, where the\npassing of vehicles going in the same direction is impracticable, the\nsystem pursued might be like that in use on high roads, {111} where\nvehicles can pass and re-pass in any direction and join or leave the\nstream at will. Does the reader ask proof of this? The proof lies in\nthe fact, well-known to those who were adult in the early days of\nrailways, that in the office or waiting-room of every railway-station\nwas fixed up a table of tolls, like that which was fixed up at every\ntoll-gate; but in this case specifying the rate chargeable per mile for\nall things carried\u2014passengers, horses, cattle, goods, &c. This table\nof tolls implied that it was within the power of others besides the\ncompany to run vehicles on the company\u2019s line, and pay them at such and\nsuch rates for the privilege of doing so\u2014a privilege which, so far as\nI know, was never made use of, for the sufficient reason that it would\nhave been impossible to carry on business amid the confusion which\nwould have resulted.\n\nBut while this arrangement, in the form implied, would have been\nimpracticable, it foreshadows an arrangement which would have been\npracticable; and one which would have grown up had each railway company\nbeen limited to the undertaking specified in its deed of incorporation.\nAfter experience of inefficient co-operation, when so many independent\nbodies owning branches and extensions had to adjust their train\nservices, &c., there would, in all probability, have been formed what\nwe may call running-companies or traffic-companies, separate from the\noriginal railway-companies. Each one of these would have proposed to\nthe companies owning the various main lines, extensions, and branches,\nwithin some large district conveniently delimited, to undertake the\nworking of their various lines: either taking them severally on lease,\nor agreeing to give a specified share of the net returns annually\nreceived, or agreeing to pay certain tolls for passengers and goods.\nUnder such an arrangement the original companies, standing in the\nposition of landlords, would have had for their chief business to keep\nthe embankments, cuttings, bridges, permanent way, stations, &c., in\nworking {112} order; while the running-companies, standing in the\nposition of tenants, but owning the rolling-stock, would have had for\ntheir business to conduct the passenger and goods traffic throughout\nthe whole area, with power to arrange the workings of the various\nsubdivisions of the system in a harmonious manner. Clearly, if there\nis an advantage in division of labour in other cases, there would have\nbeen an advantage in this case. The fixed works constituting each of\nthese inter-connected railways would have been kept in more perfect\nrepair, had preservation of them been the exclusive business of the\ncompanies owning them; while the running-companies, with nothing\nto attend to beyond the keeping in order of their rolling-stock\nand the management of train-services &c. would have done this more\nsatisfactorily.\n\nA further reason for believing that better results would have been\nachieved than are now achieved, is that under such circumstances\nthere would have been no absorption of directors\u2019 time in carrying on\nrailway-wars and getting new acts of parliament\u2014a business which, under\nthe existing system, has chiefly occupied the attention of boards.\n\nThe enforcement of equitable arrangements is often fraught with\nunanticipated benefits; and there seems reason to think that\nunanticipated benefits would have resulted in this case also.\n\n{113}\n\n\n\n\nTHE MORALS OF TRADE.\n\n[_First published in_ The Westminster Review _for April 1859_.]\n\n\nWe are not about to repeat, under the above title, the often-told\ntale of adulterations: albeit, were it our object to deal with this\nfamiliar topic, there are not wanting fresh materials. It is rather the\nless-observed and less-known dishonesties of trade, to which we would\nhere draw attention. The same lack of conscientiousness which shows\nitself in the mixing of starch with cocoa, in the dilution of butter\nwith lard, in the colouring of confectionery with chromate of lead and\narsenite of copper, must of course come out in more concealed forms;\nand these are nearly, if not quite, as numerous and as mischievous.\n\nIt is not true, as many suppose, that only the lower classes of the\ncommercial world are guilty of fraudulent dealing. Those above them\nare to a great extent blameworthy. On the average, men who deal in\nbales and tons differ but little in morality from men who deal in yards\nand pounds. Illicit practices of every form and shade, from venial\ndeception up to all but direct theft, may be brought home to the higher\ngrades of our commercial world. Tricks innumerable, lies acted or\nuttered, elaborately-devised frauds, are prevalent: {114} many of them\nestablished as \u201ccustoms of the trade;\u201d nay, not only established, but\ndefended.\n\nPassing over, then, the much-reprobated shopkeepers, of whose\ndelinquencies most people know something, let us turn our attention to\nthe delinquencies of the classes above them in the mercantile scale.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe business of wholesale houses\u2014in the clothing-trades at least\u2014is\nchiefly managed by a class of men called \u201cbuyers.\u201d Each wholesale\nestablishment is usually divided into several departments; and at the\nhead of each department is placed one of these functionaries. A buyer\nis a partially-independent sub-trader. At the beginning of the year he\nis debited with a certain share of the capital of his employers. With\nthis capital he trades. From the makers he orders for his department\nsuch goods as he thinks will find a market; and for the goods thus\nbought he obtains as large a sale as he can among the retailers of his\nconnexion. The accounts show at the end of the year what profit has\nbeen made on the capital over which he has command; and, according\nto the result, his engagement is continued\u2014perhaps at an increased\nsalary\u2014or he is discharged.\n\nUnder such circumstances, bribery would hardly be expected. Yet we\nlearn, on unquestionable authority, that buyers habitually bribe and\nare bribed. Giving presents, as a means of obtaining custom, is an\nestablished practice between them and all with whom they have dealings.\nTheir connexions among retailers they extend by treating and favours;\nand they are themselves influenced in their purchases by like means. It\nmight be presumed that self-interest would in both cases negative this.\nBut apparently, no very obvious sacrifice results from yielding to such\ninfluences. When, as usually happens, there are many manufacturers\nproducing articles of like goodness at the same prices, or many buyers\nbetween whose commodities and whose terms there is little room for\nchoice, there exists no {115} motive to purchase of one rather than\nanother; and then the temptation to take some immediate bonus turns\nthe scale. Whatever be the cause, however, the fact is testified to\nus alike in London and the provinces. By manufacturers, buyers are\nsumptuously entertained for days together, and are plied throughout the\nyear with hampers of game, turkeys, dozens of wine, etc.: nay, they\nreceive actual money-bribes; sometimes, as we hear from a manufacturer,\nin the shape of bank-notes, but more commonly in the shape of discounts\non the amounts of their purchases. The extreme prevalence\u2014universality\nwe might say\u2014of this system, is proved by the evidence of one who,\ndisgusted as he is, finds himself inextricably entangled in it. He\nconfessed to us that all his transactions were thus tainted. \u201cEach of\nthe buyers with whom I deal,\u201d he said, \u201cexpects an occasional bonus in\none form or other. Some require the bribe to be wrapped up; and some\ntake it without disguise. To an offer of money, this one replies\u2014\u2018Oh,\nI don\u2019t like that sort of thing,\u2019 but nevertheless, does not object to\nmoney\u2019s-worth; while my friend So-and-so, who promises to bring me a\nlarge trade this season, will, I very well know, look for one per cent.\ndiscount in cash. The thing is not to be avoided. I could name sundry\nbuyers who look askance at me, and never will inspect my goods; and I\nhave no doubt about the cause\u2014I have not bought their patronage.\u201d And\nthen our informant appealed to another of the trade, who agreed in the\nassertion that in London their business could not be done on any other\nterms. So greedy do some of these buyers become, that their perquisites\nabsorb a great part of the profits, and make it a question whether\nit is worth while to continue the dealing with them. Next, as above\nhinted, there comes a like history of transactions between buyers and\nretailers\u2014the bribed being now the bribers. One of those above referred\nto as habitually expecting douceurs, said to the giver of them, whose\ntestimony we have just repeated\u2014\u201cI\u2019ve spent pounds and pounds over\n\u2015\u2015\u2015 {116} (naming a large tailor), and now I think I have gained him\nover.\u201d To which confession this buyer added the complaint, that his\nhouse did not make him any allowance for sums thus disbursed.\n\nUnder the buyer, who has absolute control of his own department\nin a wholesale house, come sundry assistants, who transact the\nbusiness with retail traders; much as retail trader\u2019s assistants\ntransact the business with the general public. These higher-class\nassistants, working under the same pressure as the lower, are similarly\nunscrupulous. Liable to prompt dismissal as they are for failure in\nselling; gaining higher positions as they do in proportion to the\nquantities of goods they dispose of at profitable rates; and finding\nthat no objections are made to any dishonest artifices they use, but\nrather that they are applauded for them; these young men display a\nscarcely credible demoralization. As we learn from those who have been\nof them, their duplicity is unceasing\u2014they speak almost continuous\nfalsehood; and their tricks range from the simplest to the most\nMachiavellian. Take a few samples. When dealing with a retailer, it is\nan habitual practice to bear in mind the character of his business; and\nto delude him respecting articles of which he has least experience. If\nhis shop is in a neighbourhood where the sales are chiefly of inferior\ngoods (a fact ascertained from the traveller), it is inferred that,\nhaving a comparatively small demand for superior goods, he is a bad\njudge of them; and advantage is taken of his ignorance. Again, it is\nusual purposely to present samples of cloths, silks, etc., in such\norder as to disqualify the perceptions. As, when tasting different\nfoods or wines, the palate is disabled by something strongly flavoured,\nfrom appreciating the more delicate flavour of another thing afterwards\ntaken; so with the other organs of sense, a temporary disability\nfollows an excessive stimulation. This holds not only with the eyes\nin judging of colours, but also, as we are told by one who has been\nin the trade, it holds with the fingers in judging of textures; and\ncunning {117} salesmen are in the habit of thus partially paralysing\nthe customers\u2019 perceptions, and then selling second-rate articles as\nfirst-rate ones. Another common man\u0153uvre is that of raising a false\nbelief of cheapness. Suppose a tailor is laying in a stock of broad\ncloths. He is offered a bargain. Three pieces are put before him\u2014two of\ngood quality, at, perhaps, 14_s._ per yard; and one of much inferior\nquality, at 8_s._ per yard. These pieces have been purposely a little\ntumbled and creased, to give an apparent reason for a pretended\nsacrifice upon them. And the tailor is then told that he may have\nthese nominally-damaged cloths as \u201ca job lot,\u201d at 12_s._ per yard.\nMisled by the appearances into a belief of the professed sacrifice;\nimpressed, moreover, by the fact that two of the pieces are really\nworth considerably more than the price asked; and not sufficiently\nbearing in mind that the great inferiority of the third just balances\nthis; the tailor probably buys; and he goes away with the comfortable\nconviction that he has made a specially-advantageous purchase, when\nhe has really paid the full price for every yard. A still more subtle\ntrick has been described to us by one who himself made use of it, when\nengaged in one of these wholesale-houses\u2014a trick so successful that he\nwas often sent for to sell to customers who could be induced to buy\nby none other of the assistants, and who ever afterwards would buy\nonly of him. His policy was to seem extremely simple and honest, and,\nduring the first few purchases, to exhibit his honesty by pointing\nout defects in the things he was selling; and then, having gained the\ncustomer\u2019s confidence, he proceeded to pass off upon him inferior\ngoods at superior prices. These are a few out of the various man\u0153uvres\nin constant practice. Of course there is a running accompaniment of\nfalsehoods, uttered as well as acted. It is expected of the assistant\nthat he will say whatever is needed to effect a sale. \u201cAny fool can\nsell what is wanted,\u201d said a master in reproaching a shopman for not\nhaving persuaded a customer to buy something quite unlike that which\nhe asked {118} for. And the unscrupulous mendacity thus required by\nemployers, and encouraged by example, grows to a height of depravity\nthat has been described to us in words too strong to be repeated.\nOur informant was obliged to relinquish his position in one of these\nestablishments, because he could not lower himself to the required\ndepth of degradation. \u201cYou don\u2019t lie as though you believe what you\nsay,\u201d observed one of his fellow-assistants. And this was uttered as a\nreproach!\n\nAs those subordinates who have fewest qualms of conscience are those\nwho succeed the best, are soonest promoted to more remunerative posts,\nand have therefore the greatest chances of establishing businesses of\ntheir own; it may be inferred that the morality of the heads of these\nestablishments, is much on a par with that of their _employ\u00e9s_. The\nhabitual malpractices of wholesale houses, confirm this inference.\nNot only, as we have just seen, are assistants under a pressure\nimpelling them to deceive purchasers respecting the qualities of the\ngoods they buy, but purchasers are also deceived in respect to the\nquantities; and that, not by an occasional unauthorized trick, but by\nan organized system, for which the firm itself is responsible. The\ngeneral practice is to make up goods, or to have them made up, in\nlengths that are shorter than they profess to be. A piece of calico\nnominally thirty-six yards long, never measures more than thirty-one\nyards\u2014is understood throughout the trade to measure only so much. And\nthe long-accumulating delinquencies which this custom indicates\u2014the\nsuccessive diminutions of length, each introduced by some adept in\ndishonesty, and then imitated by his competitors\u2014are now being daily\ncarried to a still greater extent, wherever they are not likely to be\nimmediately detected. Articles that are sold in small bundles, knots,\npackets, or such forms as negative measurement at the time of sale, are\nhabitually deficient in quantity. Silk-laces called six quarters, or\nfifty-four {119} inches, really measure four quarters, or thirty-six\ninches. Tapes were originally sold in grosses containing twelve knots\nof twelve yards each; but these twelve-yard-knots are now cut of all\nlengths, from eight yards down to five yards, and even less\u2014the usual\nlength being six yards. That is to say, the 144 yards which the gross\nonce contained, has now in some cases dwindled down to 60 yards. In\nwidths, as well as in lengths, this deception is practised. French\ncotton-braid, for instance (French only in name), is made of different\nwidths; which are respectively marked 5, 7, 9, 11, etc.: each figure\nindicating the number of threads of cotton which the width includes, or\nrather should include, but does not. For those which should be marked\n5 are marked 7; and those which should be marked 7 are marked 9: out\nof three samples from different houses shown to us by our informant,\nonly one contained the alleged number of threads. Fringe, again, which\nis sold wrapped on card, will often be found two inches wide at the\nend exposed to view, but will diminish to one inch at the end next the\ncard; or perhaps the first twenty yards will be good, and all the rest,\nhidden under it, will be bad. These frauds are committed unblushingly,\nand as a matter of business. We have ourselves read in an agent\u2019s\norder-book, the details of an order, specifying the actual lengths of\nwhich the articles were to be cut, and the much greater lengths to be\nmarked on the labels. And we have been told by a manufacturer who was\nrequired to make up tapes into lengths of fifteen yards, and label them\n\u201cwarranted 18 yards,\u201d that when he did not label them falsely, his\ngoods were sent back to him; and that the greatest concession he could\nobtain was to be allowed to send them without labels.\n\nIt is not to be supposed that in their dealings with manufacturers,\nthese wholesale-houses adopt a code of morals differing much from\nthat which regulates their dealings with retailers. The facts prove\nit to be much the {120} same. A buyer for instance (who exclusively\nconducts the purchases of a wholesale-house from manufacturers) will\nnot unfrequently take from a first-class maker, a small supply of\nsome new fabric, on the pattern of which much time and money have\nbeen spent; and this new-pattern fabric he will put into the hands\nof another maker, to have copied in large quantities. Some buyers,\nagain, give their orders orally, that they may have the opportunity of\nafterwards repudiating them if they wish; and in a case narrated to us,\nwhere a manufacturer who had been thus deluded, wished on a subsequent\noccasion to guarantee himself by obtaining the buyer\u2019s signature to his\norder, he was refused it. For other unjust acts of wholesale-houses,\nthe heads of these establishments are, we presume, responsible. Small\nmanufacturers working with insufficient capital, and in times of\ndepression not having the wherewith to meet their engagements, are\noften obliged to become dependants on the wholesale-houses with which\nthey deal; and are then cruelly taken advantage of. One who has thus\ncommitted himself, has either to sell his accumulated stock at a\ngreat sacrifice\u2014thirty to forty per cent. below its value\u2014or else to\nmortgage it; and when the wholesale-house becomes the mortgagee, the\nmanufacturer has little chance of escape. He is obliged to work at the\nwholesale-dealer\u2019s terms; and ruin almost certainly follows. This is\nespecially the case in the silk-hosiery business. As was said to us by\none of the larger silk-hosiers, who had watched the destruction of many\nof his smaller brethren\u2014\u201cThey may be spared for a time as a cat spares\na mouse; but they are sure to be eaten up in the end.\u201d And we can the\nmore readily credit this statement from having found that a like policy\nis pursued by some provincial curriers in their dealings with small\nshoe-makers; and also by hop-merchants and maltsters in their dealings\nwith small publicans. We read that in Hindostan the ryots, when crops\nfall short, borrow from the Jews to buy seed; and {121} once in their\nclutches are doomed. It seems that our commercial world can furnish\nparallels.\n\nOf another class of wholesale-traders\u2014those who supply grocers with\nforeign and colonial produce\u2014we may say that though, in consequence\nof the nature of their business, their malpractices are less numerous\nand multiform, as well as less glaring, they bear the same stamp as\nthe foregoing. Unless it is to be supposed that sugar and spices are\nmoral antiseptics as well as physical ones, it must be expected that\nwholesale dealers in them will transgress much as other wholesale\ndealers do, in those directions where the facilities are greatest. And\nthe truth is that, both in the qualities and quantities of the articles\nthey sell, they take advantage of the retailers. The descriptions they\ngive of their commodities are habitually misrepresentations. Samples\nsent round to their customers are characterized as first-rate when\nthey are really second-rate. The travellers are expected to endorse\nthese untrue statements; and unless the grocer has adequate keenness\nand extensive knowledge, he is more or less deceived. In some cases,\nindeed, no skill will save him. There are frauds that have grown up\nlittle by little into customs of the trade, which the retailer must\nsubmit to. In the purchase of sugar, for example, he is imposed on\nin respect alike of the goodness and the weight. The history of the\ndishonesty is this. Originally the tare allowed by the merchant on each\nhogshead, was 14 per cent. of the gross weight. The actual weight of\nthe wood of which the hogshead was made, was at that time about 12 per\ncent. of the gross weight. And thus the trade-allowance left a profit\nof 2 per cent. to the buyer. Gradually, however, the hogshead has grown\nthicker and heavier; until now, instead of amounting to 12 per cent.\nof the gross weight, it amounts to 17 per cent. As the allowance of 14\nper cent. still continues, the result is that the retail grocer loses\n3 per cent.: to the extent of 3 per cent. he buys wood {122} in place\nof sugar. In the quality of the sugar, he is deluded by the practice\nof giving him a sample from the best part of the hogshead. During its\nvoyage from Jamaica or elsewhere, the contents of a hogshead undergo a\nslow drainage. The molasses, of which more or less is always present,\nfilters from the uppermost part of the mass of sugar to the lowermost\npart; and this lowermost part, technically known as the \u201cfoots,\u201d is\nof darker colour and smaller value. The quantity of it contained\nin a hogshead varies greatly; and the retailer, receiving a false\nsample, has to guess what the quantity of \u201cfoots\u201d may be; and, to his\ncost, often under-estimates it. As will be seen from the following\nletter, copied from the _Public Ledger_ for the 20th Oct., 1858, these\ngrievances, more severe even than we have represented them, are now\nexciting an agitation.\n\n \u201c_To the Retail Grocers of the United Kingdom._\n\n \u201cGentlemen,\u2014The time has arrived for the trade at once to make a move\n for the revision of tares on all raw sugars. Facts prove the evil of\n the present system to be greatly on the increase. We submit a case as\n under, and only one out of twenty. On the 30th August, 1858, we bought\n 3 hogsheads of Barbados, mark TG\n                                K\n\n      Invoice Tares.                 Re Tares.\n No.   cwt.  qrs.  lb.  lb.        No.  cwt.  qrs.  lb.\n  1     1     2    14    6 drft.    1    1     3    27\n  7     1     2     7               7    1     3    20\n  3     1     2    21               3    1     3    27\n        \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500                    \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n        4     3    20                    5     3    18\n                        Deduct           4     3    20\n                                         \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500   _s._  \u00a3  _s._  _d._\n                                         0     3    26 at 42 \u2014 2   1     3\n\n \u201cWe make a claim for \u00a32. 1_s._ 3_d._; we are told by the wholesale\n grocer there is no redress.\n\n \u201cThere is another evil which the retail grocer has to contend with,\n that is, the mode of sampling raw sugars: the foots are excluded\n from the merchants\u2019 samples. Facts will prove that in thousands of\n hogsheads of Barbados this season there is an average of 5 cwt. of\n foots in each; we have turned out some with 10 cwt., which are at\n least 5_s._ per cwt. less value than sample, and in these cases we are\n told again there is no redress.\n\n \u201cThese two causes are bringing hundreds of hard-working men to ruin\n {123} and will bring hundreds more unless the trade take it up, and\n we implore them to unite in obtaining so important a revision.\n\n \u201cWe are, Gentlemen, your obedient servants,\n\n \u201cWALKER and STAINES.[6]\n\n \u201cBirmingham, October 19, 1858.\u201d\n\n   [6] The abuses described in this letter have now, we believe, been\n   abolished.\n\nA more subtle method of imposition remains to be added. It is the\npractice of sugar-refiners to put moist, crushed sugar into dried\ncasks. During the time that elapses before one of these casks is opened\nby the retailer, the desiccated wood has taken up the excess of water\nfrom the sugar; which is thus brought again into good condition. When\nthe retailer, finding that the cask weighs much more than was allowed\nas tare by the wholesale dealer, complains to him of this excess, the\nreply is\u2014\u201cSend it up to us, and we will _dry it_ and weigh it, as is\nthe custom of the trade.\u201d\n\nWithout further detailing these malpractices, of which the above\nexamples are perhaps the worst, we will advert only to one other\npoint in the transactions of these large houses\u2014the drawing-up of\ntrade-circulars. It is the habit of many wholesale dealers to send\nround to their customers, periodic accounts of the past transactions,\npresent condition, and prospects of the markets. Serving as checks on\neach other, as they do, these documents are prevented from swerving\nvery widely from the truth. But it is scarcely to be expected that\nthey should be quite honest. Those who issue them, being in most\ncases interested in the prices of the commodities referred to in\ntheir circulars, are swayed by their interests in the representations\nthey make respecting the probabilities of the future. Far-seeing\nretailers are on their guard against this. A large provincial grocer,\nwho thoroughly understands his business, said to us\u2014\u201cAs a rule, I\nthrow trade-circulars on the fire.\u201d And that this estimate of their\ntrustworthiness is not unwarranted, we gather from the expressions of\nthose engaged in other businesses. From two leather-dealers, one in\nthe country and one in London, we have heard the same complaint {124}\nagainst the circulars published by houses in their trade, that they\nare misleading. Not that they state untruths; but that they produce\nfalse impressions by leaving out facts which they should have stated.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn illustrating the morality of manufacturers, we shall confine\nourselves to one class\u2014those who work in silk. And it will be the most\nconvenient method of arranging facts, to follow the silk through its\nvarious stages; from its state when imported, to its state when ready\nfor the wearer.\n\nBundles of raw silk from abroad\u2014not uncommonly weighted with rubbish,\nstones, or rouleaux of Chinese copper coin, to the loss of the\nbuyer\u2014are disposed of by auction. Purchases are made on behalf of the\nsilk-dealers by \u201csworn brokers;\u201d and the regulation is, that these\nsworn brokers shall confine themselves to their functions as agents.\nFrom a silk-manufacturer, however, we learn that they are currently\nunderstood to be themselves speculators in silk, either directly or\nby proxy; and that as thus personally interested in prices, they\nbecome faulty as agents. We give this, however, simply as a prevailing\nopinion, for the truth of which we do not vouch.\n\nThe silk bought by the London dealer, he sends into the manufacturing\ndistricts to be \u201cthrown;\u201d that is, to be made into thread fit for\nweaving. In the established form of bargain between the silk-dealer\nand the silk-throwster, we have a strange instance of an organized and\nrecognized deception; which has seemingly grown out of a check on a\nprevious deception. The throwing of silk is necessarily accompanied\nby some waste, from broken ends, knots, and fibres too weak to wind.\nThis waste varies in different kinds of silk from 3 per cent. to 20 per\ncent.: the average being about 5 per cent. The per-centage of waste\nbeing thus variable, it is obvious that in the absence of restraint,\na dishonest silk-throwster might abstract a portion of the silk; and,\non returning the rest to the dealer, might plead {125} that the great\ndiminution in weight had resulted from the large amount of loss in the\nprocess of throwing. Hence there has arisen a system, called \u201cworking\non cost,\u201d which requires the throwster to send back to the dealer\nthe same weight of silk which he receives: the meaning of the phrase\nbeing, we presume, that whatever waste the throwster makes must be at\nhis own cost. Now, as it is impossible to throw silk without _some_\nwaste\u2014at least 3 per cent., and ordinarily 5 per cent.\u2014this arrangement\nnecessitates a deception; if, indeed, that can be called a deception\nwhich is tacitly understood by all concerned. The silk has to be\nweighted. As much as is lost in throwing, has to be made up by some\nforeign substance introduced. Soap is largely used for this. In small\nquantity, soap is requisite to facilitate the running of the threads\nin the process of manufacture; and the quantity is readily increased.\nSugar also is used. And by one means or other, the threads are made to\nabsorb enough matter to produce the desired weight. To this system all\nsilk-throwsters are obliged to succumb; and some of them carry it to\na great extent, as a means of hiding either carelessness or something\nworse.\n\nThe next stage through which silk passes, is that of dyeing. Here,\ntoo, impositions have grown chronic and general. In times past, as we\nlearn from a ribbon-manufacturer, the weighting by water was the chief\ndishonesty. Bundles returned from the dyer\u2019s, if not manifestly damp,\nstill, containing moisture enough to make up for a portion of the silk\nthat had been kept back; and precautions had to be taken to escape\nlosses thus entailed. Since then, however, there has arisen a method\nof deception which leaves this far behind\u2014that of employing heavy\ndyes. The following details have been given us by a silk-throwster.\nIt is now, he says, some five-and-thirty years since this method was\ncommenced. Before that time silk lost a considerable part of its weight\nin the copper. The ultimate fibre of silk is coated, in issuing from\nthe spinneret of the silk-worm, with {126} a film of varnish which is\nsoluble in boiling water. In dyeing, therefore, this film, amounting\nto 25 per cent. of the entire weight of the silk, is dissolved off;\nand the silk is rendered that much lighter. So that originally, for\nevery sixteen ounces of silk sent to the dyer\u2019s, only twelve ounces\nwere returned. Gradually, however, by the use of heavy dyes, this\nresult has been reversed. The silk now gains in weight; and sometimes\nto a scarcely credible extent. According to the requirement, silk is\nsent back from the dyer\u2019s of any weight, from twelve ounces to the\npound up to forty ounces to the pound. The original pound of silk,\ninstead of losing four ounces, as it naturally would, is actually,\nwhen certain black dyes are used, made to gain as much as twenty-four\nounces! Instead of 25 per cent. lighter, it is returned 150 per cent.\nheavier\u2014is weighted with 175 per cent. of foreign matter! Now as,\nduring this stage of its manufacture, the transactions in silk are\ncarried on by weight, it is manifest that in the introduction and\ndevelopment of this system, we have a long history of frauds. At\npresent all in the trade are aware of it, and on their guard against\nit. Like other modes of adulteration, in becoming established and\nuniversal, it has ceased to be profitable to any one. But it still\nserves to indicate the morals of those concerned.\n\nThe thrown and dyed silk passes into the hands of the weaver; and here\nagain we come upon dishonesties. Manufacturers of figured silks sin\nagainst their fellows by stealing their patterns. The laws which have\nbeen found necessary to prevent this species of piracy, show that it\nhas been carried to a great extent. Even now it is not prevented. One\nwho has himself suffered from it, tells us that manufacturers still\nget one another\u2019s designs by bribing the workmen. In their dealings\nwith \u201cbuyers,\u201d too, some manufacturers resort to deceptions: perhaps\ntempted to do so by the desire to compensate themselves for the heavy\ntax paid in treating, etc. Goods which have already been seen {127}\nand declined by other buyers, are brought before a subsequent one with\nartfully-devised appearances of secrecy, accompanied by professions\nthat these goods have been specially reserved for his inspection:\na man\u0153uvre by which an unwary man is sometimes betrayed. That the\nprocess of production has its delusions, scarcely needs saying. In the\nribbon-trade, for example, there is a practice called \u201ctop-ending;\u201d\nthat is, making the first three yards good, and the rest (which is\ncovered when rolled up) of bad or loose texture\u201480 \u201cshutes\u201d to the inch\ninstead of 108. And then there comes the issuing of imitations made\nof inferior materials\u2014textile adulterations as we may call them. This\npractice of debasement, not an occasional but an established one, is\ncarried to a surprising extent, and with surprising rapidity. Some new\nfabric, first sold at 7_s._ 6_d._ per yard, is supplanted by successive\ncounterfeits; until at the end of eighteen months a semblance of it is\nselling at 4_s._ 3_d._ per yard. Nay, still greater depreciations of\nquality and price take place\u2014from 10_s._ down to 3_s._, and even 2_s._\nper yard. Until at length the badness of these spurious fabrics becomes\nso conspicuous, that they are unsaleable; and there ensues a reaction,\nending either in the reintroduction of the original fabric, or in the\nproduction of some novelty to supply its place.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAmong our notes of malpractices in trade, retail, wholesale, and\nmanufacturing, we have many others that must be passed over. We cannot\nhere enlarge on the not uncommon trick of using false trade-marks; or\nof imitating another maker\u2019s wrappers. We must be satisfied with simply\nreferring to the doings of apparently-reputable houses, which purchase\ngoods known to be dishonestly obtained. And we are obliged to refrain\nfrom particularizing certain established arrangements, existing under\ncover of the highest respectability, which seem intended to facilitate\nthese nefarious transactions. The frauds we have detailed {128} are\nbut samples of a state of things which it would take a volume to\ndescribe in full.\n\nThe further instances of trading-immorality which it seems desirable\nhere to give, are those which carry with them a certain excuse: showing\nas they do how insensibly, and almost irresistibly, men are thrust\ninto vicious practices. Always, no doubt, some utterly unconscientious\ntrader is the first to introduce a new form of fraud. He is by-and-by\nfollowed by others who wear their moral codes but loosely. The more\nupright traders are continually tempted to adopt this questionable\ndevice which those around them are adopting. The greater the number who\nyield, and the more familiar the device becomes, the more difficult\nis it for the remainder to stand out against it. The pressure of\ncompetition upon them becomes more and more severe. They have to fight\nan unequal battle: debarred as they are from one of the sources of\nprofit which their antagonists possess. And they are finally almost\ncompelled to follow the lead of the rest. Take for example what\nhas happened in the candle-trade. As all know, the commoner kinds\nof candles are sold in bunches, supposed to weigh a pound each.\nOriginally, the nominal weight corresponded with the real weight. But\nat present the weight is habitually short by an amount varying from\nhalf an ounce to two ounces\u2014is sometimes depreciated 12\u202f1/2 per\ncent. If, now, an honest chandler offers to supply a retailer at, say,\nsix shillings for the dozen pounds, the answer he receives is\u2014\u201cOh, we\nget them for five-and-eightpence.\u201d \u201cBut mine,\u201d replies the chandler,\n\u201care of full weight; while those you buy at five-and-eightpence are\nnot.\u201d \u201cWhat does that matter to me?\u201d the retailer rejoins\u2014\u201ca pound\nof candles is a pound of candles: my customers buy them in the\nbunch, and won\u2019t know the difference between yours and another\u2019s.\u201d\nAnd the honest chandler, being everywhere met with this argument,\nfinds that he must either make his bunches of short weight, or give\nup business. Take another case, which, {129} like the last, we have\ndirect from the mouth of one who has been obliged to succumb. It is\nthat of a manufacturer of elastic webbing, now extensively used in\nmaking boots, etc. From a London house with which he dealt largely,\nthis manufacturer recently received a sample of webbing produced by\nsome one else, accompanied by the question, \u201cCan you make us this\nat \u2014\u2014\u2014 per yard?\u201d (naming a price below that at which he had before\nsupplied them); and hinting that if he could not do so they must go\nelsewhere. On pulling to pieces the sample (which he showed to us),\nthis manufacturer found that sundry of the threads which should have\nbeen of silk were of cotton. Indicating this fact to those who sent\nhim the sample, he replied that, if he made a like substitution, he\ncould furnish the fabric at the price named; and the result was that\nhe eventually did thus furnish it. He saw that if he did not do so, he\nmust lose a considerable share of his trade. He saw further, that if\nhe did not at once yield, he would have to yield in the end; for that\nother elastic-webbing-makers would one after another engage to produce\nthis adulterated fabric at correspondingly diminished prices; and that\nwhen at length he stood alone in selling an apparently-similar article\nat a higher price, his business would leave him. This manufacturer we\nhave the best reasons for knowing to be a man of fine moral nature,\nboth generous and upright; and yet we here see him obliged, in a sense,\nto implicate himself in one of these processes of vitiation. It is a\nstartling assertion, but it is none the less a true one, that those\nwho resist these corruptions often do it at the risk of bankruptcy;\nsometimes the certainty of bankruptcy. We do not say this simply as\na manifest inference from the conditions, as above described. We say\nit on the warrant of instances which have been given to us. From one\nbrought up in his house, we have had the history of a draper who,\ncarrying his conscience into his shop, refused to commit the current\nfrauds of the trade. He would not represent his {130} goods as of\nbetter quality than they really were; he would not say that patterns\nwere just out, when they had been issued the previous season; he\nwould not warrant to wash well, colours which he knew to be fugitive.\nRefraining from these and the like malpractices of his competitors;\nand, as a consequence, daily failing to sell various articles which\nhis competitors would have sold by force of lying; his business was so\nunremunerative that he twice became bankrupt. And in the opinion of\nour informant, he inflicted more evil upon others by his bankruptcies,\nthan he would have done by committing the usual trade-dishonesties.\nSee, then, how complicated the question becomes; and how difficult to\nestimate the trader\u2019s criminality. Often\u2014generally indeed\u2014he has to\nchoose between two wrongs. He has tried to carry on his business with\nstrict integrity. He has sold none but genuine articles, and has given\nfull measure. Others in the same business adulterate or otherwise\ndelude, and are so able to undersell him. His customers, not adequately\nappreciating the superiority in the quality or quantity of his goods,\nand attracted by the apparent cheapness at other shops, desert him.\nInspection of his books proves the alarming fact that his diminishing\nreturns will soon be insufficient to meet his engagements, and provide\nfor his increasing family. What then must he do? Must he continue his\npresent course; stop payment; inflict heavy losses on his creditors;\nand, with his wife and children, turn out into the streets? Or must he\nfollow the example of his competitors; use their artifices; and give\nhis customers the same apparent advantages? The last not only seems\nthe least detrimental to himself, but also may be considered the least\ndetrimental to others. Moreover, the like is done by men regarded as\nrespectable. Why should he ruin himself and family in trying to be\nbetter than his neighbours? He will do as they do.\n\nSuch is the position of the trader; such is the reasoning by which\nhe justifies himself; and it is hard to visit him {131} with harsh\ncondemnation. Of course this statement of the case is by no means\nuniversally true. There are businesses in which, competition being\nless active, the excuse for falling into corrupt practices does not\nhold; and here, indeed, we find corrupt practices much less prevalent.\nMany traders, too, have obtained connexions which secure to them\nadequate returns without descending to small rogueries; and they have\nno defence if they thus degrade themselves. Moreover, there are the\nmen\u2014commonly not prompted by necessity but by greed\u2014who introduce\nthese adulterations and petty frauds; and on these should descend\nunmitigated indignation: both as being themselves criminals without\nexcuse, and as causing criminality in others. Leaving out, however,\nthese comparatively small classes, most traders by whom the commoner\nbusinesses are carried on, must receive a much more qualified censure\nthan they at first sight seem to deserve. On all sides we have met with\nthe same conviction, that for those engaged in the ordinary trades\nthere are but two courses\u2014either to adopt the practices of their\ncompetitors, or to give up business. Men in different occupations and\nin different places\u2014men naturally conscientious, who manifestly chafed\nunder the degradations they submitted to, have one and all expressed to\nus the sad belief that it is impossible to carry on trade with strict\nrectitude. Their concurrent opinion, independently given by each, is\nthat the scrupulously honest man must go to the wall.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut that it has been, during the past year, frequently treated by\nthe daily press, we might here enter at some length on the topic of\nbanking-delinquencies. As it is, we may presume all to be familiar with\nthe facts, and shall limit ourselves to making a few comments.\n\nIn the opinion of one whose means of judging have been second to those\nof few, the directors of joint-stock-banks have rarely been guilty of\ndirect dishonesty. Admitting {132} notorious exceptions, the general\nfact appears to be that directors have had no immediate interests\nin furthering these speculations which have proved so ruinous to\ndepositors and shareholders; but have usually been among the greatest\nsufferers. Their fault has rather been the less flagitious, though\nstill grave fault, of indifference to their responsibilities. Often\nwith very inadequate knowledge they have undertaken to trade with\nproperty belonging in great part to needy people. Instead of using as\nmuch care in the investment of this property as though it were their\nown, many of them have shown culpable recklessness: either themselves\nloaning the entrusted capital without adequate guarantee, or else\npassively allowing their colleagues to do this. Sundry excuses may\ndoubtless be made for them. The well-known defects of a corporate\nconscience, caused by divided responsibility, must be remembered in\nmitigation. And it may also be pleaded for such delinquents that\nif shareholders, swayed by reverence for mere wealth and position,\nchoose as directors, not the most intelligent, the most experienced,\nand those of longest-tried probity, but those of largest capital or\nhighest rank, the blame must not be cast solely on the men so chosen,\nbut must be shared by the men who choose them. Nay, further, it must\nfall on the public as well as on shareholders; seeing that this\nunwise selection of directors is in part determined by the known bias\nof depositors. But after all allowances have been made, it must be\nadmitted that these bank-administrators who risk the property of their\nclients by lending it to speculators, are near akin in morality to the\nspeculators themselves. As these speculators risk other men\u2019s money in\nundertakings which they hope will be profitable; so do the directors\nwho lend them the money. If these last plead that the money thus lent\nis lent with the belief that it will be repaid with good interest, the\nfirst may similarly plead that they expect their investment to return\nthe borrowed capital along with a {133} handsome profit. In each\ncase the transaction is one of which the evil consequences, if they\ncome, fall more largely on others than on the actors. And though it\nmay be contended, on behalf of the director, that what he does is done\nchiefly for the benefit of his constituents, whereas the speculator has\nin view only his own benefit; it may be replied that the director\u2019s\nblameworthiness is not the less because he took a rash step with a\ncomparatively weak motive. The truth is that when a bank-director lends\nthe capital of shareholders to those to whom he would not lend his own\ncapital, he is guilty of a breach of trust. In tracing the gradations\nof crime, we pass from direct robbery to robbery one, two, three, or\nmore degrees removed. Though a man who speculates with other people\u2019s\nmoney is not chargeable with direct robbery, he is chargeable with\nrobbery one degree removed: he deliberately stakes his neighbour\u2019s\nproperty, intending to appropriate the gain, if any, and to let his\nneighbour suffer the loss, if any: his crime is that of contingent\nrobbery. And hence any one who, standing like a bank-director in the\nposition of trustee, puts the money with which he is entrusted into a\nspeculator\u2019s hands, must be called an accessory to contingent robbery.\n\nIf so grave a condemnation is to be passed on those who lend\ntrust-money to speculators, as well as on the speculators who borrow\nit, what shall we say of the still more delinquent class who obtain\nloans by fraud\u2014who not only pawn other men\u2019s property when obtained,\nbut obtain it under false pretences? For how else than thus must we\ndescribe the doings of those who raise money by accommodation-bills?\nWhen A and B agree, the one to draw and the other to accept a bill\nof \u00a31000 for \u201cvalue received;\u201d while in truth there has been no sale\nof goods between them, or no value received; the transaction is not\nsimply an embodied lie, but it becomes thereafter a living and active\nlie. Whoever discounts the bill, does so in the {134} belief that B,\nhaving become possessed of \u00a31000 worth of goods, will, when the bill\nfalls due, have either the \u00a31000 worth of goods or some equivalent,\nwith which to meet it. Did he know that there were no such goods in the\nhands of either A or B, and no other property available for liquidating\nthe bill, he would not discount it\u2014he would not lend money to a man of\nstraw without security. Had A taken to the bank a forged mortgage-deed,\nand obtained a loan upon it, he would not have committed a greater\nwrong. Practically, an accommodation-bill is a forgery. It is an error\nto suppose that forgery is limited to the production of documents\nthat are _physically_ false\u2014that contain signatures or other symbols\nwhich are not what they appear to be: forgery, properly understood,\nequally includes the production of documents that are _morally_ false.\nWhat constitutes the crime committed in forging a bank-note? Not the\nmere mechanical imitation. This is but a means to the end; and, taken\nalone, is no crime at all. The crime consists in deluding others into\nthe acceptance of what seems to be a representative of so much money,\nbut which actually represents nothing. It matters not whether the\ndelusion is effected by copying the forms of the letters and figures,\nas in a forged bank-note, or by copying the form of expression, as in\nan accommodation-bill. In either case a semblance of value is given to\nthat which has no value; and it is in giving this false appearance of\nvalue that the crime consists. It is true that generally, the acceptor\nof an accommodation-bill hopes to be able to meet it when due. But if\nthose who think this exonerates him, will remember the many cases in\nwhich, by the use of forged documents, men have obtained possession of\nmoneys which they hoped presently to replace, and were nevertheless\njudged guilty of forgery, they will see that the plea is insufficient.\nWe contend, then, that the manufacturers of accommodation-bills should\nbe classed as forgers. That if the law so classed them, much good\nwould result, we are {135} not prepared to say. Several questions\npresent themselves:\u2014Whether such a change would cause inconvenience,\nby negativing the many harmless transactions carried on under this\nfictitious form by solvent men? Whether making it penal to use the\nwords \u201cvalue received,\u201d unless there _had_ been value received, would\nnot simply originate an additional class of bills in which these words\nwere omitted? Whether it would be an advantage if bills bore on their\nfaces proofs that they did or did not represent actual sales? Whether\na restraint on undue credit would result, when bankers and discounters\nsaw that certain bills coming to them in the names of speculative or\nunsubstantial traders, were avowed accommodation-bills? But these\nare questions we need not go out of our way to discuss. We are here\nconcerned only with the morality of the question.\n\nDuly to estimate the greatness of the evils indicated, however, we\nmust bear in mind both that the fraudulent transactions thus entered\ninto are numerous, and that each generally becomes the cause of\nothers. The original lie is commonly the parent of further lies, which\nagain give rise to an increasing progeny; and so on for successive\ngenerations, multiplying as they descend. When A and B find their\n\u00a31000 bill about to fall due, and the expected proceeds of their\nspeculation not forthcoming\u2014when they find, as they often do, either\nthat the investment has resulted in a loss instead of a gain; or that\nthe time for realizing their hoped-for profits, has not yet come; or\nthat the profits, if there are any, do not cover the extravagances of\nliving which, in the meantime, they have sanguinely indulged in\u2014when,\nin short, they find that the bill cannot be taken up; they resort to\nthe expedient of manufacturing other bills with which to liquidate\nthe first. And while they are about it, they usually think it will be\nas well to raise a somewhat larger sum than is required to meet their\noutstanding engagements. Unless it happens that great success enables\n{136} them to redeem themselves, this proceeding is repeated, and\nagain repeated. So long as there is no monetary crisis, it continues\neasy thus to keep afloat; and, indeed, the appearance of prosperity\nwhich is given by an extended circulation of bills in their names,\nbearing respectable indorsements, creates a confidence in them which\nrenders the obtainment of credit easier than at first. And where, as\nin some cases, this process is carried to the extent of employing men\nin different towns throughout the kingdom, and even in distant parts\nof the world, to accept bills, the appearances are still better kept\nup, and the bubble reaches a still greater development. As, however,\nall these transactions are carried on with borrowed capital, on which\ninterest has to be paid; as, further, the maintenance of this organized\nfraud entails constant expenses, as well as occasional sacrifices;\nand as it is in the very nature of the system to generate reckless\nspeculation; the fabric of lies is almost certain ultimately to fall;\nand, in falling, to ruin or embarrass others besides those who had\ngiven credit.\n\nNor does the evil end with the direct penalties from time to time\ninflicted on honest traders. There is also a grave indirect penalty\nwhich they suffer from the system. These forgers of credit are\nhabitually instrumental in lowering prices below their natural level.\nTo meet emergencies, they are obliged every now and then to sell goods\nat a loss: the alternative being immediate stoppage. Though with each\nsuch concern, this is but an occasional incident, yet, taking the whole\nnumber of them connected with any one business, it results that there\nare generally some who are making sacrifices\u2014generally some who are\nunnaturally depressing the market. In short, the capital fraudulently\nobtained from some traders is, in part, dissipated in rendering the\nbusiness of other traders deficiently remunerative: often to their\nserious embarrassment.\n\nIf, however, the whole truth must be said, the condemnation visited on\nthese commercial vampires is not to be {137} confined to them; but\nis in some degree deserved by a much more numerous class. Between the\npenniless schemer who obtains the use of capital by false pretences,\nand the upright trader who never contracts greater liabilities than\nhis estate will liquidate, there lie all gradations. From businesses\ncarried on entirely with other people\u2019s capital, obtained by forgery,\nwe pass to businesses in which there is a real capital of one-tenth\nand a credit-capital of nine-tenths; to other businesses in which the\nratio of real to fictitious capital is somewhat greater; and so on\nuntil we reach the very extensive class of men who trade but a little\nbeyond their means. To get more credit than would be given were the\nstate of the business known, is in all cases the aim; and the cases\nin which this credit is partially unwarranted, differ only in degree\nfrom those in which it is wholly unwarranted. As most are beginning to\nsee, the prevalence of this indirect dishonesty has not a little to\ndo with our commercial disasters. Speaking broadly, the tendency is\nfor every trader to hypothecate the capital of other traders, as well\nas his own. And when A has borrowed on the strength of B\u2019s credit; B\non the strength of C\u2019s; and C on the strength of A\u2019s\u2014when, throughout\nthe trading world, each has made engagements which he can meet only by\ndirect or indirect aid\u2014when everybody is wanting help from some one\nelse to save him from falling; a crash is certain. The punishment of a\ngeneral unconscientiousness may be postponed, but it is sure to come\neventually.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe average commercial morality cannot, of course, be accurately\ndepicted in so brief a space. On the one hand, we have been able to\ngive but a few typical instances of the malpractices by which trade is\ndisgraced. On the other hand, we have been obliged to present these\nalone; unqualified by the large amount of honest dealing throughout\nwhich they are dispersed. While, by accumulating such evidences, the\nindictment may be made heavier; by diluting them {138} with the\nimmense mass of equitable transactions daily carried on, the verdict\nwould be mitigated. After making every allowance, however, we fear\nthat the state of things is very bad. Our impression on this point\nis due less to the particular facts above given, than to the general\nopinion expressed by our informants. On all sides we have found\nthe result of long personal experience, to be the conviction that\ntrade is essentially corrupt. In tones of disgust or discouragement,\nreprehension or derision, according to their several natures, men in\nbusiness have one after another expressed or implied this belief.\nOmitting the highest mercantile classes, a few of the less common\ntrades, and those exceptional cases where an entire command of the\nmarket has been obtained, the uniform testimony of competent judges\nis, that success is incompatible with strict integrity. To live in\nthe commercial world it appears necessary to adopt its ethical code:\nneither exceeding nor falling short of it\u2014neither being less honest\nnor more honest. Those who sink below its standard are expelled;\nwhile those who rise above it are either pulled down to it or ruined.\nAs, in self-defence, the civilized man becomes savage among savages;\nso, it seems that in self-defence, the scrupulous trader is obliged\nto become as little scrupulous as his competitors. It has been said\nthat the law of the animal creation is\u2014\u201cEat and be eaten;\u201d and of\nour trading community it may similarly be said that its law is\u2014Cheat\nand be cheated. A system of keen competition, carried on, as it is,\nwithout adequate moral restraint, is very much a system of commercial\ncannibalism. Its alternatives are\u2014Use the same weapons as your\nantagonists or be conquered and devoured.\n\nOf questions suggested by these facts, one of the most obvious\nis\u2014Are not the prejudices which have ever been entertained against\ntrade and traders, thus fully justified? do not these meannesses\nand dishonesties, and the moral degradation they imply, warrant the\ndisrespect shown to men in business? A prompt affirmative answer will\n{139} probably be looked for; but we very much doubt whether it\nshould be given. We are rather of opinion that these delinquencies are\nproducts of the average character placed under special conditions.\nThere is no reason for assuming that the trading classes are\nintrinsically worse than other classes. Men taken at random from higher\nand lower ranks, would, most likely, if similarly circumstanced, do\nmuch the same. Indeed the mercantile world might readily recriminate.\nIs it a solicitor who comments on their misdoings? They may quickly\nsilence him by referring to the countless dark stains on the reputation\nof his fraternity. Is it a barrister? His frequent practice of putting\nin pleas which he knows are not valid, and his established habit of\ntaking fees for work he does not perform, make his criticism somewhat\nsuicidal. Does the condemnation come through the press? The condemned\nmay remind those who write, of the fact that it is not quite honest\nto utter a positive verdict on a book merely glanced through, or to\npen glowing eulogies on the mediocre work of a friend while slighting\nthe good one of an enemy; and they may further ask whether those who,\nat the dictation of an employer, write what they disbelieve, are not\nguilty of the serious offence of adulterating public opinion. Moreover,\ntraders might contend that many of their delinquencies are thrust on\nthem by the injustice of their customers. They, and especially drapers,\nmight point to the fact that the habitual demand for an abatement of\nprice, is made in utter disregard of their reasonable profits; and\nthat, to protect themselves against attempts to gain by their loss,\nthey are obliged to name prices greater than those they intend to take.\nThey might also urge that the straits to which they are often brought\nby non-payment of large sums due from their wealthier customers, is\nitself a cause of their malpractices: obliging them, as it does, to\nuse all means, illegitimate as well as legitimate, for getting the\nwherewith to meet their engagements. And then, after proving that\nthose without {140} excuse show this disregard of other men\u2019s claims,\ntraders might ask whether they, who have the excuse of having to\ncontend with a merciless competition, are alone to be blamed if they\ndisplay a like disregard in other forms. Nay, even to the guardians\nof social rectitude\u2014members of the legislature\u2014they might use the _tu\nquoque_ argument: asking whether bribery of a customer\u2019s servant,\nis any worse than bribery of an elector? or whether the gaining\nof suffrages by clap-trap hustings-speeches, containing insincere\nprofessions adapted to the taste of the constituency, is not as bad as\ngetting an order for goods by delusive representations respecting their\nquality? No; few if any classes are free from immoralities which are as\ngreat, _relatively to the temptations_, as these we have been exposing.\nOf course they will not be so petty or so gross where the circumstances\ndo not prompt pettiness or grossness; nor so constant and organized\nwhere the class-conditions have not tended to make them habitual. But,\ntaken with these qualifications, we think that much might be said for\nthe proposition that the trading classes, neither better nor worse\nintrinsically than other classes, are betrayed into their flagitious\nhabits by external causes.\n\nAnother question, here naturally arising, is\u2014Are not these evils\ngrowing worse? Many of the facts we have cited seem to imply that they\nare. Yet there are many other facts which point as distinctly the\nother way. In weighing the evidence, we must bear in mind that the\ngreater public attention at present paid to such matters, is itself a\nsource of error\u2014is apt to generate the belief that evils now becoming\nrecognized are evils that have recently arisen; when in truth they\nhave merely been hitherto disregarded, or less regarded. It has been\nclearly thus with crime, with distress, with popular ignorance; and\nit is very probably thus with trading-dishonesties. As it is true of\nindividual beings, that their height in the scale of creation may be\nmeasured by the degree of their self-consciousness; {141} so, in a\nsense, it is true of societies. Advanced and highly-organized societies\nare distinguished from lower ones by the evolution of something that\nstands for a _social self-consciousness_. Among ourselves there\nhas, happily, been of late years a remarkable growth of this social\nself-consciousness; and we believe that to this is chiefly ascribable\nthe impression that commercial malpractices are increasing. Such facts\nas have come down to us respecting the trade of past times, confirm\nthis view. In his _Complete English Tradesman_, Defoe mentions, among\nother man\u0153uvres of retailers, the false lights which they introduced\ninto their shops, for the purpose of giving delusive appearances\nto their goods. He comments on the \u201cshop rhetorick,\u201d the \u201cflux of\nfalsehoods,\u201d which tradesmen habitually uttered to their customers;\nand quotes their defence as being that they could not live without\nlying. He says, too, that there was scarce a shopkeeper who had not a\nbag of spurious or debased coin, from which he gave change whenever he\ncould; and that men, even the most honest, triumphed in their skill in\ngetting rid of bad money. These facts show that the mercantile morals\nof that day were, at any rate, not better than ours; and if we call to\nmind the numerous Acts of Parliament passed in old times to prevent\nfrauds of all kinds, we perceive the like implication. As much may,\nindeed, be safely inferred from the general state of society. When,\nreign after reign, governments debased the coinage, the moral tone of\nthe middle classes could scarcely have been higher than now. Among\ngenerations whose sympathy with the claims of fellow-creatures was so\nweak, that the slave-trade was not only thought justifiable, but the\ninitiator of it was rewarded by permission to record the feat in his\ncoat of arms, it is hardly possible that men respected the claims of\ntheir fellow-citizens more than at present. Times characterized by an\nadministration of justice so inefficient, that there were in London\nnests of criminals who defied the law, and on all high roads robbers\nwho eluded it, cannot {142} have been distinguished by just mercantile\ndealings. While, conversely, an age which, like ours, has seen so many\nequitable social changes thrust on the legislature by public opinion,\nis very unlikely to be an age in which the transactions between\nindividuals have been growing more inequitable. Yet, on the other hand,\nit is undeniable that many of the dishonesties we have described are\nof modern origin. Not a few of them have become established during\nthe last thirty years; and others are even now arising. How are these\nseeming contradictions to be reconciled?\n\nThe reconciliation is not difficult. It lies in the fact that while\nthe _direct_ frauds have been diminishing, the _indirect_ frauds have\nbeen increasing: alike in variety and in number. And this admission we\ntake to be consistent with the opinion that the standard of commercial\nmorals is higher than it was. For if we omit, as excluded from the\nquestion, the penal restraints\u2014religious and legal\u2014and ask what is the\nultimate moral restraint to the aggression of man on man, we find it to\nbe\u2014sympathy with the pain inflicted. Now the keenness of the sympathy,\ndepending on the vividness with which this pain is realized, varies\nwith the conditions of the case. It may be active enough to check\nmisdeeds which will manifestly cause great suffering, and yet not be\nactive enough to check misdeeds which will cause but slight annoyance.\nWhile sufficiently acute to prevent a man from doing that which will\nentail immediate injury on a known person, it may not be sufficiently\nacute to prevent him from doing that which will entail remote injuries\non unknown persons. And we find the facts to agree with this deduction,\nthat the moral restraint varies according to the clearness with which\nthe evil consequences are conceived. Many a one who would shrink\nfrom picking a pocket does not scruple to adulterate his goods; and\nhe who never dreams of passing base coin will yet be a party to\njoint-stock-bank deceptions. Hence, as we say, the multiplication of\nthe more subtle and complex forms of {143} fraud, is consistent with\na general progress in morality; provided it is accompanied with a\ndecrease in the grosser forms of fraud.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut the question which most concerns us is, not whether the morals\nof trade are better or worse than they have been? but rather\u2014why are\nthey so bad? Why in this civilized state of ours, is there so much\nthat betrays the cunning selfishness of the savage? Why, after the\ncareful inculcations of rectitude during education, comes there in\nafter-life all this knavery? Why, in spite of all the exhortations to\nwhich the commercial classes listen every Sunday, do they next morning\nrecommence their evil deeds? What is this so potent agency which almost\nneutralizes the discipline of education, of law, of religion?\n\nVarious subsidiary causes that might be assigned, must be passed over,\nthat we may have space to deal with the chief cause. In an exhaustive\nstatement, something would have to be said on the credulity of\nconsumers, which leads them to believe in representations of impossible\nadvantages; and something, too, on their greediness, which, ever\nprompting them to look for more than they ought to get, encourages\nsellers to offer delusive bargains. The increased difficulty of living\nconsequent on growing pressure of population, might perhaps come in\nas a part cause; and that greater cost of bringing up a family, which\nresults from the higher standard of education, might be added. But\nthe chief inciter of these trading malpractices is intense desire for\nwealth. And if we ask\u2014Why this intense desire? the reply is\u2014It results\nfrom the _indiscriminate respect paid to wealth_.\n\nTo be distinguished from the common herd\u2014to be somebody\u2014to make a\nname, a position\u2014this is the universal ambition; and to accumulate\nriches is alike the surest and the easiest way of fulfilling this\nambition. Very early in life all learn this. At school, the court\npaid to one whose {144} parents have called in their carriage to see\nhim, is conspicuous; while the poor boy whose insufficient stock of\nclothes implies the small means of his family, soon has burnt into\nhis memory the fact that poverty is contemptible. On entering the\nworld, the lessons which may have been taught about the nobility of\nself-sacrifice, the reverence due to genius, the admirableness of high\nintegrity, are quickly neutralized by experience: men\u2019s actions proving\nthat these are not their standards of respect. It is soon perceived\nthat while abundant outward marks of deference from fellow-citizens\nmay almost certainly be gained by directing every energy to the\naccumulation of property, they are but rarely to be gained in any other\nway; and that even in the few cases in which they are otherwise gained,\nthey are not given with entire unreserve, but are commonly joined\nwith a more or less manifest display of patronage. When, seeing this,\nthe young man further sees that while the acquisition of property is\npossible with his mediocre endowments, the acquirement of distinction\nby brilliant discoveries, or heroic acts, or high achievements in\nart, implies faculties and feelings which he does not possess; it is\nnot difficult to understand why he devotes himself heart and soul to\nbusiness.\n\nWe do not mean to say that men act on the consciously reasoned-out\nconclusions thus indicated; but we mean that these conclusions are the\nunconsciously-formed products of their daily experiences. From early\nchildhood the sayings and doings of all around them have generated\nthe idea that wealth and respectability are two sides of the same\nthing. This idea, growing with their growth, and strengthening with\ntheir strength, becomes at last almost what we may call an organic\nconviction. And this organic conviction it is which prompts the\nexpenditure of all their energies in money-making. We contend that the\nchief stimulus is not the desire for the wealth itself, but for the\napplause and position which the wealth brings. And in this belief, we\n{145} find ourselves at one with various intelligent traders with whom\nwe have talked on the matter. It is incredible that men should make\nthe sacrifices, mental and bodily, which they do, merely to get the\nmaterial benefits which money purchases. Who would undertake an extra\nburden of business for the purpose of getting a cellar of choice wines\nfor his own drinking? He who does it, does it that he may have choice\nwines to give his guests and gain their praises. What merchant would\nspend an additional hour at his office daily, merely that he might\nmove into a house in a more fashionable quarter? He submits to the\ntax not to gain health and comfort but for the sake of the increased\nsocial consideration which the new house will bring him. Where is the\nman who would lie awake at nights devising means of increasing his\nincome, in the hope of being able to provide his wife with a carriage,\nwere the use of the carriage the sole consideration? It is because\nof the _\u00e9clat_ which the carriage will give, that he enters on these\nadditional anxieties. So manifest, so trite, indeed, are these truths,\nthat we should be ashamed of insisting on them, did not our argument\nrequire it.\n\nFor if the desire for that homage which wealth brings, is the chief\nstimulus to these strivings after wealth, then the giving of this\nhomage (when given, as it is, with but little discrimination) is the\nchief cause of the dishonesties into which these strivings betray\nmercantile men. When the shopkeeper, on the strength of a prosperous\nyear and favourable prospects, has yielded to his wife\u2019s persuasions,\nand replaced the old furniture with new, at an outlay greater than\nhis income covers\u2014when, instead of the hoped-for increase, the next\nyear brings a decrease in his returns\u2014when he finds that his expenses\nare out-running his revenue; then does he fall under the strongest\ntemptation to adopt some newly-introduced adulteration or other\nmalpractice. When, having by display gained a certain recognition, the\nwholesale trader begins to give dinners {146} appropriate only to\nthose of ten times his income, with other expensive entertainments to\nmatch\u2014when, having for a time carried on this style at a cost greater\nthan he can afford, he finds that he cannot discontinue it without\ngiving up his position; then is he most strongly prompted to enter\ninto larger transactions, to trade beyond his means, to seek undue\ncredit, to get into that ever-complicating series of misdeeds which\nends in disgraceful bankruptcy. And if these are the facts then is it\nan unavoidable conclusion that the blind admiration which society gives\nto mere wealth, and the display of wealth, is the chief source of these\nmultitudinous immoralities.\n\nYes, the evil is deeper than appears\u2014draws its nutriment from far\nbelow the surface. This gigantic system of dishonesty, branching out\ninto every conceivable form of fraud, has roots which run underneath\nour whole social fabric, and, sending fibres into every house, suck\nup strength from our daily sayings and doings. In every dining-room\na rootlet finds food, when the conversation turns on So-and-so\u2019s\nsuccessful speculations, his purchase of an estate, his probable\nworth\u2014on this man\u2019s recent large legacy, and the other\u2019s advantageous\nmatch; for being thus talked about is one form of that tacit respect\nwhich men struggle for. Every drawing-room furnishes nourishment\nin the admiration awarded to costliness\u2014to silks that are \u201crich,\u201d\nthat is, expensive; to dresses that contain an enormous quantity of\nmaterial, that is, are expensive; to laces that are hand-made, that\nis, expensive; to diamonds that are rare, that is, expensive; to china\nthat is old, that is, expensive. And from scores of small remarks and\nminuti\u00e6 of behaviour which, in all circles, hourly imply how completely\nthe idea of respectability involves that of costly externals, there is\ndrawn fresh pabulum.\n\nWe are all implicated. We all, whether with self-approbation or not,\ngive expression to the established feeling. Even he who disapproves\nthis feeling finds himself unable to {147} treat virtue in threadbare\napparel with a cordiality as great as that which he would show to the\nsame virtue endowed with prosperity. Scarcely a man is to be found who\nwould not behave with more civility to a knave in broadcloth than to\na knave in fustian. Though for the deference which they have shown to\nthe vulgar rich, or the dishonestly successful, men afterwards compound\nwith their consciences by privately venting their contempt; yet when\nthey again come face to face with these imposing externals covering\nworthlessness, they do as before. And so long as imposing worthlessness\ngets the visible marks of respect, while the disrespect felt for it is\nhidden, it naturally flourishes.\n\nHence, then, is it that men persevere in these evil practices which\nall condemn. They can so purchase a homage which, if not genuine, is\nyet, so far as appearances go, as good as the best. To one whose wealth\nhas been gained by a life of frauds, what matters it that his name is\nin all circles a synonym of roguery? Has he not been conspicuously\nhonoured by being twice elected mayor of his town? (we state a fact)\nand does not this, joined to the personal consideration shown him,\noutweigh in his estimation all that is said against him; of which\nhe hears scarcely anything? When, not many years after the exposure\nof his inequitable dealing, a trader attains to the highest civic\ndistinction which the kingdom has to offer, and that, too, through the\ninstrumentality of those who best know his delinquency, is not the fact\nan encouragement to him, and to all others, to sacrifice rectitude to\naggrandizement? If, after listening to a sermon that has by implication\ndenounced the dishonesties he has been guilty of, the rich ill-doer\nfinds, on leaving church, that his neighbours cap to him, does not\nthis tacit approval go far to neutralize the effect of all he has\nheard? The truth is that with the great majority of men, the visible\nexpression of social opinion is far the most efficient of incentives\nand restraints. Let any one who wishes to estimate the strength {148}\nof this control, propose to himself to walk through the streets in the\ndress of a dustman, or hawk vegetables from door to door. Let him feel,\nas he probably will, that he had rather do something morally wrong\nthan commit such a breach of usage and suffer the resulting derision.\nHe will then better estimate how powerful a curb to men is the open\ndisapproval of their fellows, and how, conversely, the outward applause\nof their fellows is a stimulus surpassing all others in intensity.\nFully realizing which facts, he will see that the immoralities of trade\nare in great part traceable to an immoral public opinion.\n\nLet none infer, from what has been said, that the payment of respect\nto wealth rightly acquired and rightly used, is deprecated. In its\noriginal meaning, and in due degree, the feeling which prompts such\nrespect is good. Primarily, wealth is the sign of mental power; and\nthis is always respectable. To have honestly-acquired property, implies\nintelligence, energy, self-control; and these are worthy of the homage\nthat is indirectly paid to them by admiring their results. Moreover,\nthe good administration and increase of inherited property, also\nrequires its virtues; and therefore demands its share of approbation.\nAnd besides being applauded for their display of faculty, men who gain\nand increase wealth are to be applauded as public benefactors. For he\nwho, as manufacturer or merchant, has, without injustice to others,\nrealized a fortune, is thereby proved to have discharged his functions\nbetter than those who have been less successful. By greater skill,\nbetter judgment, or more economy than his competitors, he has afforded\nthe public greater advantages. His extra profits are but a share of the\nextra produce obtained by the same outlay: the other share going to the\nconsumers. And similarly, the landowner who, by judicious investment\nof money, has increased the value (that is, the productiveness) of his\nestate, has thereby added to the stock of national capital. By all\nmeans, then, {149} let the right acquisition and proper use of wealth\nhave their due share of admiration.\n\nBut that which we condemn as the chief cause of commercial dishonesty,\nis the _indiscriminate_ admiration of wealth\u2014an admiration that has\nlittle or no reference to the character of the possessor. When, as\ngenerally happens, the external signs are reverenced where they\nsignify no internal worthiness\u2014nay, even where they cover internal\nunworthiness; then does the feeling become vicious. It is this idolatry\nwhich worships the symbol apart from the thing symbolized, that is\nthe root of all these evils we have been exposing. So long as men\npay homage to those social benefactors who have grown rich honestly,\nthey give a wholesome stimulus to industry; but when they accord a\nshare of their homage to those social malefactors who have grown\nrich dishonestly, then do they foster corruption\u2014then do they become\naccomplices in all these frauds of commerce.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAs for remedy, it manifestly follows that there is none save a\npurified public opinion. When that abhorrence which society now shows\nto direct theft, is shown to theft of all degrees of indirectness;\nthen will these mercantile vices disappear. When not only the trader\nwho adulterates or gives short measure, but also the merchant who\nover-trades, the bank-director who countenances an exaggerated report,\nand the railway-director who repudiates his guarantee, come to be\nregarded as of the same genus as the pickpocket, and are treated with\nlike disdain; then will the morals of trade become what they should be.\n\nWe have little hope, however, that any such higher tone of public\nopinion will shortly be reached. The present condition of things\nappears to be, in great measure, a necessary accompaniment of our\npresent phase of progress. Throughout the civilized world, especially\nin England, and above all in America, social activity is almost wholly\nexpended in material development. To subjugate Nature {150} and bring\nthe powers of production and distribution to their highest perfection,\nis the task of our age, and probably will be the task of many future\nages. And as in times when national defence and conquest were the chief\ndesiderata, military achievement was honoured above all other things;\nso now, when the chief desideratum is industrial growth, honour is\nmost conspicuously given to that which generally indicates the aiding\nof industrial growth. The English nation at present displays what we\nmay call the commercial diathesis; and the undue admiration for wealth\nappears to be its concomitant\u2014a relation still more conspicuous in\nthe worship of \u201cthe almighty dollar\u201d by the Americans. And while the\ncommercial diathesis, with its accompanying standard of distinction,\ncontinues, we fear the evils we have been delineating can be but\npartially cured. It seems hopeless to expect that men will distinguish\nbetween that wealth which represents personal superiority and benefits\ndone to society, from that which does not. The symbols, the externals,\nhave all the world through swayed the masses, and must long continue to\ndo so. Even the cultivated, who are on their guard against the bias of\nassociated ideas, and try to separate the real from the seeming, cannot\nescape the influence of current opinion. We must therefore content\nourselves with looking for a slow amelioration.\n\nSomething, however, may even now be done by vigorous protest against\nadoration of mere success. And it is important that it should be done,\nconsidering how this vicious sentiment is being fostered. When we have\none of our leading moralists preaching, with increasing vehemence,\nthe doctrine of sanctification by force\u2014when we are told that while\na selfishness troubled with qualms of conscience is contemptible,\na selfishness intense enough to trample down everything in the\nunscrupulous pursuit of its ends is worthy of admiration\u2014when we find\nthat if it be sufficiently great, power, no matter of what kind or how\ndirected, is held up for our reverence; we may fear lest the prevalent\napplause {151} of mere success, together with the commercial vices\nwhich it stimulates, should be increased rather than diminished. Not at\nall by this hero-worship grown into brute-worship is society to be made\nbetter, but by exactly the opposite\u2014by a stern criticism of the means\nthrough which success has been achieved, and by according honour to the\nhigher and less selfish modes of activity.\n\nAnd happily the signs of this more moral public opinion are showing\nthemselves. It is becoming a tacitly-received doctrine that the\nrich should not, as in bygone times, spend their lives in personal\ngratification; but should devote them to the general welfare. Year\nby year is the improvement of the people occupying a larger share of\nthe attention of the upper classes. Year by year are they voluntarily\ndevoting more energy to furthering the material and mental progress\nof the masses. And those among them who do not join in the discharge\nof these high functions, are beginning to be looked upon with more or\nless contempt by their own order. This latest and most hopeful fact in\nhuman history\u2014this new and better chivalry\u2014promises to evolve a higher\nstandard of honour, and so to ameliorate many evils: among others those\nwhich we have detailed. When wealth obtained by illegitimate means\ninevitably brings nothing but disgrace\u2014when to wealth rightly acquired\nis accorded only its due share of homage, while the greatest homage is\ngiven to those who consecrate their energies and their means to the\nnoblest ends; then may we be sure that, along with other accompanying\nbenefits, the morals of trade will be greatly purified.\n\n{152}\n\n\n\n\nPRISON-ETHICS.\n\n[_First published in_ The British Quarterly Review _for July 1860_.]\n\n\nThe two antagonist theories of morals, like many other antagonist\ntheories, are both right and both wrong. The _a priori_ school has\nits truth; the _a posteriori_ school has its truth; and for the\nproper guidance of conduct, there must be due recognition of both. On\nthe one hand, it is asserted that there is an absolute standard of\nrectitude; and, respecting certain classes of actions, it is rightly\nso asserted. From the fundamental laws of life and the conditions of\nsocial existence, are deducible certain imperative limitations to\nindividual action\u2014limitations which are essential to a perfect life,\nindividual and social; or, in other words, essential to the greatest\nhappiness. And these limitations, following inevitably as they do\nfrom undeniable first principles, deep as the nature of life itself,\nconstitute what we may distinguish as absolute morality. On the other\nhand it is contended, and in a sense rightly contended, that with men\nas they are and society as it is, the dictates of absolute morality\nare impracticable. Legal control, which involves infliction of pain,\nalike on those who are restrained and on those who pay the cost of\nrestraining them, is proved by this fact to be not absolutely moral;\nseeing that absolute morality is the regulation of conduct in such way\nthat pain shall not be inflicted. {153}\n\nWherefore, if it be admitted that legal control is at present\nindispensable, it must be admitted that these _a priori_ rules cannot\nbe immediately carried out. And hence it follows that we must adapt\nour laws and actions to the existing character of mankind\u2014that we must\nestimate the good or evil resulting from this or that arrangement,\nand so reach, _a posteriori_, a code fitted for the time being. In\nshort, we must fall back on expediency. Now, each of these positions\nbeing valid, it is a grave mistake to adopt either to the exclusion\nof the other. They should be respectively appealed to for mutual\nqualification. Progressing civilization, which is of necessity a\nsuccession of compromises between old and new, requires a perpetual\nreadjustment of the compromise between the ideal and the practicable\nin social arrangements: to which end both elements of the compromise\nmust be kept in view. If it is true that pure rectitude prescribes a\nsystem of things too good for men as they are; it is not less true\nthat mere expediency does not of itself tend to establish a system\nof things any better than that which exists. While absolute morality\nowes to expediency the checks which prevent it from rushing into\nutopian absurdities; expediency is indebted to absolute morality for\nall stimulus to improvement. Granted that we are chiefly interested in\nascertaining what is _relatively right_; it still follows that we must\nfirst consider what is _absolutely right_; since the one conception\npresupposes the other. That is to say, though we must ever aim to do\nwhat is best for the present times, yet we must ever bear in mind what\nis abstractedly best; so that the changes we make may be _towards_ it,\nand not _away_ from it. Unattainable as pure rectitude is, and will\nlong continue to be, we must keep an eye on the compass which tells\nus whereabout it lies; or we shall otherwise wander in the opposite\ndirection.\n\nIllustrations from our recent history will show very conclusively,\nwe think, how important it is that {154} considerations of abstract\nexpediency should be joined with those of concrete expediency\u2014how\nimmense would be the evils avoided and the benefits gained, if _a\nposteriori_ morality were enlightened by _a priori_ morality. Take\nfirst the case of free trade. Until recently it has been the practice\nof all nations, artificially to restrict their commerce with other\nnations. Throughout past centuries this course was defensible as\nconducing to safety. Without saying that law-givers had the motive of\npromoting industrial independence, it may yet be said that in ages when\nnational quarrels were perpetual, it would not have been well for any\npeople to be much dependent on others for necessary commodities. But\nthough there is this ground for asserting that commercial restrictions\nwere once expedient, it cannot be asserted that our corn-laws were thus\njustified: it cannot be alleged that the penalties and prohibitions\nwhich, until lately, hampered our trade, were needful to prevent us\nfrom being industrially disabled by a war. Protection in all its forms\nwas established and maintained for other reasons of expediency; and\nthe reasons for which it was opposed and finally abolished were also\nthose of expediency. Calculations of immediate and remote consequences\nwere set forth by the antagonist parties; and the mode of decision was\nby a balancing of these various anticipated consequences. And what,\nafter generations of mischievous legislation and long years of arduous\nstruggle, was the conclusion arrived at, and since justified by the\nresults? Exactly the one which abstract equity plainly teaches. The\nmoral course proves to be the politic course. That ability to exercise\nthe faculties, the total denial of which causes death\u2014that liberty to\npursue the objects of desire, without which there cannot be complete\nlife\u2014that freedom of action which his nature prompts every individual\nto claim, and on which equity puts no limit save the like freedom\nof action of other individuals, involves, among other corollaries,\nfreedom of exchange. {155} Government which, in protecting citizens\nfrom murder, robbery, assault or other aggression, shows us that it\nhas the all-essential function of securing to each this free exercise\nof faculties within the assigned limits, is called on, in the due\ndischarge of its function, to maintain this freedom of exchange;\nand cannot abrogate it without reversing its function, and becoming\naggressor instead of protector. Thus, absolute morality would all along\nhave shown in what direction legislation should tend. Qualified only by\nthe consideration that in turbulent times they must not be so carried\nout as to endanger national life, through suspensions in the supply of\nnecessaries, these _a priori_ principles would have guided statesmen,\nas fast as circumstances allowed, towards the normal condition. We\nshould have been saved from thousands of needless restrictions. Such\nrestrictions as were needful would have been abolished as soon as was\nsafe. An enormous amount of suffering would have been prevented. That\nprosperity which we now enjoy would have commenced much sooner. And\nour present condition would have been one of greater power, wealth,\nhappiness, and morality.\n\nOur railway-politics furnish another instance. A vast loss of national\ncapital has been incurred, and great misery has been inflicted, in\nconsequence of the neglect of a simple principle clearly dictated by\nabstract justice. Whoso enters into a contract, though he is bound to\ndo that which the contract specifies, is not bound to do some other\nthing which is neither specified nor implied in the contract. We do\nnot appeal to moral perception only in warranty of this position. It\nis one deducible from that first principle of equity which, as above\npointed out, follows from the laws of life, individual and social;\nand it is one which the accumulated experience of mankind has so\nuniformly justified, that it has become a tacitly-recognized doctrine\nof civil law among all nations. In cases of disputes about agreements,\nthe question in each case brought to trial {156} always is, whether\nthe terms bind one or other of the contracting parties to do this\nor that; and it is assumed, as a matter of course, that neither of\nthem can be called upon to do more than is expressed or understood\nin the agreement. Now this almost self-evident principle has been\nwholly ignored in railway-legislation. A shareholder, uniting with\nothers to make and work a line from one specified place to another\nspecified place, binds himself to pay certain sums in furtherance of\nthe project; and, by implication, agrees to yield to the majority\nof his fellow-shareholders on all questions raised respecting the\nexecution of this project. But he commits himself no further than\nthis. He is not required to obey the majority concerning things\nnot named in the deed of incorporation. Though with respect to the\nspecified railway he has bound himself, he has not bound himself,\nwith respect to any _un_specified railway which his co-proprietors\nmay wish to make; and he cannot be committed to such unspecified\nrailway by a vote of the majority. But this distinction has been\nwholly passed over. Shareholders in joint-stock undertakings have been\nperpetually involved in other undertakings subsequently decided on by\ntheir fellow-shareholders; and, against their will, have had their\nproperties heavily mortgaged for the execution of projects that were\nruinously unremunerative. In every case the proprietary contract for\nmaking a particular railway, has been dealt with as though it were a\nproprietary contract for making railways! Not only have directors thus\nmisinterpreted it, and not only have shareholders allowed it to be\nthus misinterpreted, but legislators have so little understood their\nduties as to have endorsed the misinterpretation. To this simple cause\nhas been owing most of our railway-companies\u2019 disasters. Abnormal\nfacilities for getting capital have caused reckless competition in\nextension-making and branch-making, and in needless opposition lines,\ngot up to be purchased by the companies they threatened. Had each new\nscheme been {157} executed by an independent body of shareholders,\nwithout any guarantee from another company\u2014without any capital raised\nby preference shares\u2014there would have been little or none of the\nruinous expenditure we have seen. Something like a hundred millions of\nmoney would have been saved, and thousands of families preserved from\nmisery, had the proprietary-contract been enforced according to the\ndictates of pure equity.\n\nThese cases go far to justify our position. The general reasons we\ngave for thinking that the ethics of immediate experience must be\nenlightened by abstract ethics, to ensure correct guidance, are\nstrongly enforced by these instances of the gigantic errors which are\nmade when the dictates of abstract ethics are ignored. The complex\nestimates of relative expediency, cannot do without the clue furnished\nby the simple deductions of absolute expediency.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe propose to study the treatment of criminals from this point of view.\nAnd first, let us set down those temporary requirements which have\nhitherto prevented, and do still, in part, prevent the establishment of\na just system.\n\nThe same average popular character which necessitates a rigorous form\nof government, necessitates also a rigorous criminal code. Institutions\nare ultimately determined by the natures of the citizens living under\nthem; and when these citizens are too impulsive or selfish for free\ninstitutions, and unscrupulous enough to supply the requisite staff\nof agents for maintaining tyrannical institutions, they are proved\nby implication to be citizens who will tolerate, and will probably\nneed, severe forms of punishment. The same mental defect underlies\nboth results. The character which originates and sustains political\nliberty, is a character swayed by remote considerations\u2014a character\nnot at the mercy of immediate temptations, but one which contemplates\nthe consequences likely to arise in future. We have only to remember\nthat, among ourselves, a political encroachment is {158} resisted,\nnot because of any direct evil it inflicts, but because of the evils\nlikely hereafter to flow from it, to see how the maintenance of\nfreedom presupposes the habit of weighing distant results, and being\nchiefly guided by them. Conversely, it is manifest that men who dwell\nonly in the present, the special, the concrete\u2014who do not realize\nwith clearness the contingencies of the future\u2014will put little value\non those rights of citizenship which profit them nothing, save as a\nmeans of warding off unspecified evils that can possibly affect them\nonly at a distant time in an obscure way. Well, is it not obvious\nthat the forms of mind thus contrasted, will require different kinds\nof punishment for misconduct? To restrain the second, there must be\npenalties which are severe, prompt, and specific enough to be vividly\nconceived; while the first may be deterred by penalties which are less\ndefinite, less intense, less immediate. For the more civilized, dread\nof a long, monotonous, criminal discipline may suffice; but for the\nless civilized there must be inflictions of bodily pain and death. Thus\nwe hold, not only that a social condition which generates a harsh form\nof government, also generates harsh retributions; but also, that in\nsuch a social condition, harsh retributions are requisite. And there\nare facts which illustrate this. Witness the case of one of the Italian\nstates, in which the punishment of death having been abolished in\nconformity with the wish of a dying duchess, assassinations increased\nso greatly that it became needful to re-establish it.\n\nBesides the fact that in the less-advanced stages of civilization, a\nbloody penal code is both a natural product of the time and a needful\nrestraint for the time, there must be noted the fact that a more\nequitable and humane code could not be carried out from want of fit\nadministration. To deal with delinquents not by short and sharp methods\nbut by such methods as abstract justice indicates, implies a class of\nagencies too complicated to exist in a low society, {159} and a class\nof officers more trustworthy than can be found among its citizens.\nEspecially would the equitable treatment of criminals be impracticable\nwhere the amount of crime was very great. The number to be dealt with\nwould be unmanageable. Some simpler method of purging the community of\nits worst members becomes, under such circumstances, a necessity.\n\nThe inapplicability of an absolutely just system of penal discipline to\na barbarous or semi-barbarous people, is thus, we think, as manifest\nas is the inapplicability of an absolutely just form of government\nto them. And in the same manner that, for some nations, a despotism\nis warranted; so may a criminal code of the extremest severity be\nwarranted. In either case the defence is, that the institution is\nas good as the average character of the people permits\u2014that less\nstringent institutions would entail social confusion and its far more\nsevere evils. Bad as a despotism is, yet where anarchy is the only\nalternative, we must say that, as anarchy would bring greater suffering\nthan despotism brings, despotism is justified by the circumstances. And\nsimilarly, however inequitable in the abstract were the beheadings,\ncrucifyings, and burnings of ruder ages, yet, if it be shown that,\nwithout penalties thus extreme, the safety of society could not\nhave been insured\u2014if, in their absence, the increase of crime would\nhave inflicted a larger total of evil, and that, too, on peaceable\nmembers of the community; then it follows that morality warranted this\nseverity. In the one case, as in the other, we must say that, measured\nby the quantities of pain respectively inflicted and avoided, the\ncourse pursued was the _least wrong_; and to say that it was the least\nwrong is to say that it was _relatively right_.\n\nBut while we thus admit all that can be alleged by the defenders\nof Draconian codes, we go on to assert a correlative truth which\nthey overlook. While fully recognizing the evils that must follow\nthe premature establishment of a {160} penal system dictated by\npure equity, let us not overlook the evils that have arisen from\naltogether rejecting the guidance of pure equity. Let us note how\nterribly the one-sided regard for immediate expediency has retarded the\nameliorations from time to time demanded.\n\nConsider, for instance, the immense amount of suffering and\ndemoralization needlessly caused by our severe laws in the last\ncentury. Those many merciless penalties which Romilly and others\nsucceeded in abolishing, were as little justified by social necessities\nas by abstract morality. Experience has since proved that to hang men\nfor theft, was not requisite for the security of property. And that\nsuch a measure was opposed to pure equity, scarcely needs saying.\nEvidently, had considerations of relative expediency been all along\nqualified by considerations of absolute expediency, these severities,\nwith their many concomitant evils, would have ceased long before they\ndid.\n\nAgain, the dreadful misery, demoralization, and crime, generated by the\nharsh treatment of transported convicts, would have been impossible,\nhad our authorities considered what seemed just as well as what seemed\npolitic. There would never have been inflicted on transports the\nshocking cruelties proved before the Parliamentary Committee of 1848.\nWe should not have had men condemned to the horrors of the chain-gang\neven for insolent looks. There could not have been perpetrated such\nan atrocity as that of locking up chain-gangs \u201cfrom sunset to sunrise\nin the caravans or boxes used for this description of prisons, which\nhold from twenty to twenty-eight men, but in which the whole number\n_can neither stand upright nor sit down at the same time, except with\ntheir legs at right angles to their bodies_.\u201d Men would never have been\ndoomed to tortures extreme enough to produce despair, desperation,\nand further crimes\u2014tortures under which \u201ca man\u2019s heart is taken\nfrom him, and there is given to him the heart of a {161} beast,\u201d as\nsaid by one of these law-produced criminals before his execution. We\nshould not have been told, as by a chief justice of Australia, that\nthe discipline was \u201ccarried to an extent of _suffering, such as to\nrender death desirable, and to induce many prisoners to seek it under\nits most appalling aspects_.\u201d Sir G. Arthur would not have had to\ntestify that, in Van Diemen\u2019s Land, convicts committed murder for the\npurpose \u201c_of being sent up to Hobart Town for trial, though aware that\nin the ordinary course they must be executed within a fortnight after\narrival_;\u201d nor would tears of commiseration have been drawn from Judge\nBurton\u2019s eyes, by one of these cruelly-used transports placed before\nhim for sentence. In brief, had abstract equity joined with immediate\nexpediency in devising convict discipline, not only would untold\nsuffering, degradation, and mortality have been prevented; but those\nwho were responsible for atrocities like those above-named, would not\nthemselves be chargeable with crime, as we now hold them to be.\n\nProbably we shall meet with a less general assent when, as a further\nbenefit which the guidance of absolute morality would have conferred,\nwe instance the prevention of such methods as those in use at\nPentonville. How the silent and the separate systems are negatived by\nabstract justice we shall by and by see. For the present, the position\nwe have to defend is that these systems are bad. That but a moderate\nper-centage of the prisoners subjected to them are re-convicted, may be\ntrue; though, considering the fallaciousness of negative statistics,\nthis by no means proves that those not re-convicted are reformed. But\nthe question is not solely how many prisoners are prevented from again\ncommitting crime? A further question is, how many of them have become\nself-supporting members of society? It is notorious that this prolonged\ndenial of human intercourse not unfrequently produces insanity or\nimbecility; and on those who remain sane, its depressing influence\nmust almost {162} of necessity entail serious debility, bodily and\nmental.[7] Indeed, we think it probable that much of the apparent\nsuccess is due to an enfeeblement which incapacitates for crime as\nmuch as for industry. Our own objection to such methods, however, has\nalways been, that their effect on the moral nature is the reverse of\nthat required. Crime is anti-social\u2014is prompted by self-regarding\nfeelings and checked by social feelings. The natural prompter of right\nconduct to others, and the natural opponent of misconduct to others,\nis sympathy; for out of sympathy grow both the kindly emotions, and\nthat sentiment of justice which restrains us from aggressions. Well,\nthis sympathy, which makes society possible, is cultivated by social\nintercourse. By habitual participation in the pleasures of others, the\nfaculty is strengthened; and whatever prevents this participation,\nweakens it. Hence, therefore, shutting up prisoners within themselves,\nor forbidding all interchange of feeling, inevitably deadens such\nsympathies as they have; and so tends rather to diminish than to\nincrease the moral check to transgression. This _a priori_ conviction,\nwhich we have long entertained, we now find confirmed by facts. Captain\nMaconochie states, as a result of observation, that a long course\nof separation so fosters the self-regarding desires, and so weakens\nthe sympathies, as to make even well-disposed men very unfit to bear\nthe little trials of domestic life on their return to their homes.\nThus there is good reason to think that, while silence and solitude\nmay cow the spirit or undermine the energies, it cannot produce true\nreformation.\n\n [7] Mr. Baillie-Cochrane says:\u2014\u201cThe officers at the Dartmoor prison\n inform me that the prisoners who arrive there even after one year\u2019s\n confinement at Pentonville, may be distinguished from the others\n by their miserable downcast look. In most instances their brain is\n affected; and they are unable to give satisfactory replies to the\n simplest questions.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut how can it be shown,\u201d asks the reader, \u201cthat these injudicious\npenal systems are inequitable? Where is the method which will enable us\nto say what kind of {163} punishment is justified by absolute morality,\nand what kind is not?\u201d These questions we will now attempt to answer.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSo long as the individual citizen pursues the objects of his desires\nwithout diminishing the equal freedom of any of his fellow citizens\nto do the like, society cannot equitably interfere with him. While\nhe contents himself with the benefits won by his own energies, and\nattempts not to intercept any of the benefits similarly won for\nthemselves by others, or any of those which Nature has conferred on\nthem; no legal penalties can rightly be inflicted on him. But when,\nby murder, theft, assault, arson, or minor aggression, he has broken\nthrough these limits, the community is warranted in putting him under\nrestraint. On the relative propriety of doing this we need say nothing:\nit is demonstrated by social experience. Its absolute propriety not\nbeing so manifest, we will proceed to point out how it is deducible\nfrom the ultimate laws of life.\n\nLife depends on the maintenance of certain natural relations between\nactions and their results. If respiration does not supply oxygen to\nthe blood, as in the normal order of things it should do, but instead\nsupplies carbonic acid, death quickly results. If the swallowing of\nfood is not followed by the usual organic sequences\u2014the contractions\nof the stomach, and the pouring into it of gastric juice\u2014indigestion\narises, and the energies flag. If active movements of the limbs fail\nin exciting the heart to supply blood more rapidly, or if the extra\ncurrent propelled by the heart is greatly retarded by an aneurism\nthrough which it passes, speedy prostration ensues. In which, and\nendless like cases, we see that bodily life depends on the maintenance\nof the established connexions between physiological causes and their\nconsequences. Among the intellectual processes, the same thing\nholds. If certain impressions made on the senses do not induce the\nappropriate muscular adjustments\u2014if the brain is clouded with wine, or\nconsciousness is {164} pre-occupied, or the perceptions are naturally\nobtuse; the movements are so ill-controlled that accidents happen.\nWhere, as in paralytic patients, the natural link between mental\nimpressions and the appropriate motions is broken, the life is greatly\nvitiated. And when, as during insanity, evidence fitted, according to\nthe usual order of thought, to produce certain convictions, produces\nconvictions of an opposite kind, conduct is reduced to chaos, and\nlife endangered\u2014perhaps cut short. So it is with more involved\nphenomena. Just as we here find that, throughout both its physical\nand intellectual divisions, healthful life implies continuance of the\nestablished successions of antecedents and consequents among our vital\nactions; so shall we find it throughout the moral division. In our\ndealings with external Nature and our fellow men, there are relations\nof cause and effect, on the maintenance of which, as on the maintenance\nof the internal ones above instanced, life depends. Conduct of this\nor that kind tends to bring results which are pleasurable or painful;\nand the welfare of every one demands that these natural sequences\nshall not be interfered with. To speak more specifically, we see that\nin the order of Nature, inactivity entails want. There is a connexion\nbetween exertion and the fulfilment of certain imperative needs. If,\nnow, this connexion is broken\u2014if labour of body or mind has been gone\nthrough, and the produce of the labour is intercepted by another,\none of the conditions to complete life is unfulfilled. The defrauded\nperson is physically injured by deprivation of the wherewithal to\nmake good the wear and tear he had undergone; and if the robbery be\ncontinually repeated, he must die. Where all men are dishonest a\nreflex evil results. When, throughout a society, the normal relation\nbetween work and benefit is habitually broken, not only are the lives\nof many directly undermined, but the lives of all are indirectly\nundermined by destruction of the motive for work, and by the consequent\npoverty. Thus, to demand that there shall {165} be no breach of the\nnatural sequence between labour and the rewards obtained by labour,\nis to demand that the laws of life shall be respected. What we call\nthe right of property, is simply a corollary from certain necessary\nconditions to complete living. It is a formulated recognition of the\nrelation between expenditure of force and the need for force-sustaining\nobjects obtainable by the expenditure of force\u2014a recognition in full\nof a relation which cannot be wholly ignored without causing death.\nAnd all else regarded as individual rights, are indirect implications\nof like nature\u2014similarly insist on certain relations between man and\nman, as conditions without which there cannot be fully maintained that\ncorrespondence between inner and outer actions which constitutes life.\nIt is not, as some moralists and most lawyers absurdly assert, that\nsuch rights are derived from human legislation; nor is it, as asserted\nby others with absurdity almost as great, that there is no basis for\nthem save the inductions of immediate expediency. These rights are\ndeducible from the established connexions between our acts and their\nresults. As certainly as there are conditions which must be fulfilled\nbefore life can exist, so certainly are there conditions which must be\nfulfilled before complete life can be enjoyed by the respective members\nof a society; and those which we call the requirements of justice,\nsimply answer to the most important of such conditions.\n\nHence, if life is our legitimate aim\u2014if absolute morality means, as it\ndoes, conformity to the laws of complete life; then absolute morality\nwarrants the restraint of those who force their fellow-citizens into\nnon-conformity. Our justification is, that life is impossible save\nunder certain conditions; that it cannot be entire unless these\nconditions are maintained unbroken; and that if it is right for us to\nlive completely, it is right for us to remove any one who either breaks\nthese conditions in our persons or constrains us to break them.\n\nSuch being the basis of our right to coerce the criminal, {166} there\nnext come the questions:\u2014What is the legitimate extent of the coercion?\nCan we from this source derive authority for certain demands on him?\nand are there any similarly-derived limits to such demands? To both\nthese questions there are affirmative answers.\n\nFirst, we find authority for demanding restitution or compensation.\nConformity to the laws of life being the substance of absolute\nmorality; and the social regulations which absolute morality dictates,\nbeing those which make this conformity possible; it is a manifest\ncorollary that whoever breaks these regulations, may be justly required\nto undo, as far as possible, the wrong he has done. The object being to\nmaintain the conditions essential to complete life, it follows that,\nwhen one of these conditions has been transgressed, the first thing\nto be required of the transgressor is, that he shall put matters as\nnearly as may be in the state they previously were. The property stolen\nshall be restored, or an equivalent for it given. Any one injured by an\nassault shall have his surgeon\u2019s bill paid, compensation for lost time,\nand also for the suffering he has borne. And similarly in all cases of\ninfringed rights.\n\nSecond, we are warranted by this highest authority in restricting\nthe actions of the offender as much as is needful to prevent further\naggressions. Any citizen who will not allow others to fulfil the\nconditions to complete life\u2014who takes away the produce of his\nneighbour\u2019s labour, or deducts from that bodily health and comfort\nwhich his neighbour has earned by good conduct, must be forced to\ndesist. And society is warranted in using such force as may be found\nrequisite. Equity justifies the fellow-citizens of such a man in\nlimiting the free exercise of his faculties to the extent necessary for\npreserving the free exercise of their own faculties.\n\nBut now mark that absolute morality countenances no restraint beyond\nthis\u2014no gratuitous inflictions of pain, no revengeful penalties. The\nconditions it insists on being such as make possible complete life, we\ncannot rightly abrogate {167} these conditions, even in the person\nof a criminal, further than is needful to prevent greater abrogations\nof them. Freedom to fulfil the laws of life being the thing insisted\non, to the end that the sum of life may be the greatest possible, it\nfollows that the life of the offender must be taken into account as an\nitem in this sum. We must permit him to live as completely as consists\nwith social safety. It is commonly said that the criminal loses all his\nrights. This may be so according to law, but it is not so according\nto justice. Such portion of them only is justly taken away, as cannot\nbe left to him without danger to the community. Those exercises\nof faculty, and consequent benefits, which are possible under the\nnecessary restraint, cannot be equitably denied. If any do not think it\nproper that we should be thus regardful of an offender\u2019s claims, let\nthem consider for a moment the lesson which Nature reads us. We do not\nfind that those processes of life by which bodily health is maintained,\nare miraculously suspended in the person of the prisoner. In him, as in\nothers, good digestion waits on appetite. If he is wounded, the healing\nprocess goes on with the usual rapidity. When he is ill, as much effect\nis expected from the _vis medicatrix natur\u00e6_ by the medical officer, as\nin one who has not transgressed. His perceptions yield him guidance as\nthey did before he was imprisoned; and he is capable of much the same\npleasurable emotions. When we thus see that the beneficent arrangements\nof things, are no less uniformly sustained in his person than in that\nof another, are we not bound to respect in his person such of these\nbeneficent arrangements as we have power to thwart? are we not bound\nto interfere with the laws of life no further than is needful? If\nany still hesitate, there is another lesson for them having the same\nimplication. Whoso disregards any one of those simpler laws of life\nout of which, as we have shown, the moral laws originate, has to bear\nthe evil necessitated by the transgression\u2014just that, and no more. If,\ncareless of your footing, you fall, the {168} consequent bruise, and\npossibly some constitutional disturbance entailed by it, are all you\nhave to suffer: there is not the further gratuitous penalty of a cold\nor an attack of small-pox. If you have eaten something which you know\nto be indigestible, there follow certain visceral derangements and\ntheir concomitants; but, for your physical sin, there is no vengeance\nin the shape of a broken bone or a spinal affection. The punishments,\nin these and other cases, are neither greater nor less than flow from\nthe natural workings of things. Well, should we not with all humility\nfollow this example? Must we not infer that, similarly, a citizen who\nhas transgressed the conditions to social welfare, ought to bear the\nneedful penalties and restraints, but nothing beyond these? Is it not\nclear that neither by absolute morality nor by Nature\u2019s precedents, are\nwe warranted in visiting on him any pains besides those involved in\nremedying, as far as may be, the evil committed, and preventing other\nsuch evils? To us it seems manifest that if society exceeds this, it\ntrespasses against the criminal.\n\nThose who think that we are tending towards a mischievous leniency,\nwill find that the next step in our argument disposes of any such\nobjection; for while equity forbids us to punish the criminal otherwise\nthan by making him suffer the natural consequences, these, when\nrigorously enforced, are quite severe enough.\n\nSociety having proved in the high court of absolute morality, that\nthe offender must make restitution or compensation, and submit to\nthe restraints requisite for public safety; and the offender having\nobtained from the same court the decision, that these restraints shall\nbe no greater than the specified end requires; society thereupon makes\nthe further demand that, while living in durance, the offender shall\nmaintain himself; and this demand absolute morality at once endorses.\nThe community having taken measures for self-preservation, and having\ninflicted on the aggressor no punishments or disabilities beyond those\n{169} involved in these necessary measures, is no further concerned in\nthe matter. With the support of the prisoner it has no more to do than\nbefore he committed the crime. It is the business of society simply\nto defend itself against him; and it is his business to live as well\nas he can under the restrictions society is obliged to impose on him.\nAll he may rightly ask is, to have the opportunity of labouring, and\nexchanging the produce of his labour for necessaries; and this claim\nis a corollary from that already admitted, that his actions shall not\nbe restricted more than is needful for the public safety. With these\nopportunities, however, he must make the best of his position. He must\nbe content to gain as good a livelihood as the circumstances permit;\nand if he cannot employ his powers to the best advantage, if he has\nto work hard and fare scantily, these evils must be counted among the\npenalties of his transgression\u2014the natural reactions of his wrong\naction.\n\nOn this self-maintenance equity sternly insists. The reasons which\njustify his imprisonment, equally justify the refusal to let him have\nany other sustenance than he earns. He is confined that he may not\nfurther interfere with the complete living of his fellow-citizens\u2014that\nhe may not again intercept any of those benefits which the order\nof Nature has conferred on them, or any of those procured by their\nexertions and careful conduct. And he is required to support himself\nfor exactly the same reasons\u2014that he may not interfere with others\u2019\ncomplete living\u2014that he may not intercept the benefits they earn. For,\nif otherwise, whence must come his food and clothing? Directly from\nthe public stores, and indirectly from the pockets of all tax-payers.\nAnd what is the property thus abstracted from tax-payers? It is the\nequivalent of so much benefit earned by labour. It is so much means\nto complete living. And when this property is taken away\u2014when the\ntoil has been gone through, and the produce of it is intercepted by\nthe tax-gatherer on behalf of the convict; the conditions to {170}\ncomplete life are broken: the convict commits by deputy a further\naggression on his fellow-citizens. It matters not that such abstraction\nis made according to law. We are here considering the _dictum_ of that\nauthority which is above law; and which law ought to enforce. And this\n_dictum_ we find to be, that each individual shall take the evils and\nbenefits of his own conduct\u2014that the offender must suffer, as far\nas is possible, all pains entailed by his offence; and must not be\nallowed to visit part of them on the unoffending. Unless the criminal\nmaintains himself, he indirectly commits an additional crime. Instead\nof repairing the breach he has made in the conditions to complete\nsocial life, he widens this breach. He inflicts on others that very\ninjury which the restraint imposed on him was to prevent. As certainly,\ntherefore, as such restraint is warranted by absolute morality; so\ncertainly does absolute morality warrant us in refusing him gratuitous\nsupport.\n\nThese, then, are the requirements of an equitable penal system:\u2014That\nthe aggressor shall make restitution or compensation; that he shall\nbe placed under the restraints requisite for social security; that\nneither any restraints beyond these, nor any gratuitous penalties,\nshall be inflicted on him; and that while living in confinement, or\nunder surveillance, he shall maintain himself. We are not prepared\nto say that such dictates may at once be fully obeyed. Already we\nhave admitted that the deductions of absolute expediency must, in\nour transition state, be qualified by the inductions of relative\nexpediency. We have pointed out that in rude times, the severest\ncriminal codes were morally justified if, without them, crime could\nnot be repressed and social safety insured. Whence, by implication, it\nfollows that our present methods of treating criminals are warranted,\nif they come as near to those of pure equity as circumstances permit.\nThat any system now feasible must fall short of the ideal sketched out,\nis probable. It may be that the enforcement of restitution or {171}\ncompensation, is in many cases impracticable. It may be that on some\nconvicts, penalties more severe than abstract justice demands must be\ninflicted. On the other hand, it may be that entire self-maintenance\nwould entail on the wholly-unskilled criminal, a punishment too\ngrievous to be borne. But any such shortcomings do not affect our\nargument. All we insist on is, that the commands of absolute morality\nshall be obeyed as far as possible\u2014that we shall fulfil them up to\nthose limits beyond which experiment proves that more evil than good\nresults\u2014that, ever keeping in view the ideal, each change we make shall\nbe towards its realization.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut now we are prepared to say, that this ideal may be in great part\nrealized at the present time. Experience in various countries, under\nvarious circumstances, has shown that immense benefits result from\nsubstituting for the old penal systems, systems that approximate to\nthat above indicated. Germany, France, Spain, England, Ireland, and\nAustralia, send statements to the effect that the most successful\ncriminal discipline, is a discipline of decreased restraints and\nincreased self-dependence. And the evidence proves the success to\nbe greatest, where the nearest approach is made to the arrangements\nprescribed by abstract justice. We shall find the facts striking: some\nof them even astonishing.\n\nWhen M. Obermair was appointed Governor of the Munich State-Prison\u2015\n\n  \u201cHe found from 600 to 700 prisoners in the jail, in the worst state\n of insubordination, and whose excesses, he was told, defied the\n harshest and most stringent discipline; the prisoners were all chained\n together, and attached to each chain was an iron weight, which the\n strongest found difficulty in dragging along. The guard consisted of\n about 100 soldiers, who did duty not only at the gates and around\n the walls, but also in the passages, and even in the workshops and\n dormitories; and, strangest of all protections against the possibility\n of an outbreak or individual invasion, twenty to thirty large savage\n dogs, of the bloodhound breed, were let loose at night in the passages\n and courts to keep their watch and ward. {172} According to his\n account the place was a perfect Pandemonium, comprising, within the\n limits of a few acres, the worst passions, the most slavish vices, and\n the most heartless tyranny.\u201d\n\nM. Obermair gradually relaxed this harsh system. He greatly lightened\nthe chains; and would, if allowed, have thrown them aside. The dogs,\nand nearly all the guards, were dispensed with; and the prisoners\nwere treated with such consideration as to gain their confidence. Mr.\nBaillie-Cochrane, who visited the place in 1852, says the prison-gates\nwere\n\n \u201cWide open, without any sentinel at the door, and a guard of\n only twenty men idling away their time in a guard-room off the\n entrance-hall. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. None of the doors were provided with bolts\n and bars; the only security was an ordinary lock, and as in most of\n the rooms the key was not turned, there was no obstacle to the men\n walking into the passage. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Over each workshop some of the\n prisoners with the best characters were appointed overseers, and M.\n Obermair assured me that if a prisoner transgressed a regulation, his\n companions generally told him, \u2018Es ist verboten\u2019 (it is forbidden),\n and it rarely happened that he did not yield to the opinion of his\n fellow-prisoners. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Within the prison walls every description\n of work is carried on; the prisoners, divided into different gangs\n and supplied with instruments and tools, make their own clothes,\n repair their own prison walls, and forge their own chains, producing\n various specimens of manufacture which are turned to most excellent\n account\u2014the result being, that each prisoner, by occupation and\n industry, maintains himself; the surplus of his earnings being given\n him on his emancipation, avoids his being parted with in a state of\n destitution.\u201d\n\nAnd further, the prisoners \u201cassociate in their leisure hours, without\nany check on their intercourse, but at the same time under an efficient\nsystem of observation and control\u201d\u2014an arrangement by which, after many\nyears\u2019 experience, M. Obermair asserts that morality is increased.\n\nAnd now what has been the result? During his six-years\u2019 government\nof the Kaiserslauten (the first prison under his care), M. Obermair\ndischarged 132 criminals, of which number 123 have since conducted\nthemselves well, and 7 have been recommitted. From the Munich prison,\nbetween 1843 and 1845, 298 prisoners were discharged.\n\nOf these, 246 have been restored, improved, to society. Those whose\ncharacters are doubtful, but have not been {173} remanded for any\ncriminal act, 26; again under examination, 4; punished by the police,\n6; remanded, 8; died, 8. This statement, says M. Obermair, \u201cis based\non irrefutable evidence.\u201d And to the reality of his success, we have\nthe testimony not only of Mr. Baillie-Cochrane, but of the Rev. C. H.\nTownsend, Mr. George Combe, Mr. Matthew Hill, and Sir John Milbanke,\nour Envoy at the Court of Bavaria.\n\nTake, again, the case of Mettray. Every one has heard something about\nMettray, and its success as a reformatory of juvenile criminals.\nObserve how nearly the successful system there pursued, conforms to the\nabstract principles above enunciated.\n\nThis \u201cColonie Agricole\u201d is \u201cwithout wall or enclosure of any sort, for\nthe purposes at least of confinement;\u201d and except when for some fault a\nchild is temporarily put in a cell, there is no physical restraint. The\nlife is industrial: the boys being brought up to trades or agriculture\nas they prefer; and all the domestic services being discharged by them.\n\u201cThey all do their work by the _piece_;\u201d are rewarded according to\nthe judgment of the _chef d\u2019atelier_; and, a portion being placed at\nthe disposal of the child, the rest is deposited in the savings-bank\nat Tours. \u201cA boy in receipt of any money has to make payment for any\npart of his dress which requires to be renewed before the stated\ntime arrives at which fresh clothing is given out; .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. on the\nother hand, if his clothes are found in good condition at such time,\nhe receives the benefit of it by having the money which would have\nbeen laid out in clothes placed to his account. Two hours per day are\nallowed for play. Part-singing is taught; and if a boy shows any turn\nfor drawing he receives a little instruction in it. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Some\nof the boys also are formed into a fire-brigade, and have rendered\nat times substantial assistance in the neighbourhood.\u201d In which few\nleading facts do we not clearly see that the essential peculiarities\n{174} are\u2014no more restraint than is absolutely necessary; self-support\nas far as possible; extra benefits earned by extra labour; and as much\ngratifying exercise of faculties as the circumstances permit.\n\nThe \u201cintermediate system\u201d which has of late been carried out with much\nsuccess in Ireland, exemplifies, in a degree, the practicability of\nthe same general principles. Under this system, prisoners working as\nartizans are allowed \u201csuch a modified degree of liberty as shall in\nvarious ways prove their power of self-denial and self-dependence, in\na manner wholly incompatible with the rigid restraints of an ordinary\nprison.\u201d An offender who has passed through this stage of probation,\nis tested by employment \u201con messenger\u2019s duties daily throughout the\ncity, and also in special works required by the department outside the\nprison-walls. The performance of the duties of messengers entails their\nbeing out until seven or eight in the evening, unaccompanied by an\nofficer; and although a small portion of their earnings is allowed them\nweekly, and they would have the power of compromising themselves if\nso disposed, not one instance has as yet taken place of the slightest\nirregularity, or even the want of punctuality, although careful checks\nhave been contrived to detect either, should it occur.\u201d A proportion\nof their prison-earnings is set aside for them in a savings-bank; and\nto this they are encouraged to add during their period of partial\nfreedom, with a view to subsequent emigration. The results are:\u2014\u201cIn the\npenitentiary the greatest possible order and regularity, and an amount\nof willing industry performed that cannot be obtained in the prisons.\u201d\nEmployers to whom prisoners are eventually transferred, \u201chave on many\noccasions returned for others in consequence of the good conduct of\nthose at first engaged.\u201d And according to Captain Crofton\u2019s pamphlet\nof 1857, out of 112 conditionally discharged during the previous year,\n85 were going on satisfactorily, \u201c9 have been discharged {175} too\nrecently to be spoken of, and 5 have had their licences revoked. As\nto the remaining 13, it has been found impossible to obtain accurate\ninformation, but it is supposed that 5 have left the country, and 3\nenlisted.\u201d\n\nThe \u201cmark system\u201d of Captain Maconochie, is one which more fully\ncarries out the principle of self-maintenance, under restraints\nno greater than are needful for safety. The plan is to join with\ntime-sentences certain labour-sentences\u2014specific tasks to be worked out\nby the convicts. \u201cNo rations, or other supplies of any kind, whether\nof food, bedding, clothing, or even education or indulgences, to be\ngiven _gratuitously_, but all to be made exchangeable, at fixed rates,\nat the prisoners\u2019 own option, for marks previously earned; it being\nunderstood, at the same time, that only those shall count towards\nliberation which remain over and above all so exchanged; the prisoners\nbeing thus caused to depend for every necessary on their own good\nconduct; and their prison-offences to be in like manner restrained by\ncorresponding fines imposed according to the measures of each.\u201d The\nuse of marks, which thus play the part of money, was first introduced\nby Captain Maconochie in Norfolk Island. Describing the working of his\nmethod, he says\u2015\n\n \u201cFirst, it gave me wages and then fines. One gave me willing and\n progressively-skilled labourers, and the other saved me from the\n necessity of imposing brutal and demoralizing punishments. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n My form of money next gave me school fees. I was most anxious to\n encourage education among my men, but as I refused them rations\n gratuitously, so I would not give them schooling either, but compelled\n them to yield marks to acquire it. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. I never saw adult schools\n make such rapid progress. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. My form of money next gave me\n bailbonds in cases of minor or even great offences; a period of close\n imprisonment being wholly or in part remitted in consideration of a\n sufficient number of other prisoners of good character becoming bound,\n under a penalty, for the improved conduct of the culprit.\u201d\n\nEven in the establishment of a sick-club and a burial-club, Captain\nMaconochie applied \u201cthe inflexible principle of giving nothing for\nnothing.\u201d That is to say, here, as throughout, he made the discipline\nof the prisoners as {176} much like the discipline of ordinary life\nas possible: let them experience just such good or evil as naturally\nflowed from their conduct\u2014a principle which he rightly asserts is\nthe only true one. What were the effects? The extreme debasement of\nNorfolk Island convicts was notorious; and on a preceding page we have\ndescribed some of the horrible sufferings inflicted on them. Yet,\nstarting with these most demoralized of criminals, Captain Maconochie\nobtained highly-favourable results. \u201cIn four years,\u201d he says, \u201cI\ndischarged 920 doubly-convicted men to Sydney, of whom only 20, or\n2 per cent., had been re-convicted up to January, 1845;\u201d while, at\nthe same time, the ordinary proportion of re-convicted Van Diemen\u2019s\nLand men, otherwise trained, was 9 per cent. \u201cCaptain Maconochie,\u201d\nwrites Mr. Harris in his _Settlers and Convicts_, \u201cdid more for the\nreformation of these unhappy wretches, and amelioration of their\nphysical circumstances, than the most sanguine practical mind could\nbeforehand have ventured even to hope.\u201d Another witness says\u2014\u201ca\nreformation far greater than has been hitherto effected in any body\nof men by any system, either before or after yours, has taken place\nin them.\u201d \u201cAs pastor of the island, and for two years a magistrate,\nI can prove that at no period was there so little crime,\u201d writes the\nRev. B. Naylor. And Thomas H. Dixon, Chief Superintendent of Convicts\nin Western Australia, who partially introduced the system there in\n1856, asserts that not only was the amount of work done under it\nextraordinary, but that \u201ceven although the characters of some of the\nparty were by no means good previously (many of them being men whose\nlicences had been revoked in England), yet the transformation which\nin this and all other respects they underwent, was very remarkable\nindeed.\u201d If such were the results, when the method was imperfectly\ncarried out (for the Government all along refused to give any fixed\nvalue to the marks as a means to liberation); what might be {177}\nexpected if its motives and restraints were allowed their full\ninfluence?\n\nPerhaps, however, of all evidence, the most conclusive is that afforded\nby the prison of Valencia. When, in 1835, Colonel Montesinos was\nappointed governor, \u201cthe average of re-committals was from 30 to 35\nper cent. per annum\u2014nearly the same that is found in England and other\ncountries in Europe; but such has been the success of his method, that\nfor the last three years _there has not been even one re-committal to\nit_, and for the ten previous years they did not, on an average, exceed\n1 per cent.\u201d And how has this marvellous change been brought about? By\ndiminished restraint and industrial discipline. The following extracts,\ntaken irregularly from Mr. Hoskins\u2019s _Account of the Public Prison at\nValencia_, will prove this:\u2015\n\n \u201cWhen first the convict enters the establishment he wears chains, but\n on his application to the commander they are taken off, unless he has\n not conducted himself well.\u201d\n\n \u201cThere are a thousand prisoners, and in the whole establishment I did\n not see above three or four guardians to keep them in order. They\n say there are only a dozen old soldiers, and not a bar or bolt that\n might not be easily broken\u2014apparently not more fastenings than in any\n private house.\u201d\n\n \u201cWhen a convict enters, he is asked what trade or employment he will\n work at or learn, and above forty are open to him. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. There\n are weavers and spinners of every description; .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. blacksmiths,\n shoemakers, basketmakers, ropemakers, joiners, cabinetmakers, making\n handsome mahogany drawers; and they had also a printing machine hard\n at work.\u201d\n\n \u201cThe labour of every description for the repair, rebuilding, and\n cleaning the establishment, is supplied by the convicts. They were\n all most respectful in demeanour, and certainly I never saw such\n a good-looking set of prisoners, useful occupations (and other\n considerate treatment) having apparently improved their countenances.\n .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [And besides a] garden for exercise planted with orange trees,\n there was also a poultry yard for their amusement, with pheasants and\n various other kinds of birds; washing-houses, where they wash their\n clothes; and a shop, where they can purchase, if they wish, tobacco\n and other little comforts out of one-fourth of the profits of their\n labour, which is given to them. Another fourth they are entitled to\n when they leave; the other half goes to the establishment, and _often\n this is sufficient for all expenses, without any assistance from the\n Government_.\u201d\n\nThus the highest success, regarded by Mr. Hoskins as {178} \u201creally\na miracle,\u201d is achieved by a system most nearly conforming to those\ndictates of absolute morality on which we have insisted. The convicts\nare almost, if not quite, self-supporting. They are subject neither\nto gratuitous penalties nor unnecessary restrictions. While made to\nearn their living, they are allowed to purchase such enjoyments as\nconsist with their confinement: the avowed principle being, in the\nwords of Colonel Montesinos, to \u201cgive as much latitude to their free\nagency as can be made conformable to discipline at all.\u201d Thus they are\n(as we found that equity required they should be) allowed to live as\nsatisfactorily as they can, under such restraints only as are needful\nfor the safety of their fellow-citizens.\n\nTo us it appears extremely significant that there should be so close\na correspondence between _a priori_ conclusions, and the results\nof experiments tried without reference to such conclusions. On the\none hand, neither in the doctrines of pure equity with which we set\nout, nor in the corollaries drawn from them, is there any mention of\ncriminal-reformation: our concern has been solely with the rights of\ncitizens and convicts in their mutual relations. On the other hand,\nthose who have carried out the improved penal systems above described,\nhave had almost solely in view the improvement of the offender: the\njust claims of society, and of those who sin against it, having been\nleft out of the question. Yet the methods which have succeeded so\nmarvellously in decreasing criminality, are the methods which most\nnearly fulfil the requirements of abstract justice.\n\nThat the most equitable system is the one best calculated to reform\nthe offender, may indeed be deductively shown. The internal experience\nof every one must prove to him, that excessive punishment begets,\nnot penitence, but indignation and hatred. So long as an aggressor\nsuffers nothing beyond the evils which have naturally resulted from\nhis misconduct\u2014so long as he perceives that his fellow-men have done\nno more than was needful for self-defence\u2014he {179} has no excuse for\nanger; and is led to contemplate his crime and his punishment as cause\nand effect. But if gratuitous sufferings are inflicted on him, a sense\nof injustice is produced. He regards himself as an injured man. He\ncherishes animosity against all who have brought this harsh treatment\non him. Glad of any plea for forgetting the injury he has done to\nothers, he dwells instead on the injury others have done to him. Thus\nnurturing a desire for revenge rather than atonement, he re-enters\nsociety not better but worse; and if he does not commit further crimes,\nas he often does, he is restrained by the lowest of motives\u2014fear.\nAgain, this industrial discipline, to which criminals subject\nthemselves under a purely equitable system, is the discipline they\nespecially need. Speaking generally, we are all compelled to work by\nthe necessities of our social existence. For most of us this compulsion\nsuffices; but there are some whose aversion to labour cannot be thus\novercome. Not labouring, and yet needing sustenance, they are compelled\nto obtain it in illegitimate ways; and so bring on themselves the legal\npenalties. The criminal class being thus in great part recruited from\nthe idle class; and the idleness being the source of the criminality;\nit follows that a successful discipline must be one which shall cure\nthe idleness. The natural compulsions to labour having been eluded, the\nthing required is that the offender shall be so placed that he cannot\nelude them. And this is just what is done under the system we advocate.\nIts action is such that men whose natures are ill-adapted to the\nconditions of social life, bring themselves into a position in which a\nbetter adaptation is forced on them by the alternative of starvation.\nLastly, let us not forget that this discipline which absolute morality\ndictates, is salutary, not only because it is industrial, but because\nit is voluntarily industrial. As we have shown, equity requires that\nthe confined criminal shall be left to maintain himself\u2014that is, shall\nbe {180} left to work much or little, and to take the consequent\nplenitude or hunger. When, therefore, under this sharp but natural\nspur, a prisoner begins to exert himself, he does so by his own will.\nThe process which leads him into habits of labour, is a process by\nwhich his self-control is strengthened; and this is what is wanted\nto make him a better citizen. It is to no purpose that you make him\nwork by external coercion; for when he is again free, and the coercion\nabsent, he will be what he was before. The coercion must be an internal\none, which he shall carry with him out of prison. It avails little that\nyou force him to work; he must force himself to work. And this he will\ndo, only when placed in those conditions which equity dictates.\n\nHere, then, we find a third order of evidences. Psychology supports\nour conclusion. The various experiments above detailed, carried out\nby men who had no political or ethical theories to propagate, have\nestablished facts which we find to be quite concordant, not only with\nthe deductions of absolute morality, but also with the deductions of\nmental science. Such a combination of different kinds of proof, cannot,\nwe think, be resisted.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd now let us try whether, by pursuing somewhat further the method\nthus far followed, we can see our way to the development of certain\nimproved systems which are coming into use.\n\nEquity requires that the restraint of the criminal shall be as great\nas is needful for the safety of society; but not greater. In respect\nto the _quality_ of the restraint, there is little difficulty in\ninterpreting this requirement; but there is considerable difficulty in\ndeciding on the _duration_ of the restraint. No obvious mode presents\nitself of finding out how long a transgressor must be held in legal\nbondage, to insure society against further injury from him. A longer\nperiod than is necessary, implies an actual injustice to {181} the\noffender. A shorter period than is necessary, implies a potential\ninjustice to society. And yet, without good guidance, one or other of\nthese extremes is almost sure to be fallen into.\n\nAt present, the lengths of penal sentences are fixed in a manner\nthat is wholly empirical. For offences defined in certain technical\nways, Acts of Parliament assign transportations and imprisonments,\nhaving durations not greater than so much nor less than so much: these\npartially-determined periods being arbitrarily fixed by legislators,\nunder the promptings of moral feeling. Within the assigned limits\nthe judge exercises his discretion; and in deciding on the time over\nwhich the restraint shall extend, he is swayed, partly by the special\nquality of the offence, partly by the circumstances under which it was\ncommitted, partly by the prisoner\u2019s appearance and behaviour, partly\nby the character given to him. And the conclusion he arrives at after\nconsideration of these data, depends very much on his individual\nnature\u2014his moral bias and his theories of human conduct. Thus the mode\nof fixing the lengths of penal restraints, is from beginning to end,\nlittle else than guessing. How ill this system of guessing works, we\nhave abundant proofs. \u201cJustices\u2019 justice,\u201d which illustrates it in\nits simplest form, has become a bye-word; and the decisions of higher\ncriminal court frequently err in the directions of both undue severity\nand undue lenity. Daily there occur cases of extremely-trifling\ntransgressions visited with imprisonments of considerable lengths; and\ndaily there occur cases in which the punishments are so inadequate,\nthat the offenders time after time commit new crimes, when time after\ntime discharged from custody.\n\nNow the question is whether, in place of this purely empirical method\nwhich answers so ill, equity can guide us to a method which shall more\ncorrectly adjust the period of restraint to the requirement. We believe\nit can. We believe that by following out its dictates, we shall arrive\n{182} at a method that is in great measure self-acting; and therefore\nless liable to be vitiated by errors of individual judgment or feeling.\n\nWe have seen that were the injunctions of absolute morality obeyed,\nevery transgressor would be compelled to make restitution or\ncompensation. Throughout a considerable range of cases, this would\nitself involve a period of restraint varying in proportion to the\nmagnitude of the offence. It is true that when the malefactor possessed\nample means, the making restitution or compensation would usually be\nto him but a slight punishment. But though in these comparatively few\ncases, the regulation would fall short of its object, in so far as its\neffect on the criminal was concerned, yet in the immense majority of\ncases\u2014in all cases of aggressions committed by the poorer members of\nthe community\u2014it would act with efficiency. It would involve periods\nof detention that would be longer or shorter according as the injury\ndone was greater or less, and according as the transgressor was idle or\nindustrious. And although between the injury done by an offender and\nhis moral turpitude, there is no constant and exact proportion, yet\nthe greatness of the injury done, affords, on the average of cases,\na better measure of the discipline required, than do the votes of\nParliamentary majorities and the guesses of judges.\n\nBut our guidance does not end here. An endeavour still further to do\nthat which is strictly equitable, will carry us still nearer to a\ncorrect adjustment of discipline to delinquency. When, having enforced\nrestitution, we insist on some adequate guarantee that society shall\nnot again be injured, and accept any guarantee that is sufficient, we\nopen the way to a self-acting regulator of the period of detention.\nAlready our laws are in many cases satisfied with securities for future\ngood behaviour. Already this system manifestly tends to separate the\nmore vicious from the less vicious; seeing that, on the average, the\ndifficulty of {183} finding securities is great in proportion as the\ncharacter is bad. And what we propose is that this system, now confined\nto particular kinds of offences, shall be made general. But let us be\nmore specific.\n\nA prisoner on his trial calls witnesses to testify to his previous\ncharacter\u2014that is, if his character has been tolerably good. The\nevidence thus given weighs more or less in his favour, according to\nthe respectability of the witnesses, their number, and the nature of\ntheir testimony. Taking into account these several elements, the judge\nforms his conception of the delinquent\u2019s general disposition, and\nmodifies the length of punishment accordingly. Now, may we not fairly\nsay that if the current opinion respecting a convict\u2019s character could\nbe brought _directly_ to bear in qualifying the statutory sentence,\ninstead of being brought _indirectly_ to bear, as at present, it\nwould be a great improvement? Clearly the estimate made by a judge\nfrom such testimony, must be less accurate than the estimate made by\nthe prisoner\u2019s neighbours and employers. Clearly, too, the opinion\nexpressed by such neighbours and employers in the witness-box, is\nless trustworthy than an opinion which entails on them serious\nresponsibility. _The desideratum is, that a prisoner\u2019s sentence shall\nbe qualified by the judgment of those who have had life-long experience\nof him; and that the sincerity of this judgment shall be tested by\ntheir readiness to act on it._\n\nBut how is this to be done? A very simple method of doing it has\nbeen suggested.[8] When a convict has fulfilled his task of making\nrestitution or compensation, let it be possible for one or other of\nthose who have known him, to take him out of confinement, on giving\nadequate bail for his good behaviour. Always premising that such\nan arrangement shall be possible only under an official permit, to\nbe withheld if the prisoner\u2019s conduct has been unsatisfactory; and\nalways premising that the person who offers bail shall {184} be\nof good character and means; let it be competent for such a one to\nliberate a prisoner by being bound on his behalf for a specific sum,\nor by undertaking to make good any injury which he may do to his\nfellow-citizens within a specified period. This will doubtless be\nthought a startling proposal. We shall, however, find good reasons to\nbelieve it might be safely acted on\u2014nay, we shall find facts proving\nthe success of a plan that is obviously less safe.\n\n [8] We owe the suggestion to the late Mr. Octavius H. Smith.\n\nUnder such an arrangement, the liberator and the convict would usually\nstand in the relation of employer and employed. Those to be thus\nconditionally released, would be ready to work for somewhat lower wages\nthan were usual in their occupation; and those who became bound for\nthem, besides having this economy of wages as an incentive, would be\nin a manner guaranteed by it against the risk undertaken. In working\nfor less money, and in being under the surveillance of his master,\nthe convict would still be undergoing a mitigated discipline. And\nwhile, on the one hand, he would be put on his good behaviour by the\nconsciousness that his master might at any time cancel the contract\nand surrender him back to the authorities, he would, on the other\nhand, have a remedy against his master\u2019s harshness, in the option of\nreturning to prison, and there maintaining himself for the remainder of\nhis term.\n\nObserve, next, that the difficulty of obtaining such conditional\nrelease would vary with the gravity of the offence which had been\ncommitted. Men guilty of heinous crimes would remain in prison; for\nnone would dare to become responsible for their good behaviour. Any one\nconvicted a second time would remain unbailed for a much longer period\nthan before; seeing that having once inflicted loss on some one bound\nfor him, he would not again be so soon offered the opportunity of doing\nthe like: only after a long period of good behaviour testified to by\nprison-officers, would he be likely to get another chance. Conversely,\nthose whose transgressions were not serious, and who had usually been\n{185} well-conducted, would readily obtain recognizances; while to\nvenial offenders this qualified liberation would come as soon as\nthey had made restitution. Moreover, when innocent persons had been\npronounced guilty, as well as when solitary misdeeds had been committed\nby those of really superior natures, the system we have described would\nsupply a remedy. From the wrong verdicts of the law and its mistaken\nestimates of turpitude, there would be an appeal; and long-proved worth\nwould bring its reward in the mitigation of grievous injustices.\n\nA further advantage would by implication result, in the shape of a\nlong industrial discipline for those who most needed it. Speaking\ngenerally, diligent and skilful workmen, who were on the whole useful\nmembers of society, would, if their offences were not serious, soon\nobtain employers to give bail for them. Whereas members of the criminal\nclass\u2014the idle and the dissolute\u2014would remain long in confinement;\nsince, until they had been brought by habitual self-maintenance under\nrestraint, to something like industrial efficiency, employers would not\nbe tempted to become responsible for them.\n\nWe should thus have a self-acting test, not only of the length of\nrestraint required for social safety, but also of that apprenticeship\nto labour which many convicts need; while there would be supplied a\nmeans of rectifying sundry failures and excesses of our present system.\nThe plan would practically amount to an extension of trial by jury. At\npresent, the State calls in certain of a prisoner\u2019s fellow-citizens to\ndecide whether he is guilty or not guilty: the judge, under guidance of\nthe penal laws, being left to decide what punishment he deserves, if\nguilty. Under the arrangement we have described, the judge\u2019s decision\nwould admit of modification by a jury of the convict\u2019s neighbours. And\nthis natural jury, while it would be best fitted by previous knowledge\nof the man to form an opinion, would be rendered cautious by the sense\nof grave responsibility; inasmuch as {186} any one of its number who\ngave a conditional release, would do so at his own peril.\n\nAnd now mark that all the evidence forthcoming to prove the safety\nand advantages of the \u201cintermediate system,\u201d proves, still more\nconclusively, the safety and advantages of this system which we would\nsubstitute for it. What we have described, is nothing more than an\nintermediate system reduced to a natural instead of an artificial\nform\u2014carried out with natural checks instead of artificial checks.\nIf, as Captain Crofton has experimentally shown, it is safe to give\na prisoner conditional liberation, on the strength of good conduct\nduring a certain period of prison-discipline; it is evidently safer to\nlet his conditional liberation depend not alone on good conduct while\nunder the eyes of his jailors, but also on the character he had earned\nduring his previous life. If it is safe to act on the judgments of\nofficials whose experience of a convict\u2019s behaviour is comparatively\nlimited, and who do not suffer penalties when their judgments are\nmistaken; then, manifestly, it is safer (when such officials can show\nno reason to the contrary), to act on the additional judgment of one\nwho has not only had better opportunities of knowing the convict, but\nwho will be a serious loser if his judgment proves erroneous. Further,\nthat surveillance over each conditionally-liberated prisoner, which\nthe \u201cintermediate system\u201d exercises, would be still better exercised\nwhen, instead of going to a strange master in a strange district, the\nprisoner went to some master in his own district; and, under such\ncircumstances, it would be easier to get information respecting his\nafter-career. There is every reason to think that this method would be\nworkable. If, on the recommendation of the officers, Captain Crofton\u2019s\nprisoners obtain employers \u201cwho have on many occasions returned for\nothers, in consequence of the good conduct of those at first engaged;\u201d\nstill better would be the action of the system when, instead of the\nemployers having \u201cevery {187} facility placed at their disposal for\nsatisfying themselves as to the antecedents of the convict,\u201d they were\nalready familiar with his antecedents.\n\nFinally, let us not overlook the fact, that this course is the only one\nwhich, while duly consulting social safety, is also entirely just to\nthe prisoner. As we have shown, the restraints imposed on a criminal\nare warranted by absolute equity, only to the extent needful to prevent\nfurther aggressions on his fellow-men; and when his fellow-men impose\ngreater restraints than these, they trespass against him. Hence, when\na prisoner has worked out his task of making restitution, and, so far\nas is possible, undone the wrong he had done, society is, in strict\njustice, bound to accept any arrangement which adequately protects\nits members against further injury. And if, moved by the expectation\nof profit, or other motive, any citizen sufficiently substantial and\ntrustworthy, will take on himself to hold society harmless, society\nmust agree to his proposal. All it can rightly require is, that the\nguarantee against contingent injury _shall_ be adequate; which, of\ncourse, it never can be where the contingent injury is of the gravest\nkind. No bail could compensate for murder; and therefore against\nthis, and other extreme crimes, society would rightly refuse any such\nguarantee, even if offered, which it would be very unlikely to be.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSuch, then, is our code of prison-ethics. Such is the ideal which we\nought to keep ever in view when modifying our penal system. Again we\nsay, as we said at the outset, that the realization of such an ideal\nwholly depends on the advance of civilization. Let no one carry away\nthe impression that we regard all these purely equitable regulations as\nimmediately practicable. Though they may be partially carried out, we\nthink it highly improbable that they could at present be carried out\nin full. The number of offenders, the low average of enlightenment,\nthe ill-working of {188} administrative machinery, and above all,\nthe difficulty of obtaining officials of adequate intelligence, good\nfeeling, and self-control, are obstacles which must long stand in\nthe way of a system so complex as that which morality dictates. And\nwe here assert, as emphatically as before, that the harshest penal\nsystem is ethically justified if it is as good as the circumstances\nof the time permit. However great the cruelties it inflicts, yet\nif a system theoretically more equitable would not be a sufficient\nterror to evil-doers, or could not be worked, from lack of officers\nsufficiently judicious, honest, and humane\u2014if less rigorous methods\nwould entail a diminution of social security; then the methods in use\nare extrinsically good though intrinsically bad. They are, as before\nsaid, the least wrong, and therefore relatively right.\n\nNevertheless, as we have endeavoured to prove, it is immensely\nimportant that, while duly considering the relatively right, we should\nkeep the absolutely right constantly in view. True as it is that, in\nthis transition state, our conceptions of the ultimately expedient must\never be qualified by our experience of the proximately expedient; it is\nnot the less true that the proximately expedient cannot be determined\nunless the ultimately expedient is known. Before we can say what is as\ngood as the time permits, we must say what is abstractedly good; for\nthe first idea involves the last. We must have some fixed standard,\nsome invariable measure, some constant clue; otherwise we shall\ninevitably be misled by the suggestions of immediate policy, and wander\naway from the right rather than advance towards it. This conclusion is\nfully borne out by the facts we have cited. In other cases, as well as\nin the case of penal discipline, the evidence shows how terribly we\nhave erred from obstinately refusing to consult first principles and\nclinging to an unreasoning empiricism. Though, during civilization,\ngrievous evils have occasionally arisen from attempts suddenly to\nrealize absolute rectitude, yet a {189} greater sum total of evils\nhas arisen from the more usual course of ignoring absolute rectitude.\nAge after age, effete institutions have been maintained far longer\nthan they would else have been, and equitable arrangements have been\nneedlessly postponed. Is it not time for us to profit by past lessons?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT.\u2014Since the publication of this essay in 1860 further\nevidence supporting its conclusions has been made public. Dr. F.J.\nMouat, late Inspector-General of Gaols in Lower Bengal, has given,\nin various pamphlets and articles, dating from 1872, accounts of his\nexperiences, which entirely harmonize with the foregoing general\nargument. Speaking of three leading systems of prison-discipline,\n\u201cbased on opposite theories,\u201d he says:\u2015\n\n \u201cThe oldest is, that a prison should be rendered a terror to evil\n doers by the infliction of as much pain as can be inflicted, without\n direct injury to health or risk to life. The second plan is a\n graduated system of punishment, from which the direct infliction of\n pain is eliminated, and the prisoner is allowed to work his way to\n freedom and mitigation of sentence, by mere good conduct in jail.\n The third, and in my humble judgment the best, is to convert every\n prison into a school of industry, labour being used as an instrument\n of punishment, discipline, and reformation.\u201d\u2014_Prison Industry in its\n Primitive, Reformatory, and Economic Aspects_ (London, Nov. 1889).\n\nIn his pamphlet on the _Prison System of India_, published in 1872, Dr.\nMouat contends:\u2015\n\n \u201cThat remunerative prison labour is an efficient instrument of\n punishment and reformation by occupying the whole available time of\n criminals in uncongenial and compulsory employments; by teaching\n them the means of gaining an honest livelihood on release; by the\n inculcation of habits of order and industry, to the displacement of\n the irregularity and idleness which are the sources of so much vice\n and crime; and by repaying to the State the whole or part of the cost\n of repression of crime by the compulsory industry of the unproductive\n classes, and thus relieving the community at large from a burden which\n it is at present compelled to bear.\n\n \u201cThat the economic objections to the remunerative employment of\n convicts are unsound and untenable; and that even if they were true\n as respects individuals and small sections of the community, the\n interests of the minority should yield to the general welfare.\u201d\n\nOnce more, under the title _Prison Discipline and its Results in\nBengal_, first published in the _Journal of the {190} Society of Arts_\nin 1872, Dr. Mouat, after describing an exhibition of gaol-manufactures\nheld in Calcutta in 1856, urges \u201cthat every prisoner sentenced to\nlabour should be made to repay to the State the whole cost of his\npunishment in gaol; .\u00a0.\u00a0. and that prisons should be made, as much as\npossible, schools of industry, as combining, more completely than can\nbe effected by any other system, the punishment of the offender, with\nthe protection of society.\u201d He then goes on to show what have been the\nresults of the self-supporting system:\u2015\n\n \u201cThe net profits realized from the labour of the convicts actually\n employed in handicrafts, after deducting the cost of production, were,\n in round numbers, as follows:\u2015\n\n              \u00a3\n 1855\u201356   11,019\n  \u201956\u201357   12,300\n  \u201957\u201358   10,841\n  \u201959\u201360   14,065\n  \u201960\u201361   23,124\n  \u201961\u201362   54,542\n  \u201962\u201363   30,604\n  \u201963\u201364   54,542\n  \u201964\u201365   32,988\n  \u201965\u201366   35,543\n  \u201966      14,287\n  \u201967      41,168\n  \u201968      56,817\n  \u201969      46,588\n  \u201970      45,274\n\n In all, nearly half a million of money. In 1866, the accounts were\n made up for only eight months, to introduce the calendar in place of\n the official year, which ended on the 30th of April.\n\n \u201cIf the limits of time and space permitted, I could show you in minute\n detail that each skilled prisoner employed in handicrafts, striking\n the average of all the jails, earned considerably more than he cost;\n that five of the prisons under my charge were at various times\n self-supporting, and that one of them, the great industrial prison at\n Alipore, a suburb of Calcutta, has repaid very considerably more than\n its cost, for the last ten years continuously.\u201d\n\nAs Dr. Mouat held the position of Inspector-General of Gaols in Lower\nBengal for 15 years, and as, during that period, he had under his\ncontrol an average of 20,000 prisoners, it may, I think, be held that\nhis experiences have been tolerably extensive, and that a system\njustified by such experiences is worthy of adoption. Unfortunately,\nhowever, men pooh-pooh those experiences which do not accord with their\nforegone conclusions.\n\nI have occasionally vented the paradox that mankind go {191} right\nonly when they have tried all possible ways of going wrong: intending\nit to be taken with some qualification. Of late, however, I have\nobserved that in some respects this paradox falls short of the truth.\nSundry instances have shown me that even when mankind have at length\nstumbled into the right course, they often deliberately return to the\nwrong.\n\n{192}\n\n\n\n\nTHE ETHICS OF KANT.\n\n[_From the_ Fortnightly Review _for July 1888. This essay was called\nforth by attacks on me made in essays published in preceding numbers of\nthe_ Fortnightly Review\u2014_essays in which the Kantian system of ethics\nwas lauded as immensely superior to the system of ethics defended by\nme. The last section now appears for the first time._]\n\n\nIf, before Kant uttered that often-quoted saying in which, with the\nstars of Heaven he coupled the conscience of Man, as being the two\nthings that excited his awe, he had known more of Man than he did, he\nwould probably have expressed himself somewhat otherwise. Not, indeed,\nthat the conscience of Man is not wonderful enough, whatever be its\nsupposed genesis; but the wonderfulness of it is of a different kind\naccording as we assume it to have been supernaturally given or infer\nthat it has been naturally evolved. The knowledge of Man in that large\nsense which Anthropology expresses, had made, in Kant\u2019s day, but small\nadvances. The books of travel were relatively few, and the facts which\nthey contained concerning the human mind as existing in different\nraces, had not been gathered together and generalized. In our days the\nconscience of Man, as inductively known, has none of that universality\nof presence and unity of nature, which Kant\u2019s saying tacitly assumes.\nSir John Lubbock writes:\u2015\n\n  \u201cIn fact, I believe that the lower races of men may be said to be\n deficient {193} in the idea of right. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. That there should be any\n races of men so deficient in moral feeling, was altogether opposed\n to the preconceived ideas with which I commenced the study of savage\n life, and I have arrived at the conviction by slow degrees, and even\n with reluctance.\u201d\u2014_Origin of Civilization_, 1882, pp. 404\u20135.\n\nBut now let us look at the evidence from which this impression\nis derived, as we find it in the testimonies of travellers and\nmissionaries.\n\n Praising his deceased son, Tui Thakau, a Fijian Chief, concluded \u201cby\n speaking of his daring spirit and consummate cruelty, as he could kill\n his own wives if they offended him, and eat them afterwards.\u201d\u2014_Western\n Pacific._ J. E. Erskine, p. 248.\n\n \u201cShedding of blood is to him no crime, but a glory .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. to be\n somehow an acknowledged murderer is the object of the Fijian\u2019s\n restless ambition.\u201d\u2014_Fiji and the Fijians._ Rev. T. Williams, i., p.\n 112.\n\n \u201cIt is a melancholy fact that when they [the Zulu boys] have arrived\n at a very early age, should their mothers attempt to chastise them,\n such is the law, that these lads are at the moment allowed to kill\n their mothers.\u201d\u2014_Travels and Adventures in Southern Africa._ G.\n Thompson, ii., p. 418.\n\n \u201cMurther, adultery, thievery, and all other such like crimes, are here\n [Gold Coast] accounted no sins.\u201d\u2014_Description of the Coast of Guinea._\n W. Bosman, p. 130.\n\n \u201cThe accusing conscience is unknown to him [the East African]. His\n only fear after committing a treacherous murder is that of being\n haunted by the angry ghost of the dead.\u201d\u2014_Lake Regions of Central\n Africa._ R. F. Burton, ii., p. 336.\n\n \u201cI never could make them [East Africans] understand the existence of\n good principle.\u201d\u2014_The Albert N\u2019Yanza._ S. W. Baker, i., pp. 241.\n\n \u201cThe Damaras kill useless and worn-out people; even sons smother their\n sick fathers.\u201d\u2014_Narrative of an Explorer in Tropical South Africa._ F.\n Galton, p. 112.\n\n The Damaras \u201cseem to have no perceptible notion of right and\n wrong.\u201d\u2014_Ibid._ p. 72.\n\nAgainst these we may set some converse facts. At the other extreme\nwe have a few Eastern tribes\u2014pagans they are called\u2014who practise the\nvirtues which Western nations\u2014Christians they are called\u2014do but teach.\nWhile Europeans thirst for blood-revenge in much the same way as the\nlowest savages, there are some simple peoples of the Indian Hills,\nas the Lepchas, who \u201care singularly forgiving of injuries;\u201d[9] and\nCampbell exemplifies \u201cthe effect of a {194} very strong sense of duty\non this savage.\u201d[10] That character which the creed of Christendom\nis supposed to foster is exhibited in high degree by the Arafuras\n(Papuans) who live in \u201cpeace and brotherly love with one another\u201d[11]\nto such extent that government is but nominal. And concerning various\nof the Indian Hill-tribes, as the Sant\u00e1ls, Sowrahs, Marias, Lepchas,\nBodo and Dhim\u00e1ls, different observers testify of them severally that\n\u201cthey were the most truthful set of men I ever met,\u201d[12] \u201ccrime and\ncriminal officers are almost unknown,\u201d[13] \u201ca pleasing feature in their\ncharacter is their complete truthfulness,\u201d[14] \u201cthey bear a singular\ncharacter for truthfulness and honesty,\u201d[15] they are \u201cwonderfully\nhonest,\u201d[16] \u201chonest and truthful in deed and word.\u201d[17] Irrespective\nof race, we find these traits in men who are, and have long been,\nabsolutely peaceful (the uniform antecedent), be they the Jakuns of the\nSouth Malayan Peninsula, who \u201care never known to steal anything, not\neven the most insignificant trifle,\u201d[18] or be it in the Hos of the\nHimalaya, among whom \u201ca reflection on a man\u2019s honesty or veracity may\nbe sufficient to send him to self-destruction.\u201d[19] So that in respect\nof conscience these uncivilized people are as superior to average\nEuropeans, as average Europeans are superior to the brutal savages\npreviously described.\n\n [9] Campbell in _Journal of the Ethnological Society_, July, N. S. vol.\n i., 1869, p. 150.\n\n [10] _Ibid._ p. 154.\n\n [11] Dr. H. Kolff, _Voyages of the Dutch brig \u201cDourga.\u201d_ Earl\u2019s\n translation, pp. 161.\n\n [12] W. W. Hunter, _Annals of Rural Bengal_, p. 248.\n\n [13] _Ibid._ p. 217.\n\n [14] Dr. J. Shortt, _Hill Ranges of Southern India_, pt. iii., p. 38.\n\n [15] Glasfind in _Selections from the Records of Government of India_\n (Foreign Department), No. xxxix., p. 41.\n\n [16] Campbell in _Journal of the Ethnological Society_, N. S. vol. i.,\n 1869, p. 150.\n\n [17] B. H. Hodgson in _Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal_,\n xviii., p. 745.\n\n [18] Rev. P. Favre in _Journal of the Indian Archipelago_, ii., p. 266.\n\n [19] Col. E. T. Dalton, _Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal_, p. 206.\n\nHad Kant had these and kindred facts before him, {195} his conception\nof the human mind, and consequently his ethical conception, would\nscarcely have been what they were. Believing, as he did, that one\nobject of his awe\u2014the stellar Universe\u2014has been evolved, he might by\nevidence like the foregoing have been led to suspect that the other\nobject of his awe\u2014the human conscience\u2014has been evolved, and has\nconsequently a real nature unlike its apparent nature.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFor the disciples of Kant living in our day there can be made no such\ndefence as that which may be made for their master. On all sides of\nthem lie classes of facts of various kinds, which might suffice to make\nthem hesitate, if nothing more. Here are a few such classes of facts.\n\nThough, unlike the uncultured, who suppose everything to be what it\nappears, chemists had for many generations known that multitudinous\nsubstances which seem simple are really compound, and often highly\ncompound; yet, until the time of Sir Humphrey Davy, even chemists had\nbelieved that certain substances which resisted all their powers of\ndecomposition, were to be classed among the elements. Davy, however,\nby subjecting the alkalies to a force not before applied, proved that\nthey are oxides of metals; and, suspecting the like to be the case with\nthe earths, similarly proved the composite nature of these also. Not\nonly the common sense of the uncultured, but the common sense of the\ncultured was shown to be wrong. Wider knowledge has, as usual, led to\ngreater modesty, and, since Davy\u2019s day, chemists have felt less certain\nthat the so-called elements are elementary. Contrariwise, increasing\nevidence of sundry kinds leads them to suspect more and more strongly\nthat they are all compound.\n\nAlike to the labourer who digs it out and to the carpenter who uses it\nin his workshop, a piece of chalk appears a thing than which nothing\ncan be simpler; and ninety-nine people out of a hundred would agree\nwith them. Yet a {196} piece of chalk is highly complex. A microscope\nshows it to consist of myriads of shells of _Foraminifera_; shows,\nfurther, that it contains more kinds than one; and shows, further\nstill, that each minute shell, whole or broken, is formed of many\nchambers, every one of which once contained a living unit. Thus by\nordinary inspection, however close, the true nature of chalk cannot be\nknown; and to one who has absolute confidence in his eyes the assertion\nof its true nature appears absurd.\n\nTake again a living body of a seemingly uncomplicated kind\u2014say a\npotato. Cut it through and observe how structureless is its substance.\nBut though unaided vision gives this verdict, aided vision gives a\nwidely different one. Aided vision discovers, in the first place, that\nthe mass is everywhere permeated by vessels of complex formation.\nFurther, that it is made up of innumerable units called cells, each of\nwhich has walls composed of several layers. Further still, that each\ncell contains a number of starch-grains. And yet still further, that\neach of these grains is formed of layer within layer, like the coats\nof an onion. So that where there appears perfect simplicity there is\nreally complexity within complexity.\n\nFrom these examples which the objective world furnishes, let us turn to\nsome examples furnished by the subjective world\u2014some of our states of\nconsciousness. Up to modern times any one who, looking out on the snow,\nwas told that the impression of whiteness it gave him was composed of\nimpressions such as those given by the rainbow, would have regarded his\ninformant as a lunatic; as would even now the great mass of mankind.\nBut since Newton\u2019s day, it has become well known to a relatively small\nnumber that this is literal fact. Not only may white light be resolved\nby a prism into a number of brilliant colours, but, by an appropriate\narrangement, these colours can be re-combined into white light: the\nvisual sensation which seems perfectly simple proves to be highly\ncompound. Those who {197} habitually suppose that things are what they\nseem, are wrong here as in multitudinous other cases.\n\nAnother example is supplied by the sensation of sound. A solitary note\nstruck on the piano, or a blast from a horn, yields through the ear a\nfeeling which appears homogeneous; and the uninstructed are incredulous\nif told that it is an intricate combination of noises. In the first\nplace, that which constitutes the more voluminous part of the tone is\naccompanied by a number of over-tones, producing what is known as its\n_timbre_: instead of one note, there are half a dozen notes, of which\nthe chief has its character specialized by the others. In the second\nplace, each of these notes, consisting objectively of a rapid series\nof a\u00ebrial waves, produces subjectively a rapid series of impressions\non the auditory nerve. Either by the appliance of Hooke or by Savart\u2019s\nmachine or by the siren, it is proved to demonstration that every\nmusical sound is the product of successive units of sound, each in\nitself unmusical, which, as they succeed one another with increasing\nrapidity, produce a tone which progressively rises in pitch. Here\nagain, then, under an apparent simplicity there is a double complexity.\n\nMost of these examples of the illusiveness of unaided perception,\nwhether exercised upon objective or subjective existences, were unknown\nto Kant. Had they been known to him they might have suggested other\nviews concerning certain of our states of consciousness, and might\nhave given a different character to his philosophy. Let us observe\nwhat would possibly have been the changes in two of his cardinal\nconceptions\u2014metaphysical and ethical.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOur consciousness of Time and Space appeared to him, as they appear to\neveryone, perfectly simple; and the apparent simplicity he accepted\nas actual simplicity. Had he suspected that, just as the seemingly\nhomogeneous and undecomposable consciousness of Sound really consists\nof multitudinous units of consciousness, so might the {198} apparently\nhomogeneous and undecomposable consciousness of Space, he would\npossibly have been led to inquire whether the consciousness of Space\nis not wholly composed of infinitely numerous relations of position,\nsuch as those which every portion of it presents. And finding that\nevery portion of Space, immense or minute, cannot be either known or\nconceived save in some relative position to the conscious subject,\nand that, besides involving the relations of distance and direction,\nit invariably contains within itself relations of right and left,\ntop and bottom, nearer and farther; he might perhaps have concluded\nthat our consciousness of that matrix of phenomena we call Space, has\nbeen built up in the course of Evolution by accumulated experiences\nregistered in the nervous system. And had he concluded this, he would\nnot have committed himself to the many absurdities which his doctrine\ninvolves.[20]\n\nSimilarly, if, instead of assuming that conscience is simple because\nit seems simple to ordinary introspection, he had entertained the\nhypothesis that it is perhaps complex\u2014a consolidated product of\nmultitudinous experiences received, mainly by ancestors and added\nto by self\u2014he might have arrived at a consistent system of Ethics.\nThat the habitual association of pains with certain things and acts,\ngeneration after generation, may produce organic repugnance to such\nthings and acts,[21] might, had it been known to him, have made him\nsuspect that conscience is a product of Evolution. And in that case his\nconception of it would not have been incongruous with the facts above\nnamed, showing that there are widely different degrees of conscience in\ndifferent races.\n\n [20] See _Principles of Psychology_, \u00a7 399.\n\n [21] See _Principles of Psychology_, \u00a7 189 (note) and \u00a7 520.\n\nIn brief, as already implied, had Kant, instead of his incongruous\nbeliefs that the celestial bodies have had an evolutionary origin, but\nthat the minds of living beings on them, or at least on one of them,\nhave had a {199} non-evolutionary origin, entertained the belief\nthat both have arisen by Evolution, he would have been saved from the\nimpossibilities of his Metaphysics, and the untenabilities of his\nEthics. To the consideration of these last, let us now pass.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBefore doing this, however, something must be said concerning abnormal\nreasoning as compared with normal reasoning.\n\nKnowledge which is of the highest order in respect of certainty, and\nwhich we call exact science, is distinguished from other knowledge by\nits definitely quantitative previsions.[22] It sets out with data,\nand proceeds by steps which, taken together, enable it to say under\nwhat specified conditions a specified relation of phenomena will be\nfound; and to say in what place, or at what time, or in what quantity,\nor all of them, a certain effect will be witnessed. Given the factors\nof any arithmetical operation, and there is absolute certainty in the\nresult reached, supposing there are no stumblings: stumblings which\nalways admit of detection and disproof by the method which we shall\npresently find is pursued. Base and angles having been accurately\nmeasured, that sub-division of geometry which is called trigonometry\nyields with certainty the distance or the height of the object of\nwhich the position is sought. The ratio of the arms of a lever having\nbeen stated, mechanics tells us what weight at one end will balance\nan assigned weight at the other. And by the aid of these three exact\nsciences, the Calculus, Geometry, and Mechanics, Astronomy can predict\nto the minute, for each separate place on the Earth, when an eclipse\nwill begin and end, and how near it will approach to totality.\nKnowledge of this order has infinite justifications in the successful\nguidance of infinitely numerous human actions. The accounts of every\ntrader, the operations of every workshop, the navigation of every\nvessel, depend for their trustworthiness {200} on these sciences. The\nmethod they pursue, therefore, verified in cases which pass all human\npower to enumerate, is a method not to be transcended in certainty.\n\n [22] See Essay on \u201cGenesis of Science.\u201d\n\nWhat is this method? Whichever of these sciences we examine, we\nfind the course uniformly pursued to be that of setting out with\npropositions of which the negations are inconceivable, and advancing\nby successive dependent propositions, each of which has the like\ncharacter\u2014that its negation is inconceivable. In a developed\nconsciousness (and of course I exclude minds of which the faculties\nare unformed) it is impossible to represent things that are equal\nto the same thing as being themselves unequal; and in a developed\nconsciousness, action and re-action cannot be thought of as other\nthan equal and opposite. In like manner, every _because_ and every\n_therefore_, used in a mathematical argument, connotes a proposition of\nwhich the terms are absolutely coherent in the mode alleged: the proof\nbeing that an attempt to bring together in consciousness the terms\nof the opposite proposition is futile. And this method of testing,\nalike the fundamental propositions and all members of the fabrics of\npropositions raised upon them, is consistently pursued in verifying\nthe conclusion. Inference and observation are compared; and when they\nagree, it is held inconceivable that the inference is other than true.\n\nIn contrast to the method which I have just described, distinguishable\nas the legitimate _a priori_ method, there is one which may be called\u2014I\nwas about to say, the illegitimate _a priori_ method. But the word is\nnot strong enough; it must be called the inverted _a priori_ method.\nInstead of setting out with a proposition of which the negation is\ninconceivable, it sets out with a proposition of which the affirmation\nis inconceivable, and therefrom proceeds to draw conclusions. It is\nnot consistent, however: it does not continue to do that which it does\nat first. Having posited an inconceivable proposition to begin with,\nit does not {201} frame its argument out of a series of inconceivable\npropositions. All steps after the first are of the kind ordinarily\naccepted as valid. The successive _therefores_ and _becauses_ have\nthe usual connotations. The peculiarity lies in this, that in every\nproposition save the first, the reader is expected to admit the logical\nnecessity of an inference drawn, for the reason that the opposite is\nnot thinkable; but he is not supposed to expect a like conformity to\nlogical necessity in the primary proposition. The dictum of a logical\nconsciousness which must be recognized as valid in every subsequent\nstep, must be ignored in the first step. We pass now to an illustration\nof this method which here concerns us.\n\nThe first sentence in Kant\u2019s first chapter runs thus:\u2014\u201cNothing can\npossibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be\ncalled good without qualification, except a Good Will.\u201d[23] And then on\nthe next page we come upon the following definition:\u2015\n\n \u201cA good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, nor\n by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by\n virtue of the volition, that is, it is good in itself, and considered\n by itself is to be esteemed much higher than all that can be brought\n about by it in favour of any inclination, nay even of the sum total of\n all inclinations.\u201d[24]\n\n   [23] _Kant\u2019s Critique of Practical Reason and other works on the\n   Theory of Ethics_, trans. by T. K. Abbott, p. 11.\n\n   [24] _Ibid._ pp. 12\u201313.\n\nMost fallacies result from the habit of using words without fully\nrendering them into thoughts\u2014passing them by with recognitions of their\nmeanings as ordinarily used, without stopping to consider whether\nthese meanings admit of being given to them in the cases named. Let\nus not rest satisfied with thinking vaguely of what is understood\nby \u201ca Good Will,\u201d but let us interpret the words definitely. Will\nimplies the consciousness of some end. Exclude from it every idea of\npurpose and the conception of Will disappears. An end of some kind\nbeing necessarily implied by the conception of Will, the quality of\nthe Will is determined {202} by the quality of the end contemplated.\nWill itself, considered apart from any distinguishing epithet, is\nnot cognizable by Morality at all. It becomes cognizable by Morality\nonly when it gains its character as good or bad by virtue of its\ncontemplated end as good or bad. If any one doubts this, let him try\nwhether he can think of a good will which contemplates a bad end. The\nwhole question, therefore, centres in the meaning of the word good. Let\nus look at the meanings habitually given to it.\n\nWe speak of good meat, good bread, good wine; by which phrases we mean\neither things that are palatable, and so give pleasure, or things that\nare wholesome, and by conducing to health conduce to pleasure. A good\nfire, good clothing, a good house, we so name because they minister\neither to comfort, which means pleasure, or gratify the \u00e6sthetic\nsentiment, which also means pleasure. So it is with things which more\nindirectly further welfare, as good tools or good roads. When we speak\nof a good workman, a good teacher, a good doctor, it is the same:\nefficiency in aiding others\u2019 well-being is what we indirectly mean.\nYet again, good government, good institutions, good laws, connote\nbenefits yielded to the society in which they exist: benefits being\nequivalent to certain kinds of happiness, positive or negative. But\nKant tells us that a good will is one that is good in and for itself\nwithout reference to ends. We are not to think of it as prompting acts\nwhich will profit the man himself, either by conducing to his health,\nadvancing his culture, or improving his inclinations; for all these\nare in the long run conducive to happiness, and are urged only for\nthe reason that they do this. We are not to think of a will as good\nbecause, by fulfilment of it, friends are saved from sufferings or have\ntheir gratifications increased; for this would involve calling it good\nbecause of beneficial ends in view. Nor must conduciveness to social\nameliorations, present or future, be taken into account when we attempt\nto conceive {203} a good will. In short, we are to frame our idea of a\ngood will without any material out of which to frame the idea of good:\ngood is to be used in thought as an eviscerated term.\n\nHere, then, is illustrated what I have called above the inverted _a\npriori_ method of philosophizing: the setting out with an inconceivable\nproposition. The Kantian Metaphysics starts by asserting that Space is\n\u201cnothing but\u201d a form of intuition\u2014pertains wholly to the subject and\nnot at all to the object. This is a verbally intelligible proposition,\nbut one of which the terms cannot be put together in consciousness;\nfor neither Kant, nor any one else, ever succeeded in bringing into\nunity of representation the thought of Space and the thought of Self,\nas being the one an attribute of the other. And here we see that, just\nin the same way, the Kantian Ethics begins by positing something which\nseems to have a meaning but which has really no meaning\u2014something\nwhich, under the conditions imposed, cannot be rendered into thought at\nall. For neither Kant, nor any one else, ever has or ever can, frame a\nconsciousness of a good will when from the word good are expelled all\nthoughts of those ends which we distinguish by the word good.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEvidently Kant himself sees that his assumption invites attack, for he\nproceeds to defend it. He says:\u2015\n\n \u201cThere is, however, something so strange in this idea of the absolute\n value of the mere will, in which no account is taken of its utility,\n that notwithstanding the thorough assent of even common reason to the\n idea [!], yet a suspicion must arise that it may perhaps really be the\n product of mere high-flown fancy, &c.\u201d (p. 13).\n\nAnd then to prepare for a justification, he goes on to say:\u2015\n\n \u201cIn the physical constitution of an organized being we assume it as\n a fundamental principle that no organ for any purpose will be found\n in it but what is also the fittest and best adapted for that purpose\u201d\n (pp. 13\u201314).\n\nNow, even had this assumption been valid, the argument he bases upon\nit, far-fetched as it is, might be considered of very inadequate\nstrength to warrant the supposition that there can be a will conceived\nas good without any reference {204} to good ends. But, unfortunately\nfor Kant, the assumption is utterly invalid. In his day it probably\npassed without question; but in our day few if any biologists would\nadmit it. On the special-creation hypothesis some defence of the\nproposition might be attempted, but the evolution-hypothesis tacitly\nnegatives it entirely. Let us begin with some minor facts which\nmilitate against Kant\u2019s supposition. Take, first, rudimentary organs.\nThese are numerous throughout the animal kingdom. While representing\norgans which were of use in ancestral types, they are of no use in the\ntypes possessing them; and, as being rudimentary, they are of necessity\nimperfect. Moreover, besides being injurious by taxing nutrition to no\npurpose, they are almost certainly in some cases injurious by being\nin the way. Then, beyond the argument from rudimentary organs, there\nis the argument from make-shift organs, which form a large class. We\nhave a conspicuous case in the swimming organ of the seal, formed by\nthe apposition of the two hind limbs\u2014an organ manifestly inferior to\none specially shaped for its function, and one which, during early\nstages of the changes which have produced it, must have been very\ninefficient. But the untruth of the assumption is best shown by\ncomparing a given organ in a low type of creature with the same organ\nin a high type. The alimentary canal, for example, in very inferior\ncreatures is a simple tube, substantially alike from end to end, and\nhaving throughout all its parts the same function. But in a superior\ncreature this tube is differentiated into mouth, \u00e6sophagus, stomach\n(or stomachs), small and large intestines with their various appended\nglands pouring in secretions. Now if this last form of alimentary canal\nis to be regarded as a perfect organ, or something like it, what shall\nwe say of the original form; and what shall we say of all those forms\nlying between the two? The vascular system, again, furnishes a clear\ninstance. The primitive heart is nothing but a dilatation of the great\nblood vessel\u2014a pulsatile {205} sac. But a mammal has a four-chambered\nheart with valves, by the aid of which the blood is propelled through\nthe lungs for a\u00ebration, and throughout the system at large for general\npurposes. If this four-chambered heart is a perfect organ, what is\nthe primitive heart, and what are the hearts possessed by all the\nmultitudinous creatures below the higher _vertebrata_? Manifestly the\nprocess of evolution implies a continual replacing of creatures having\ninferior organs, by creatures having superior organs; leaving such of\nthe inferior as can survive to occupy inferior spheres of life. This\nis not only so throughout the whole animal creation up to Man himself,\nbut it is so within the limits of the human race. Both the brains and\nthe lower limbs of various inferior races are ineffective organs,\ncompared with those of superior races. Nay, even in the highest type\nof Man we have obvious imperfections. The structure of the groin is\nimperfect: the frequent ruptures which result from it would have been\nprevented by closure of the inguinal rings during f\u0153tal life after they\nhad performed their office. That all-important organ the vertebral\ncolumn, too, is as yet but incompletely adapted to the upright posture.\nOnly while the vigour is considerable can there be maintained, without\nappreciable effort, those muscular contractions which produce the\nsigmoid flexure, and bring the lumbar portion into such a position\nthat the \u201cline of direction\u201d falls within it. In young children, in\nboys and girls who are admonished to \u201csit up,\u201d in weakly people, and\nin the old, the spine lapses into that convex form characteristic of\nlower _Primates_. It is the same with the balancing of the head. Only\nby a muscular strain to which habit makes us insensible, as it does to\nthe exposure of the face to cold, is the head maintained in position.\nImmediately certain cervical muscles are relaxed the head falls\nforward; and where there is great debility the chin rests permanently\non the chest.\n\nSo far, indeed, is the assumption of Kant from being true that the very\nreverse is probably true. After {206} contemplating the countless\nexamples of imperfections exhibited in low types of creatures, and\ndecreasing with the ascent to high types, but still exemplified in the\nhighest, anyone who concludes, as he may reasonably do, that Evolution\nhas not yet reached its limit, must infer that most likely no such\nthing as a perfect organ exists. Thus the basis of the argument by\nwhich Kant attempts to justify his assumption that there exists a good\nwill apart from a good end, disappears utterly; and leaves his dogma in\nall its naked unthinkableness.[25]\n\n [25] I find that in the above three paragraphs I have done Kant\n less than justice and more than justice\u2014less, in assuming that\n his evolutionary view was limited to the genesis of our sidereal\n system, and more, in assuming that he had not contradicted himself.\n My knowledge of Kant\u2019s writings is extremely limited. In 1844 a\n translation of his _Critique of Pure Reason_ (then I think lately\n published) fell into my hands, and I read the first few pages\n enunciating his doctrine of Time and Space: my peremptory rejection\n of which caused me to lay the book down. Twice since then the same\n thing has happened; for, being an impatient reader, when I disagree\n with the cardinal propositions of a work I can go no further. One\n other thing I knew. By indirect references I was made aware that Kant\n had propounded the idea that celestial bodies have been formed by\n the aggregation of diffused matter. Beyond this my knowledge of his\n conceptions did not extend; and my supposition that his evolutionary\n conception had stopped short with the genesis of sun, stars, and\n planets, was due to the fact that his doctrine of Time and Space, as\n forms of thought anteceding experience, implied a supernatural origin\n inconsistent with the hypothesis of natural genesis. Dr. Paul Carus,\n who, shortly after the publication of this article in the _Fortnightly\n Review_ for July, 1888, undertook to defend the Kantian ethics in the\n American journal which he edits, _The Open Court_, has now (Sept. 4,\n 1890), in another defensive article, translated sundry passages from\n Kant\u2019s _Critique of Judgment_, his _Presumable Origin of Humanity_,\n and his work _Upon the different Races of Mankind_, showing that Kant\n was, if not fully, yet partially, an evolutionist in his speculations\n about living beings. There is, perhaps, some reason for doubting the\n correctness of Dr. Carus\u2019s rendering of these passages into English.\n When, as in the first of the articles just named, he failed to\n distinguish between consciousness and conscientiousness, and when,\n as in this last article, he blames the English for mistranslating\n Kant, since they have said \u201cKant maintained that Space and Time are\n intuitions,\u201d which is quite untrue, for they have everywhere described\n him as maintaining that Space and Time are _forms_ of intuition, one\n may be excused for thinking that possibly Dr. Carus has read into some\n of Kant\u2019s expressions, meanings which they do not rightly bear. Still,\n the general drift of the passages quoted makes it tolerably clear\n that Kant must have believed in the operation of natural causes as\n largely, though not entirely, instrumental in producing organic forms:\n extending this belief (which he says \u201ccan be named a daring venture of\n reason\u201d) in some measure to the origin of Man himself. He does not,\n however, extend the theory of natural genesis to the exclusion of the\n theory of supernatural genesis. When he speaks of an organic habit\n \u201cwhich in the wisdom of nature appears to be thus arranged in order\n that the species shall be preserved;\u201d and when, further, he says \u201cwe\n see, moreover, that a germ of reason is placed in him, whereby, after\n the development of the same, he is destined for social intercourse,\u201d\n he implies divine intervention. And this shows that I was justified in\n ascribing to him the belief that Space and Time, as forms of thought,\n are supernatural endowments. Had he conceived of organic evolution in\n a consistent manner, he would necessarily have regarded Space and Time\n as subjective forms generated by converse with objective realities.\n\n Beyond showing that Kant had a partial, if not a complete, belief in\n organic evolution (though with no idea of its causes), the passages\n translated by Dr. Carus show that he entertained an implied belief\n which it here specially concerns me to notice as bearing on his theory\n of \u201ca good will.\u201d He quotes approvingly Dr. Moscati\u2019s lecture showing\n \u201cthat the upright walk of man is constrained and unnatural,\u201d and\n showing the imperfect visceral arrangements and consequent diseases\n which result: not only adopting, but further illustrating, Dr.\n Moscati\u2019s argument. If here, then, there is a distinct admission, or\n rather assertion, that various human organs are imperfectly adjusted\n to their functions, what becomes of the postulate above quoted \u201cthat\n no organ for any purpose will be found in it but what is also the\n fittest and best adapted for that purpose?\u201d And what becomes of the\n argument which sets out with this postulate? Clearly, I am indebted to\n Dr. Carus for enabling me to prove that Kant\u2019s defence of his theory\n of \u201ca good will\u201d is, by his own showing, baseless.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOne of the propositions contained in Kant\u2019s first chapter {207} is\nthat \u201cwe find that the more a cultivated reason applies itself with\ndeliberate purpose to the enjoyment of life and happiness, so much the\nmore does the man fail of true satisfaction.\u201d A preliminary remark to\nbe made on this statement is that in its sweeping form it is not true.\nI assert that it is untrue on the strength of personal experiences. In\nthe course of my life there have occurred many intervals, averaging\nmore than a month each, in which the pursuit of happiness was the\nsole object, and in {208} which happiness was successfully pursued.\nHow successfully, may be judged from the fact that I would gladly\nlive over again each of those periods without change\u2014an assertion\nwhich I certainly cannot make of any portions of my life spent in\nthe daily discharge of duties. That which Kant should have said is\nthat the _exclusive_ pursuit of what are distinguished as pleasures\nand amusements, is disappointing. This is doubtless true; and for\nthe obvious reason that it over-exercises one group of faculties and\nexhausts them, while it leaves unexercised another group of faculties,\nwhich consequently do not yield the gratifications accompanying their\nexercise. It is not, as Kant says, guidance by \u201ca cultivated reason\u201d\nwhich leads to disappointment, but guidance by an uncultivated reason;\nfor a cultivated reason teaches that continuous action of a small\npart of the nature joined with inaction of the rest, must end in\ndissatisfaction.\n\nBut now, supposing we accept Kant\u2019s statement in full, what is its\nimplication? That happiness is the thing to be desired, and, in one way\nor another, the thing to be achieved. For if not, what meaning is there\nin the statement that it will not be achieved when made the immediate\nobject? One who was thus admonished might properly rejoin:\u2014\u201cYou say I\nshall fail to get happiness if I make it the object of pursuit? Suppose\nthen I do not make it the object of my pursuit; shall I get it? If I\ndo, then your admonition amounts to this, that I shall obtain it better\nif I proceed in some other way than that I adopt. If I do not get it,\nthen I remain without happiness if I follow your way, just as much\nas if I follow my own, and nothing is gained.\u201d An illustration will\nbest show how the matter stands. To a tyro in archery the instructor\nsays:\u2014\u201cSir, you must not point your arrow directly at the target.\nIf you do, you will inevitably miss it. You must aim high above the\ntarget; and you may then possibly pierce the bull\u2019s eye.\u201d What now is\nimplied by the warning and the {209} advice? Clearly that the purpose\nis to hit the target. Otherwise there is no sense in the remark that it\nwill be missed if directly aimed at; and no sense in the remark that to\nbe hit, something higher must be aimed at. Similarly with happiness.\nThere is no sense in the remark that happiness will not be found if it\nis directly sought, unless happiness is a thing to be somehow or other\nobtained.\n\n\u201cYes; there is sense,\u201d I hear it said. \u201cJust as it may be that the\ntarget is not the thing to be hit at all, either by aiming directly or\nindirectly at it, but that some other thing is to be hit; so it may be\nthat the thing to be achieved immediately or remotely is not happiness\nat all, but some other thing: the other thing being duty.\u201d In answer\nto this the admonished man may reasonably say:\u2014\u201cWhat then is meant by\nKant\u2019s statement that the man who pursues happiness \u2018fails of true\nsatisfaction\u2019? All happiness is made up of satisfactions. The \u2018true\nsatisfaction\u2019 which Kant offers as an alternative, must be some kind of\nhappiness; and if a truer satisfaction, must be a better happiness; and\nbetter must mean on the average, and in the long run, greater. If this\n\u2018true satisfaction\u2019 does not mean greater happiness of self,\u2014distant if\nnot proximate, in another life if not in this life\u2014and if it does not\nmean greater happiness by achieving the happiness of others; then you\npropose to me as an end a smaller happiness instead of a greater, and I\ndecline it.\u201d\n\nSo that in this professed repudiation of happiness as an end, there\nlies the inavoidable implication that it _is_ the end.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe last consideration introduces us naturally to another of Kant\u2019s\ncardinal doctrines. That there may be no mistake in my representation\nof it, I must make a long quotation.\n\n \u201cI omit here all actions which are already recognized as inconsistent\n with duty, although they may be useful for this or that purpose, for\n with these the question whether they are done _from duty_ cannot\n arise at all, since they even conflict with it. I also set aside\n those actions which really conform to {210} duty, but to which men\n have _no_ direct _inclination_, performing them because they are\n impelled thereto by some other inclination. For in this case we can\n readily distinguish whether the action which agrees with duty is done\n _from duty_, or from a selfish view. It is much harder to make this\n distinction when the action accords with duty, and the subject has\n besides a _direct_ inclination to it. For example, it is always a\n matter of duty that a dealer should not overcharge an inexperienced\n purchaser, and wherever there is much commerce the prudent tradesman\n does not overcharge, but keeps a fixed price for every one, so that\n a child buys of him as well as any other. Men are thus _honestly_\n served; but this is not enough to make us believe that the tradesman\n has so acted from duty and from principles of honesty: his own\n advantage required it; it is out of the question in this case to\n suppose that he might besides have a direct inclination in favour of\n the buyers, so that, as it were, from love he should give no advantage\n to one over another [!]. Accordingly the action was done neither from\n duty nor from direct inclination, but merely with a selfish view. On\n the other hand, it is a duty to maintain one\u2019s life; and, in addition,\n every one has also a direct inclination to do so. But on this account\n the often anxious care which most men take for it has no intrinsic\n worth, and their maxim has no moral import. They preserve their life\n _as duty requires_, no doubt, but not _because duty requires_. On the\n other hand, if adversity and hopeless sorrow have completely taken\n away the relish for life; if the unfortunate one, strong in mind,\n indignant at his fate rather than desponding or dejected, wishes\n for death, and yet preserves his life without loving it\u2014not from\n inclination or fear, but from duty\u2014then his maxim has a moral worth.\n\n \u201cTo be beneficent when we can is a duty; and besides this, there are\n many minds so sympathetically constituted that without any other\n motive of vanity or self-interest, they find a pleasure in spreading\n joy around them, and can take delight in the satisfaction of others\n so far as it is their own work. But I maintain that in such a case\n an action of this kind, however proper, however amiable it may be,\n has nevertheless no true moral worth, but is on a level with other\n inclinations\u201d (pp. 17\u201319).\n\nI have given this extract at length that there may be fully understood\nthe remarkable doctrine it embodies\u2014a doctrine especially remarkable as\nexemplified in the last sentence. Let us now consider all that it means.\n\nBefore doing this, however, I may remark that, space permitting, it\nmight be shown clearly enough that the assumed distinction between\n_sense_ of duty and inclination is untenable. The very expression\nsense of duty implies that the mental state signified is a feeling;\nand if a feeling it must, like other feelings, be gratified by acts\nof one kind and offended by acts of an opposite kind. If we take\nthe {211} name conscience, which is equivalent to sense of duty,\nwe see the same thing. The common expressions \u201ca tender conscience\u201d\n\u201ca seared conscience,\u201d indicate the perception that conscience is a\nfeeling\u2014a feeling which has its satisfactions and dissatisfactions,\nand which _inclines_ a man to acts which yield the one and avoid the\nother\u2014produces an _inclination_. The truth is that conscience, or the\nsense of duty, is an inclination of a complex kind as distinguished\nfrom inclinations of simpler kinds.\n\nBut let us grant Kant\u2019s distinction in an unqualified form. Doing\nthis, let us entertain, too, his proposition that acts of whatever\nkind done from inclination have no moral worth, and that the only acts\nhaving moral worth are those done from a sense of duty. To test this\nproposition let us follow an example he sets. As he would have the\nquality of an act judged by supposing it universalized, let us judge of\nmoral worth as he conceives it by making a like supposition. That we\nmay do this effectually, let us assume that it is exemplified not only\nby every man but by all the acts of every man. Unless Kant alleges that\na man may be morally worthy in too high a degree, we must admit that\nthe greater the number of his acts which have moral worth the better.\nLet us then contemplate him as doing nothing from inclination but\neverything from a sense of duty.\n\nWhen he pays the labourer who has done a week\u2019s work for him, it\nis not because letting a man go without wages would be against his\ninclination, but solely because he sees it to be a duty to fulfil\ncontracts. Such care as he takes of his aged mother is prompted not by\ntender feeling for her but by the consciousness of filial obligation.\nWhen he gives evidence on behalf of a man whom he knows to have been\nfalsely charged, it is not that he would be hurt by seeing the man\nwrongly punished, but simply in pursuance of a moral intuition showing\nhim that public duty requires him to testify. When he sees a little\nchild in danger of {212} being run over, and steps aside to snatch,\nit away, he does so not because thought of the impending death of the\nchild pains him, but because he knows it is a duty to save life. And\nso throughout, in all his relations as husband, as friend, as citizen,\nhe thinks always of what the law of right conduct directs, and does\nit because it is the law of right conduct, not because he satisfies\nhis affections or his sympathies by doing it. This is not all however.\nKant\u2019s doctrine commits him to something far beyond this. If those acts\nonly have moral worth which are done from a sense of duty, we must not\nonly say that the moral worth of a man is greater in proportion as the\nnumber of the acts so done is greater. We must also say that his moral\nworth is greater in proportion as his sense of duty makes him do the\nright thing not only apart from inclination but against inclination.\nAccording to Kant, then, the most moral man is the man whose sense of\nduty is so strong that he refrains from picking a pocket though he is\nmuch tempted to do it; who says of another that which is true though\nhe would like to injure him by a falsehood; who lends money to his\nbrother though he would prefer to see him in distress; who fetches the\ndoctor to his sick child though death would remove what he feels to\nbe a burden. What, now, shall we think of a world peopled with Kant\u2019s\ntypically moral men\u2014men who, in the one case, while doing right by one\nanother, do it with indifference, and severally know one another to be\nso doing it; and men who, in the other case, do right by one another\nnotwithstanding the promptings of evil passions to do otherwise, and\nwho severally know themselves surrounded by others similarly prompted?\nMost people will, I think, say that even in the first case life would\nbe hardly bearable, and that in the second case it would be absolutely\nintolerable. Had such been men\u2019s natures, Schopenhauer would indeed\nhave had good reason for urging that the race should bring itself to an\nend as quickly as possible.\n\nContemplate now the doings of one whose acts, according {213} to\nKant, have no moral worth. He goes through his daily work not thinking\nof duty to wife and child, but having in his mind the pleasure of\nwitnessing their welfare; and on reaching home he delights to see his\nlittle girl with rosy cheeks and laughing eyes eating heartily. When\nhe hands back to a shopkeeper the shilling given in excess of right\nchange, he does not stop to ask what the moral law requires: the\nthought of profiting by the man\u2019s mistake is intrinsically repugnant\nto him. One who is drowning he plunges in to rescue without any idea\nof obligation, but because he cannot contemplate without horror the\ndeath which threatens. If, for a worthy man who is out of employment,\nhe takes much trouble to find a place, he does it because the\nconsciousness of the man\u2019s difficulties is painful to him, and because\nhe knows that he will benefit not only him but the employer who engages\nhim: no moral maxim enters his mind. When he goes to see a sick friend\nthe gentle tones of his voice and the kindly expression of his face\nshow that he is come not from any sense of duty, but because pity and\na desire to raise his friend\u2019s spirits have moved him. If he aids in\nsome public measure which helps men to help themselves, it is not in\npursuance of the admonition \u201cDo as you would be done by,\u201d but because\nthe distresses around make him unhappy, and the thought of mitigating\nthem gives him pleasure. And so throughout: he ever does the right\nthing not in obedience to any injunction but because he loves the right\nthing in and for itself. And now who would not like to live in a world\nwhere everyone was thus characterized?\n\nWhat, then, shall we think of Kant\u2019s conception of moral worth, when,\nif it were displayed universally in men\u2019s acts the world would be\nintolerable, and when if these same acts were universally performed\nfrom inclination, the world would be delightful?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut now, from these indirect criticisms, let us pass to a {214} direct\ncriticism of the Kantian principle\u2014the principle often quoted as\ndistinctive of his ethics. He states it thus:\u2015\n\n \u201cThere is therefore but one categorical imperative, namely this: _Act\n only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it\n should become a universal law_.\u201d (pp. 54\u20135.)\n\nAgain, subsequently, we read:\u2015\n\n \u201c_Act on maxims which can at the same time have for their object\n themselves as universal laws of nature._ Such then is the formula of\n an absolutely good will.\u201d (p. 80.)\n\nHere, then, we have a clear statement of that which constitutes the\ncharacter of a good will; which good will, as we have already seen,\nis said to exist independently of any contemplated end. Let us now\nobserve how this theory is reduced to practice. Speaking of a man who\nis absolutely selfish and yet absolutely just, he represents him as\nsaying:\u2015\n\n \u201cLet everyone be as happy as heaven pleases or as he can make himself;\n I will take nothing from him nor even envy him, only I do not wish\n to contribute anything either to his welfare or to his assistance in\n distress! Now no doubt if such a mode of thinking were a universal\n law, the human race might very well subsist, and doubtless even better\n than in a state in which every one talks of sympathy and good will, or\n even takes care occasionally to put it into practice, but on the other\n side, also cheats when he can, betrays the rights of men or otherwise\n violates them. But although it is possible that a universal law of\n nature might exist in accordance with that maxim, it is impossible to\n _will_ that such a principle should have the universal validity of a\n law of nature. For a will which resolved this would contradict itself,\n inasmuch as many cases might occur in which one would have need of the\n love and sympathy of others, and in which by such a law of nature,\n sprung from his own will, he would deprive himself of all hope of the\n aid he desires.\u201d (pp. 58\u20139.)\n\nThus we see illustrated the guidance of conduct in conformity with\nthe Kantian maxim; and what is the process of guidance? It is that\nof considering what, in the particular case, would be the result if\nthe suggested course of conduct were made universal; and then being\ndeterred from willing such conduct by the badness of the conceived\nresult. Now, in the first place, what here becomes of the doctrine of a\ngood will, which we are told exists \u201cwithout paying {215} any regard\nto the effect expected from it\u201d? (p. 24). The good will, characterized\nby readiness to see the act it prompts made universal, has, in this\nparticular case, as in every other case, to be decided by contemplation\nof an end\u2014if not a special and immediate end then a general and remote\nend. And what, in this case, is to be the deterrent from a suggested\ncourse of conduct? Consciousness that the result, if such conduct were\nuniversal, might be suffering to self: there might be no aid when it\nwas wanted. So that, in the first place, the question is to be decided\nby the contemplation of happiness or misery as likely to be caused by\nthe one or the other course; and, in the second place, this happiness\nor misery is that of the individual himself. Strangely enough, this\nprinciple which is lauded because of its apparently implied altruism,\nturns out, in the last resort, to have its justification in egoism!\n\nThe essential truth here to be noted, however, is that the Kantian\nprinciple, so much vaunted as higher than that of expediency or\nutilitarianism, is compelled to take expediency or utilitarianism as\nits basis. Do what it will, it cannot escape the need for conceiving\nhappiness or misery, to self or others or both, as respectively to\nbe achieved or avoided; for in any case what, except the conceived\nhappiness or misery which would follow if a given mode of action were\nmade universal, can determine the will for or against such mode of\naction? If, in one who has been injured, there arises a temptation to\nmurder the injurer; and if, following out the Kantian injunction, the\ntempted man thinks of himself as willing that all men who have been\ninjured should murder those who have injured them; and if, imagining\nthe consequences experienced by mankind at large, and possibly on some\noccasion by himself in particular, he is deterred from yielding to the\ntemptation; what is it which deters him? Obviously the representation\nof the many evils, pains, deprivations of happiness, which would be\ncaused. If, on imagining his act to be {216} universalized, he saw\nthat it would increase human happiness, the alleged deterrent would not\nact. Hence the conduct to be insured by adoption of the Kantian maxim\nis simply the conduct to be insured by making the happiness of self or\nothers or both the end to be achieved. By implication, if not avowedly,\nthe Kantian principle is as distinctly utilitarian as the principle\nof Bentham. And it falls short of a scientific ethics in just the\nsame way; since it fails to furnish any method by which to determine\nwhether such and such acts _would_ or _would not_ be conducive to\nhappiness\u2014leaves all such questions to be decided empirically.\n\n{217}\n\n\n\n\nABSOLUTE POLITICAL ETHICS.\n\n[_Originally published in_ The Nineteenth Century _for January 1890.\nThe writing of this essay was consequent on a controversy carried on\nin_ The Times _between Nov. 7 and Nov. 27, 1889, and was made needful\nby the misapprehensions and misrepresentations embodied in that\ncontroversy. Hence the allusions which the essay contains. The last few\nparagraphs of it in its original form were mainly personal in their\ncharacter; and, not wishing to perpetuate personalities, I have omitted\nthem_.]\n\n\nLife in Fiji, at the time when Thomas Williams settled there, must\nhave been something worse than uncomfortable. One of the people who\npassed near the string of nine hundred stones with which Ra Undreundre\nrecorded the number of human victims he had devoured, must have had\nunpleasant waking thoughts and occasionally horrible dreams. A man\nwho had lost some fingers for breaches of ceremony, or had seen his\nneighbour killed by a chief for behaviour not sufficiently respectful,\nand who remembered how King Tanoa cut off his cousin\u2019s arm, cooked\nit and ate it in his presence, and then had him hacked to pieces,\nmust not unfrequently have had \u201ca bad quarter of an hour.\u201d Nor could\ncreeping sensations have failed to run through women who heard Tui\nThakau eulogizing his dead son for cruelty, and saying that \u201che could\nkill his own wives if they offended him, and eat them afterwards.\u201d\nHappiness {218} could not have been general in a society where there\nwas a liability to be one among the ten whose life-blood baptized the\ndecks of a new canoe\u2014a society in which the killing even of unoffending\npersons was no crime but a glory; and in which everyone knew that his\nneighbour\u2019s restless ambition was to be an acknowledged murderer.\nStill, there must have been some moderation in murdering even in Fiji.\nOr must we hesitate to conclude that unlimited murder would have caused\nextinction of the society?\n\nThe extent to which each man\u2019s possessions among the Biluchis are\nendangered by the predatory instincts of his neighbours, may be judged\nfrom the fact that \u201ca small mud tower is erected in each field, where\nthe possessor and his retainers guard his produce.\u201d If turbulent\nstates of society such as early histories tell of, do not show us so\nvividly how the habit of appropriating one another\u2019s goods interferes\nwith social prosperity and individual comfort, yet they do not leave\nus in doubt respecting these results. It is an inference which few\nwill be hardy enough to dispute, that in proportion as the time of\neach man, instead of being occupied in further production, is occupied\nin guarding that which he has produced against marauders, the total\nproduction must be diminished and the sustentation of each and all less\nsatisfactorily achieved. And it is a manifest corollary that if each\npushes beyond a certain limit the practice of trying to satisfy his\nneeds by robbing his neighbour, the society must dissolve: solitary\nlife will prove preferable.\n\nA deceased friend of mine, narrating incidents in his life, told me\nthat as a young man he sought to establish himself in Spain as a\ncommission agent; and that, failing by expostulation or other means\nto obtain payment from one who had ordered goods through him, he, as\na last resource, went to the man\u2019s house and presented himself before\nhim pistol in hand\u2014a proceeding which had the desired effect: the\naccount was settled. Suppose now that everywhere {219} contracts had\nthus to be enforced by more or less strenuous measures. Suppose that\na coal-mine proprietor in Derbyshire, having sent a train-load to a\nLondon coal-merchant, had commonly to send a _posse_ of colliers up to\ntown, to stop the man\u2019s wagons and take out the horses until payment\nhad been made. Suppose the farm-labourer or the artisan was constantly\nin doubt whether, at the end of the week, the wages agreed upon would\nbe forthcoming; or whether he would get only half, or whether he\nwould have to wait six months. Suppose that daily in every shop there\noccurred scuffles between shopman and customer, the one to get the\nmoney without giving the goods, and the other to get the goods without\npaying the money. What in such case would happen to the society? What\nwould become of its producing and distributing businesses? Is it a rash\ninference that industrial co-operation (of the voluntary kind at least)\nwould cease?\n\n\u201cWhy these absurd questions?\u201d asks the impatient reader. \u201cSurely\neveryone knows that murder, assault, robbery, fraud, breach of\ncontract, &c., are at variance with social welfare and must be punished\nwhen committed,\u201d My replies are several. In the first place, I am quite\ncontent to have the questions called absurd; because this implies a\nconsciousness that the answers are so self-evident that it is absurd to\nassume the possibility of any other answers. My second reply is that\nI am not desirous of pressing the question _whether_ we know these\nthings, but of pressing the question _how_ we know these things. Can\nwe know them, and do we know them, by contemplating the necessities\nof the case? or must we have recourse to \u201cinductions based on careful\nobservation and experience\u201d? Before we make and enforce laws against\nmurder, ought we to inquire into the social welfare and individual\nhappiness in places where murder prevails, and observe whether or not\nthe welfare and happiness are greater in places where murder is rare?\nShall robbery be allowed to go on until, {220} by collecting and\ntabulating the effects in countries where thieves predominate and in\ncountries where thieves are but few, we are shown by induction that\nprosperity is greater when each man is allowed to retain that which he\nhas earned? And is it needful to prove by accumulated evidence that\nbreaches of contract impede production and exchange, and those benefits\nto each and all which mutual dependence achieves? In the third place,\nthese instances of actions which, pushed to extremes, cause social\ndissolution, and which, in smaller degrees, hinder social co-operation\nand its benefits, I give for the purpose of asking what is their\ncommon trait. In each of such actions we see aggression\u2014a carrying on\nof life in a way which directly interferes with the carrying on of\nanother\u2019s life. The relation between effort and consequent benefit in\none man, is either destroyed altogether or partially broken by the\ndoings of another man. If it be admitted that life can be maintained\nonly by certain activities (the internal ones being universal, and the\nexternal ones being universal for all but parasites and the immature),\nit must be admitted that when like-natured beings are associated, the\nrequired activities must be mutually limited; and that the highest\nlife can result only when the associated beings are so constituted as\nseverally to keep within the implied limits. The restrictions stated\nthus generally, may obviously be developed into special restrictions\nreferring to this or that kind of conduct. These, then, I hold are\n_a priori_ truths which admit of being known by contemplation of the\nconditions\u2014axiomatic truths which bear to ethics a relation analogous\nto that which the mathematical axioms bear to the exact sciences.\n\nI do not mean that these axiomatic truths are cognisable by all. For\nthe apprehension of them, as for the apprehension of simpler axioms, a\ncertain mental growth and a certain mental discipline are needed. In\nthe _Treatise on Natural Philosophy_ by Professors Thomson and Tait\n[1st ed.], {221} it is remarked that \u201cphysical axioms are axiomatic\nto those only who have sufficient knowledge of the action of physical\ncauses to enable them to see at once their necessary truth.\u201d Doubtless\na fact and a significant fact. A plough-boy cannot form a conception\nof the axiom that action and reaction are equal and opposite. In the\nfirst place he lacks a sufficiently generalized idea of action\u2014has not\nunited into one conception pushing and pulling, the blow of a fist,\nthe recoil of a gun, and the attraction of a planet. Still less has he\nany generalized idea of reaction. And even had he these two ideas, it\nis probable that, defective in power of representation as he is, he\nwould fail to recognize the necessary equality. Similarly with these\n_a priori_ ethical truths. If a member of that Fijian slave-tribe who\nregarded themselves as food for the chiefs had suggested that there\nmight arrive a time when men would not eat one another, his implied\nbelief that men might come to have a little respect for one another\u2019s\nlives, condemned as utterly without justification in experience, would\nbe considered as fit only for a wild speculator. Facts furnished by\nevery-day observation make it clear to the Biluchi, keeping watch\nin his mud-tower, that possession of property can be maintained\nonly by force; and it is most likely to him scarcely conceivable\nthat there exist limits which, if mutually recognized, may exclude\naggressions, and make it needless to mount guard over fields: only an\nabsurd idealist (supposing such a thing known to him) would suggest\nthe possibility. And so even of our own ancestors in feudal times,\nit may be concluded that, constantly going about armed and often\ntaking refuge in strongholds, the thought of a peaceful social state\nwould have seemed ridiculous; and the belief that there might be\na recognized equality among men\u2019s claims to pursue the objects of\nlife, and a consequent desistence from aggressions, would have been\nscarcely conceivable. But now that an orderly social state has been\nmaintained for generations\u2014now that in daily {222} intercourse men\nrarely use violence, commonly pay what they owe, and in most cases\nrespect the claims of the weak as well as those of the strong\u2014now\nthat they are brought up with the idea that all men are equal before\nthe law, and daily see judicial decisions turning upon the question\nwhether one citizen has or has not infringed upon the equal rights\nof another; there exist in the general mind materials for forming\nthe conception of a _r\u00e9gime_ in which men\u2019s activities are mutually\nlimited, and in which maintenance of harmony depends on respect for the\nlimits. There has arisen an ability to see that mutual limitations are\nrequired when lives are carried on in proximity; and to see that there\nnecessarily emerge definite sets of restraints applying to definite\nclasses of actions. And it has become manifest to some, though not it\nseems to many, that there results an _a priori_ system of absolute\npolitical ethics\u2014a system under which men of like natures, severally\nso constituted as spontaneously to refrain from trespassing, may work\ntogether without friction, and with the greatest advantage to each and\nall.\n\n\u201cBut men are not wholly like-natured and are unlikely to become so. Nor\nare they so constituted that each is solicitous for his neighbour\u2019s\nclaims as for his own, and there is small probability that they ever\nwill be. Your absolute political ethics is therefore an ideal beyond\nthe reach of the real.\u201d This is true. Nevertheless, much as it seems to\ndo so, it does not follow that there is no use for absolute political\nethics. The contrary may clearly enough be shown. An analogy will\nexplain the paradox.\n\nThere exists a division of physical science distinguished as abstract\nmechanics or absolute mechanics\u2014absolute in the sense that its\npropositions are unqualified. It is concerned with statics and dynamics\nin their pure forms\u2014deals with forces and motions considered as free\nfrom all interferences resulting from friction, resistances of media,\nand special properties of matter. If it enunciates a law of motion,\nit {223} recognizes nothing which modifies manifestation of it. If\nit formulates the properties of the lever it treats of this assuming\nit to be perfectly rigid and without thickness\u2014an impossible lever.\nIts theory of the screw imagines the screw to be frictionless; and in\ntreating of the wedge, absolute incompressibility is supposed. Thus\nits truths are never presented in experience. Even those movements\nof the heavenly bodies which are deducible from its propositions\nare always more or less perturbed; and on the Earth the inferences\nto be drawn from them deviate very considerably from the results\nreached by experiment. Nevertheless this system of ideal mechanics is\nindispensable for the guidance of real mechanics. The engineer has\nto deal with its propositions as true in full, before he proceeds\nto qualify them by taking into account the natures of the materials\nhe uses. The course which a projectile would take if subject only\nto the propulsive force and the attraction of the Earth must be\nrecognized, though no such course is ever pursued: correction for\natmospheric resistance cannot else be made. That is to say, though,\nby empirical methods, applied or relative mechanics may be developed\nto a considerable extent, it cannot be highly developed without\nthe aid of absolute mechanics. So is it here. Relative political\nethics, or that which deals with right and wrong in public affairs\nas partially determined by changing circumstances, cannot progress\nwithout taking into account right and wrong considered apart from\nchanging circumstances\u2014cannot do without absolute political ethics; the\npropositions of which, deduced from the conditions under which life\nis carried on in an associated state, take no account of the special\ncircumstances of any particular associated state.\n\nAnd now observe a truth which seems entirely overlooked; namely, that\nthe set of deductions thus arrived at is verified by an immeasurably\nvast induction, or rather by a great assemblage of vast inductions.\nFor what else are the laws and judicial systems of all civilized\nnations, and of {224} all societies which have risen above savagery?\nWhat is the meaning of the fact that all peoples have discovered the\nneed for punishing murder, usually by death? How is it that where any\nconsiderable progress has been made, theft is forbidden by law, and\na penalty attached to it? Why along with further advance does the\nenforcing of contracts become general? And what is the reason that\namong fully civilized peoples frauds, libels, and minor aggressions\nof various kinds are repressed in more or less rigorous ways? No\ncause can be assigned save a general uniformity in men\u2019s experiences,\nshowing them that aggressions directly injurious to the individuals\naggressed upon are indirectly injurious to society. Generation after\ngeneration observations have forced this truth on them; and generation\nafter generation they have been developing the interdicts into greater\ndetail. That is to say, the above fundamental principle and its\ncorollaries arrived at _a priori_ are verified in an infinity of cases\n_a posteriori_. Everywhere the tendency has been to carry further\nin practice the dictates of theory\u2014to conform systems of law to the\nrequirements of absolute political ethics: if not consciously, still\nunconsciously. Nay, indeed, is not this truth manifest in the very name\nused for the end aimed at\u2014equity or equalness? Equalness of what? No\nanswer can be given without a recognition\u2014vague it may be, but still a\nrecognition\u2014of the doctrine above set forth.\n\nThus, instead of being described as putting faith in \u201clong chains of\ndeduction from abstract ethical assumptions\u201d I ought to be described as\nputting faith in simple deductions from abstract ethical necessities;\nwhich deductions are verified by infinitely numerous observations and\nexperiences of semi-civilized and civilized mankind in all ages and\nplaces. Or rather I ought to be described as one who, contemplating\nthe restraints everywhere put on the various kinds of transgressions,\nand seeing in them all a common principle everywhere dictated by the\nnecessities {225} of the associated state, proceeds to develop the\nconsequences of this common principle by deduction, and to justify both\nthe deductions and the conclusions which legislators have empirically\nreached by showing that the two correspond. This method of deduction\nverified by induction is the method of developed science at large. I\ndo not believe that I shall be led to abandon it and change my \u201cway of\nthinking\u201d by any amount of disapproval, however strongly expressed.\n\nAre we then to understand that by this imposing title, \u201cAbsolute\nPolitical Ethics,\u201d nothing more is meant than a theory of the needful\nrestraints which law imposes on the actions of citizens\u2014an ethical\nwarrant for systems of law? Well, supposing even that I had to answer\n\u201cYes\u201d to this question (which I do not), there would still be an ample\njustification for the title. Having for its subject-matter all that is\ncomprehended under the word \u201cJustice,\u201d alike as formulated in law and\nadministered by legal instrumentalities, the title has a sufficiently\nlarge area to cover. This would scarcely need saying were it not for a\ncurious defect of thought which we are everywhere led into by habit.\n\nJust as, when talking of knowledge, we ignore entirely that familiar\nknowledge of surrounding things, animate and inanimate, acquired in\nchildhood, in the absence of which death would quickly result, and\nthink only of that far less essential knowledge gained at school\nand college or from books and conversation\u2014just as, when thinking\nof mathematics, we include under the name only its higher groups of\ntruths and drop out that simpler group constituting arithmetic, though\nfor the carrying on of life this is more important than all the rest\nput together; so, when politics and political ethics are discussed,\nthere is no thought of those parts of them which include whatever\nis fundamental and long settled. The word political raises ideas of\nparty-contests, ministerial changes, prospective elections, or else of\nthe Home-Rule question, the {226} Land-Purchase scheme, Local Option,\nor the Eight-Hours movement. Rarely does the word suggest law-reform,\nor a better judicial organization, or a purified police. And if ethics\ncomes into consideration, it is in connexion with the morals of\nparliamentary strife or of candidates\u2019 professions, or of electoral\ncorruptions. Yet it needs but to look at the definition of politics\n(\u201cthat part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government\nof a nation or state, for the preservation of its safety, peace, and\nprosperity\u201d), to see that the current conception fails by omitting\nthe chief part. It needs but to consider how relatively immense a\nfactor in the life of each man is constituted by safety of person,\nsecurity of house and property, and enforcement of claims, to see that\nnot only the largest part but the part which is vital is left out.\nHence the absurdity does not exist in the conception of an absolute\npolitical ethics, but it exists in the ignoring of its subject-matter.\nUnless it be considered absurd to regard as absolute the interdicts\nagainst murder, burglary, fraud and all other aggressions, it cannot\nbe considered absurd to regard as absolute the ethical system which\nembodies these interdicts.\n\nIt remains to add that beyond the deductions which, as we have seen,\nare verified by vast assemblages of inductions, there may be drawn\nother deductions not thus verified\u2014deductions drawn from the same\ndata, but which have no relevant experiences to say yes or no to\nthem. Such deductions may be valid or invalid; and I believe that\nin my first work, written forty years ago and long since withdrawn\nfrom circulation, there are some invalid deductions. But to reject a\nprinciple and a method because of some invalid deductions, is about as\nproper as it would be to pooh-pooh arithmetic because of blunders in\ncertain arithmetical calculations.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI turn now to a question above put\u2014whether, by absolute political\nethics, nothing more is meant than an ethical {227} warrant for\nsystems of law\u2014a question to which, by implication, I answered No.\nAnd now I have to answer that it extends over a further field equally\nwide if less important. For beyond the relations among citizens taken\nindividually, there are the relations between the incorporated body of\ncitizens and each citizen. And on these relations between the State and\nthe man, absolute political ethics gives judgments as well as on the\nrelations between man and man. Its judgments on the relations between\nman and man are corollaries from its primary truth, that the activities\nof each in pursuing the objects of life may be rightly restricted\nonly by the like activities of others: such others being like-natured\n(for the principle does not contemplate slave-societies or societies\nin which one race dominates over another); and its judgments on the\nrelations between the man and the State are corollaries from the allied\ntruth, that the activities of each citizen may be rightly limited\nby the incorporated body of citizens only as far as is needful for\nsecuring to him the remainder. This further limitation is a necessary\naccompaniment of the militant state; and must continue so long as,\nbesides the criminalities of individual aggression, there continue\nthe criminalities of international aggression. It is clear that the\npreservation of the society is an end which must take precedence of the\npreservation of its individuals taken singly; since the preservation\nof each individual and the maintenance of his ability to pursue the\nobjects of life, depend on the preservation of the society. Such\nrestrictions upon his actions as are imposed by the necessities of\nwar, and of preparedness for war when it is probable, are therefore\nethically defensible.\n\nAnd here we enter upon the many and involved questions with which\nrelative political ethics has to deal. When originally indicating\nthe contrast, I spoke of \u201cabsolute political ethics, or that which\nought to be, as distinguished from relative political ethics, or that\nwhich is at present the nearest practicable approach to it;\u201d and had\nany {228} attention been paid to this distinction, no controversy\nneed have arisen. Here I have to add that the qualifications which\nrelative political ethics sets forth vary with the type of the society,\nwhich is primarily determined by the extent to which defence against\nother societies is needful. Where international enmity is great and\nthe social organization has to be adapted to warlike activities, the\ncoercion of individuals by the State is such as almost to destroy\ntheir freedom of action and make them slaves of the State; and where\nthis results from the necessities of defensive war (not offensive war,\nhowever), relative political ethics furnishes a warrant. Conversely,\nas militancy decreases, there is a diminished need both for that\nsubordination of individuals which is necessitated by consolidating\nthem into a fighting machine, and for that further subordination\nentailed by supplying this fighting machine with the necessaries\nof life; and as fast as this change goes on, the warrant for\nState-coercion which relative political ethics furnishes becomes less\nand less.\n\nObviously it is out of the question here to enter upon the complex\nquestions raised. It must suffice to indicate them as above. Should I\nbe able to complete Part IV. of _The Principles of Ethics_, treating\nof \u201cJustice,\u201d of which the first chapters only are at present written,\nI hope to deal adequately with these relations between the ethics of\nthe progressive condition and the ethics of that condition which is\nthe goal of progress\u2014a goal ever to be recognized, though it cannot be\nactually reached.\n\n{229}\n\n\n\n\nOVER-LEGISLATION.[26]\n\n[_First published in_ The Westminster Review _for July 1853_.]\n\n\nFrom time to time there returns on the cautious thinker, the conclusion\nthat, considered simply as a question of probabilities, it is unlikely\nthat his views upon any debatable topic are correct. \u201cHere,\u201d he\nreflects, \u201care thousands around me holding on this or that point\nopinions differing from mine\u2014wholly in many cases; partially in most\nothers. Each is as confident as I am of the truth of his convictions.\nMany of them are possessed of great intelligence; and, rank myself high\nas I may, I must admit that some are my equals\u2014perhaps my superiors.\nYet, while every one of us is sure he is right, unquestionably most\nof us are wrong. Why should not I be among the mistaken? True, I\ncannot realize the likelihood that I am so. But this proves nothing;\nfor though the majority of us are necessarily in error, we all labour\nunder the inability to think we are in error. Is it not then foolish\nthus to trust myself? When {230} I look back into the past, I find\nnations, sects, theologians, philosophers, cherishing beliefs in\nscience, morals, politics, and religion, which we decisively reject.\nYet they held them with a faith quite as strong as ours: nay\u2014stronger,\nif their intolerance of dissent is any criterion. Of what little worth,\ntherefore, seems this strength of my conviction that I am right! A like\nwarrant has been felt by men all the world through; and, in nine cases\nout of ten, has proved a delusive warrant. Is it not then absurd in me\nto put so much faith in my judgments?\u201d\n\n [26] Some of the illustrations used in this essay refer to laws\n and arrangements changed since it was written; while many recent\n occurrences might now be cited in further aid of its argument. As,\n however, the reasoning is not affected by these changes; and as to\n keep it corrected to the facts of the day would involve perpetual\n alterations; it seems best to leave it substantially in its original\n state: or rather in the state in which it was republished in Mr.\n Chapman\u2019s _Library for the People_.\n\nBarren of practical results as this reflection at first sight appears,\nit may, and indeed should, influence some of our most important\nproceedings. Though in daily life we are constantly obliged to act out\nour inferences, trustless as they may be\u2014though in the house, in the\noffice, in the street, there hourly arise occasions on which we may not\nhesitate; seeing that if to act is dangerous, never to act at all is\nfatal\u2014and though, consequently, on our private conduct, this abstract\ndoubt as to the worth of our judgments, must remain inoperative;\nyet, in our public conduct, we may properly allow it to weigh. Here\ndecision is no longer imperative; while the difficulty of deciding\naright is incalculably greater. Clearly as we may think we see how a\ngiven measure will work, we may infer, drawing the above induction from\nhuman experience, that the chances are many against the truth of our\nanticipations. Whether in most cases it is not wiser to do nothing,\nbecomes now a rational question. Continuing his self-criticism, the\ncautious thinker may reason:\u2014\u201cIf in these personal affairs, where\nall the conditions of the case were known to me, I have so often\nmiscalculated, how much oftener shall I miscalculate in political\naffairs, where the conditions are too numerous, too wide-spread, too\ncomplex, too obscure to be understood. Here, doubtless, is a social\nevil and there a desideratum; and were I sure of doing no mischief I\nwould forthwith try to cure the one and achieve {231} the other. But\nwhen I remember how many of my private schemes have miscarried\u2014how\nspeculations have failed, agents proved dishonest, marriage been\na disappointment\u2014how I did but pauperize the relative I sought to\nhelp\u2014how my carefully-governed son has turned out worse than most\nchildren\u2014how the thing I desperately strove against as a misfortune\ndid me immense good\u2014how while the objects I ardently pursued brought\nme little happiness when gained, most of my pleasures have come from\nunexpected sources; when I recall these and hosts of like facts, I am\nstruck with the incompetence of my intellect to prescribe for society.\nAnd as the evil is one under which society has not only lived but\ngrown, while the desideratum is one it may spontaneously obtain, as it\nhas most others, in some unforeseen way, I question the propriety of\nmeddling.\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere is a great want of this practical humility in our political\nconduct. Though we have less self-confidence than our ancestors, who\ndid not hesitate to organize in law their judgments on all subjects\nwhatever, we have yet far too much. Though we have ceased to assume\nthe infallibility of our theological beliefs and so ceased to enact\nthem, we have not ceased to enact hosts of other beliefs of an\nequally doubtful kind. Though we no longer presume to coerce men\nfor their _spiritual good_, we still think ourselves called upon to\ncoerce them for their _material good_: not seeing that the one is\nas useless and as unwarrantable as the other. Innumerable failures\nseem, so far, powerless to teach this. Take up a daily paper and you\nwill probably find a leader exposing the corruption, negligence, or\nmismanagement of some State-department. Cast your eye down the next\ncolumn, and it is not unlikely that you will read proposals for an\nextension of State-supervision. Yesterday came a charge of gross\ncarelessness against the Colonial office. To-day Admiralty bunglings\nare burlesqued. To-morrow brings the question\u2014\u201cShould there {232}\nnot be more coal-mine inspectors?\u201d Now there is a complaint that\nthe Board of Health is useless; and now an outcry for more railway\nregulation. While your ears are still ringing with denunciations of\nChancery abuses, or your cheeks still glowing with indignation at some\nwell-exposed iniquity of the Ecclesiastical Courts, you suddenly come\nupon suggestions for organizing \u201ca priesthood of science.\u201d Here is a\nvehement condemnation of the police for stupidly allowing sight-seers\nto crush each other to death. You look for the corollary that official\nregulation is not to be trusted; when, instead, _\u00e0 propos_ of a\nshipwreck, you read an urgent demand for government-inspectors to see\nthat ships always have their boats ready for launching. Thus, while\nevery day chronicles a failure, there every day reappears the belief\nthat it needs but an Act of Parliament and a staff of officers, to\neffect any end desired. Nowhere is the perennial faith of mankind\nbetter seen. Ever since society existed Disappointment has been\npreaching\u2014\u201cPut not your trust in legislation;\u201d and yet the trust in\nlegislation seems scarcely diminished.\n\nDid the State fulfil efficiently its unquestionable duties, there\nwould be some excuse for this eagerness to assign it further duties.\nWere there no complaints of its faulty administration of justice; of\nits endless delays and untold expenses; of its bringing ruin in place\nof restitution; of its playing the tyrant where it should have been\nthe protector\u2014did we never hear of its complicated stupidities; its\n20,000 statutes, which it assumes all Englishmen to know, and which not\none Englishman does know; its multiplied forms, which, in the effort\nto meet every contingency, open far more loopholes than they provide\nagainst\u2014had it not shown its folly in the system of making every petty\nalteration by a new act, variously affecting innumerable preceding\nacts; or in its score of successive sets of Chancery rules, which so\nmodify, and limit, and extend, and abolish, and alter each other, that\nnot even Chancery lawyers know {233} what the rules are\u2014were we never\nastounded by such a fact as that, under the system of land registration\nin Ireland, 6000l. have been spent in a \u201cnegative search\u201d to establish\nthe title of an estate\u2014did we find in its doings no such terrible\nincongruity as the imprisonment of a hungry vagrant for stealing a\nturnip, while for the gigantic embezzlements of a railway director it\ninflicts no punishment;\u2014had we, in short, proved its efficiency as\njudge and defender, instead of having found it treacherous, cruel, and\nanxiously to be shunned, there would be some encouragement to hope\nother benefits at its hands.\n\nOr if, while failing in its judicial functions, the State had proved\nitself a capable agent in some other department\u2014the military for\nexample\u2014there would have been some show of reason for extending its\nsphere of action. Suppose that it had rationally equipped its troops,\ninstead of giving them cumbrous and ineffective muskets, barbarous\ngrenadier caps, absurdly heavy knapsacks and cartouche-boxes, and\nclothing coloured so as admirably to help the enemy\u2019s marksmen\u2014suppose\nthat it organized well and economically, instead of salarying an\nimmense superfluity of officers, creating sinecure colonelcies\nof 4000_l._ a year, neglecting the meritorious and promoting\nincapables\u2014suppose that its soldiers were always well housed instead of\nbeing thrust into barracks that invalid hundreds, as at Aden, or that\nfall on their occupants, as at Loodianah, where ninety-five were thus\nkilled\u2014suppose that, in actual war, it had shown due administrative\nability, instead of occasionally leaving its regiments to march\nbarefoot, to dress in patches, to capture their own engineering\ntools, and to fight on empty stomachs, as during the Peninsular\ncampaign;\u2014suppose all this, and the wish for more State-control might\nstill have had some warrant.\n\nEven though it had bungled in everything else, yet had it in one case\ndone well\u2014had its naval management alone been efficient\u2014the sanguine\nwould have had a colourable {234} excuse for expecting success in a\nnew field. Grant that the reports about bad ships, ships that will\nnot sail, ships that have to be lengthened, ships with unfit engines,\nships that will not carry their guns, ships without stowage, and ships\nthat have to be broken up, are all untrue\u2014assume those to be mere\nslanderers who say that the _Meg\u0153ra_ took double the time taken by\na commercial steamer to reach the Cape; that during the same voyage\nthe _Hydra_ was three times on fire, and needed the pumps kept going\nday and night; that the _Charlotte_ troop-ship set out with 75 days\u2019\nprovisions on board, and was three months in reaching her destination;\nthat the _Harpy_, at an imminent risk of life, got home in 110 days\nfrom Rio\u2014disregard as calumnies the statements about septuagenarian\nadmirals, dilettante ship building, and \u201ccooked\u201d dockyard accounts\u2014set\ndown the affair of the Goldner preserved meats as a myth, and\nconsider Professor Barlow mistaken when he reported of the Admiralty\ncompasses in store, that \u201cat least one-half were mere lumber;\u201d\u2014let\nall these, we say, be held groundless charges, and there would remain\nfor the advocates of much government some basis for their political\nair-castles, spite of military and judicial mismanagement.\n\nAs it is, however, they seem to have read backwards the parable of\nthe talents. Not to the agent of proved efficiency do they consign\nfurther duties, but to the negligent and blundering agent. Private\nenterprise has done much, and done it well. Private enterprise\nhas cleared, drained, and fertilized the country, and built the\ntowns\u2014has excavated mines, laid out roads, dug canals, and embanked\nrailways\u2014has invented, and brought to perfection, ploughs, looms,\nsteam-engines, printing-presses, and machines innumerable\u2014has built\nour ships, our vast manufactories, our docks\u2014has established banks,\ninsurance societies, and the newspaper press\u2014has covered the sea\nwith lines of steam-vessels, and the land with electric telegraphs.\nPrivate enterprise has brought agriculture, manufactures, {235} and\ncommerce to their present height, and is now developing them with\nincreasing rapidity. Therefore, do not trust private enterprise. On\nthe other hand, the State so fulfils its judicial function as to ruin\nmany, delude others, and frighten away those who most need succour;\nits national defences are so extravagantly and yet inefficiently\nadministered, as to call forth almost daily complaint, expostulation,\nor ridicule; and as the nation\u2019s steward, it obtains from some of our\nvast public estates a minus revenue. Therefore, trust the State. Slight\nthe good and faithful servant, and promote the unprofitable one from\none talent to ten.\n\nSeriously, the case, while it may not, in some respects, warrant this\nparallel, is, in one respect, even stronger. For the new work is not\nof the same order as the old, but of a more difficult order. Ill as\ngovernment discharges its true duties, any other duties committed to\nit are likely to be still worse discharged. To guard its subjects\nagainst aggression, either individual or national, is a straightforward\nand tolerably simple matter; to regulate, directly or indirectly, the\npersonal actions of those subjects is an infinitely complicated matter.\nIt is one thing to secure to each man the unhindered power to pursue\nhis own good; it is a widely different thing to pursue the good for\nhim. To do the first efficiently, the State has merely to look on while\nits citizens act; to forbid unfairness; to adjudicate when called on;\nand to enforce restitution for injuries. To do the last efficiently,\nit must become an ubiquitous worker\u2014must know each man\u2019s needs better\nthan he knows them himself\u2014must, in short, possess superhuman power and\nintelligence. Even, therefore, had the State done well in its proper\nsphere, no sufficient warrant would have existed for extending that\nsphere; but seeing how ill it has discharged those simple offices which\nwe cannot help consigning to it, small indeed is the probability that\nit will discharge well offices of a more complicated nature.\n\nChange the point of view however we may, and this {236} conclusion\nstill presents itself. If we define the primary State-duty to be\nthat of protecting each individual against others; then, all other\nState-action comes under the definition of protecting each individual\nagainst himself\u2014against his own stupidity, his own idleness, his own\nimprovidence, rashness, or other defect\u2014his own incapacity for doing\nsomething or other which should be done. There is no questioning this\nclassification. For manifestly all the obstacles that lie between\na man\u2019s desires and the satisfaction of them, are either obstacles\narising from other men\u2019s counter desires, or obstacles arising from\ninability in himself. Such of these counter desires as are just,\nhave as much claim to satisfaction as his; and may not, therefore,\nbe thwarted. Such of them as are unjust, it is the State\u2019s duty to\nhold in check. The only other possible sphere for it, therefore, is\nthat of saving the individual from the consequences of his nature,\nor, as we say\u2014protecting him against himself. Making no comment, at\npresent, on the policy of this, and confining ourselves solely to\nthe practicability of it, let us inquire how the proposal looks when\nreduced to its simplest form. Here are men possessed of instincts,\nand sentiments, and perceptions, all conspiring to self-preservation.\nThe due action of each brings its quantum of pleasure; the inaction,\nits more or less of pain. Those provided with these faculties in due\nproportions, prosper and multiply; those ill-provided, tend to die out.\nAnd the general success of this human organization is seen in the fact,\nthat under it the world has been peopled, and by it the complicated\nappliances and arrangements of civilized life have been developed. It\nis complained, however, that there are certain directions in which this\napparatus of motives works but imperfectly. While it is admitted that\nmen are duly prompted by it to bodily sustenance, to the obtainment\nof clothing and shelter, to marriage and the care of offspring, and\nto the establishment of the more important industrial and commercial\nagencies; it is argued that there are many desiderata, as pure air,\n{237} more knowledge, good water, safe travelling, and so forth,\nwhich it does not duly achieve. And these short-comings being assumed\npermanent, it is urged that some supplementary means must be employed.\nIt is therefore proposed that out of the mass of men a certain number,\nconstituting the legislature, shall be instructed to attain these\nvarious objects. The legislators thus instructed (all characterized, on\nthe average, by the same defects in this apparatus of motives as men in\ngeneral), being unable personally to fulfil their tasks, must fulfil\nthem by deputy\u2014must appoint commissions, boards, councils, and staffs\nof officers; and must construct their agencies of this same defective\nhumanity that acts so ill. Why now should this system of complex\ndeputation succeed where the system of simple deputation does not? The\nindustrial, commercial, and philanthropic agencies, which citizens\nform spontaneously, are directly deputed agencies; these governmental\nagencies made by electing legislators who appoint officers, are\nindirectly deputed ones. And it is hoped that, by this process of\ndouble deputation, things may be achieved which the process of single\ndeputation will not achieve. What is the rationale of this hope? Is it\nthat legislators, and their employ\u00e9s, are made to feel more intensely\nthan the rest these evils they are to remedy, these wants they are to\nsatisfy? Hardly; for by position they are mostly relieved from such\nevils and wants. Is it, then, that they are to have the primary motive\nreplaced by a secondary motive\u2014the fear of public displeasure, and\nultimate removal from office? Why scarcely; for the minor benefits\nwhich citizens will not organize to secure _directly_, they will not\norganize to secure _indirectly_, by turning out inefficient servants:\nespecially if they cannot readily get efficient ones. Is it, then, that\nthese State-agents are to do from a sense of duty, what they would\nnot do from any other motive? Evidently this is the only possibility\nremaining. The proposition on which the {238} advocates of much\ngovernment have to fall back, is, that things which the people will\nnot unite to effect for personal benefit, a law-appointed portion of\nthem will unite to effect for the benefit of the rest. Public men\nand functionaries love their neighbours better than themselves! The\nphilanthropy of statesmen is stronger than the selfishness of citizens!\n\nNo wonder, then, that every day adds to the list of legislative\nmiscarriages. If colliery explosions increase, notwithstanding\nthe appointment of coal-mine inspectors, why it is but a natural\nsequence to these false methods. If Sunderland shipowners complain\nthat, as far as tried, \u201cthe Mercantile Marine Act has proved a total\nfailure;\u201d and if, meanwhile, the other class affected by it\u2014the\nsailors\u2014show their disapprobation by extensive strikes; why it does\nbut exemplify the folly of trusting a theorising benevolence rather\nthan an experienced self-interest. On all sides we may expect such\nfacts; and on all sides we find them. Government, turning engineer,\nappoints its lieutenant, the Sewers\u2019 Commission, to drain London.\nPresently Lambeth sends deputations to say that it pays heavy rates,\nand gets no benefit. Tired of waiting, Bethnal-green calls meetings\nto consider \u201cthe most effectual means of extending the drainage of\nthe district.\u201d From Wandsworth come complainants, who threaten to\npay no more until something is done. Camberwell proposes to raise\na subscription and do the work itself. Meanwhile, no progress is\nmade towards the purification of the Thames; the weekly returns show\nan increasing rate of mortality; in Parliament, the friends of the\nCommission have nothing save good intentions to urge in mitigation of\ncensure; and, at length, despairing ministers gladly seize an excuse\nfor quietly shelving the Commission and its plans altogether.[27]\nAs architectural {239} surveyor, the State has scarcely succeeded\nbetter than as engineer; witness the Metropolitan Buildings\u2019 Act. New\nhouses still tumble down from time to time. A few months since two\nfell at Bayswater, and one more recently near the Pentonville Prison:\nall notwithstanding prescribed thicknesses, and hoop-iron bond, and\ninspectors. It never struck those who provided these delusive sureties,\nthat it was possible to build walls without bonding the two surfaces\ntogether, so that the inner layer might be removed after the surveyor\u2019s\napproval. Nor did they foresee that, in dictating a larger _quantity_\nof bricks than experience proved absolutely needful, they were simply\ninsuring a slow deterioration of _quality_ to an equivalent extent.[28]\nThe government guarantee for safe passenger ships answers no better\nthan its guarantee for safe houses. Though the burning of the _Amazon_\narose from either bad construction or bad stowage, she had received\nthe Admiralty certificate before sailing. Notwithstanding official\napproval, the _Adelaide_ was found, on her first voyage, to steer ill,\nto have useless pumps, ports that let floods of water into the cabins,\nand coals so near the furnaces that they twice caught fire. The _W.\nS. Lindsay_, which turned out unfit for sailing, had been passed by\nthe government agent; and, but for the owner, might have gone to sea\nat a great risk of life. The _Melbourne_\u2014originally a State-built\nship\u2014which took twenty-four days to reach Lisbon, and then needed to\nbe docked to undergo a thorough repair, had been duly inspected. And\nlastly, the notorious _Australian_, before her third futile attempt\nto proceed on her {240} voyage, had, her owners tell us, received\n\u201cthe full approbation of the government inspector.\u201d Neither does the\nlike supervision give security to land-travelling. The iron bridge\nat Chester, which, breaking, precipitated a train into the Dee, had\npassed under the official eye. Inspection did not prevent a column\non the South-Eastern from being so placed as to kill a man who put\nhis head out of the carriage window. The locomotive that burst at\nBrighton lately, did so notwithstanding a State-approval given but ten\ndays previously. And\u2014to look at the facts in the gross\u2014this system of\nsupervision has not prevented the increase of railway accidents; which,\nbe it remembered, has arisen _since_ the system was commenced.\n\n [27] So complete is the failure of this and other sanitary bodies,\n that, at the present moment (March, 1854) a number of philanthropic\n gentlemen are voluntarily organizing a \u201cHealth Fund for London,\u201d\n with the view of meeting the threatened invasion of the Cholera;\n and the plea for this _purely private enterprise_, is, that the\n Local Boards of Health and Boards of Guardians are inoperative, from\n \u201c_ignorance_, 1st, _of the extent of the danger_; 2nd, _of the means\n which experience has discovered for meeting it; and_ 3rd, _of the\n comparative security which those means may produce_.\u201d\n\n [28] The _Builder_ remarks, that \u201cthe removal of the brick-duties\n has not yet produced that improvement in the make of bricks which we\n ought to find, .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. but as bad bricks can be obtained for less\n than good bricks, so long as houses built of the former will sell\n as readily as if the better had been used, no improvement is to be\n expected.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell; let the State fail. It can but do its best. If it succeed, so\nmuch the better: if it do not, where is the harm? Surely it is wiser\nto act, and take the chance of success, than to do nothing.\u201d To this\nplea the rejoinder is that, unfortunately, the results of legislative\nintervention are not only negatively bad, but often positively so.\nActs of Parliament do not simply fail; they frequently make worse. The\nfamiliar truth that persecution aids rather than hinders proscribed\ndoctrines\u2014a truth lately afresh illustrated by the forbidden work of\nGervinus\u2014is a part of the general truth that legislation often does\nindirectly, the reverse of that which it directly aims to do. Thus has\nit been with the Metropolitan Buildings\u2019 Act. As was lately agreed\nunanimously by the delegates from all the parishes in London, and as\nwas stated by them to Sir William Molesworth, this act \u201chas encouraged\nbad building, and has been the means of covering the suburbs of the\nmetropolis with thousands of wretched hovels, which are a disgrace to\na civilized country.\u201d Thus, also, has it been in provincial towns. The\nNottingham Inclosure Act of 1845, by prescribing the structure of the\nhouses to be built, and the extent of yard or garden to be allotted\nto each, has rendered it impossible to build working-class dwellings\nat such moderate {241} rents as to compete with existing ones. It is\nestimated that, as a consequence, 10,000 of the population are debarred\nfrom the new homes they would otherwise have, and are forced to live\ncrowded together in miserable places unfit for human habitation; and\nso, in its anxiety to insure healthy accommodation for artisans, the\nlaw has entailed on them still worse accommodation than before. Thus,\ntoo, has it been with the Passengers\u2019 Act. The terrible fevers which\narose in the Australian emigrant ships a few months since, causing in\nthe _Bourneuf_ 83 deaths, in the _Wanota_ 39 deaths, in the _Marco\nPolo_ 53 deaths, and in the _Ticonderoga_ 104 deaths, arose in vessels\nsent out by the government; and arose _in consequence_ of the close\npacking which the Passengers\u2019 Act authorizes.[29] Thus, moreover, has\nit been with the safeguards provided by the Mercantile Marine Act. The\nexaminations devised for insuring the efficiency of captains, have\nhad the effect of certifying the superficially-clever and unpractised\nmen, and, as we are told by a shipowner, rejecting many of the\nlong-tried and most trustworthy: the general result being that _the\nratio of shipwrecks has increased_. Thus also has it happened with\nBoards of Health, which have, in sundry cases, exacerbated the evils\nto be removed; as, for instance, at Croydon, where, according to the\nofficial report, the measures of the sanitary authorities produced an\nepidemic, which attacked 1600 people and killed 70. Thus again has it\nbeen with the Joint Stock Companies Registration Act. As was shown\nby Mr. James Wilson, in his late motion for a select committee on\nlife-assurance associations, this measure, passed in 1844 to guard the\npublic against bubble schemes, actually facilitated the rascalities\nof 1845 and subsequent years. The legislative sanction, devised as\na guarantee of genuineness, and supposed by the people to be {242}\nsuch, clever adventurers have without difficulty obtained for the most\nworthless projects. Having obtained it, an amount of public confidence\nhas followed which they could never otherwise have gained. In this way\nliterally hundreds of sham enterprises that would not else have seen\nthe light, have been fostered into being; and thousands of families\nhave been ruined who would never have been so but for legislative\nefforts to make them more secure.\n\n [29] Against which close packing, by the way, _a private mercantile\n body_\u2014the Liverpool Shipowners\u2019 Association\u2014unavailingly protested when\n the Act was before Parliament.\n\nMoreover, when these topical remedies applied by statesmen do not\nexacerbate the evils they were meant to cure, they constantly induce\ncollateral evils; and these often graver than the original ones. It\nis the vice of this empirical school of politicians that they never\nlook beyond proximate causes and immediate effects. In common with the\nuneducated masses they habitually regard each phenomenon as involving\nbut one antecedent and one consequent. They do not bear in mind that\neach phenomenon is a link in an infinite series\u2014is the result of\nmyriads of preceding phenomena, and will have a share in producing\nmyriads of succeeding ones. Hence they overlook the fact that, in\ndisturbing any natural chain of sequences, they are not only modifying\nthe result next in succession, but all the future results into which\nthis will enter as a part cause. The serial genesis of phenomena,\nand the interaction of each series upon every other series, produces\na complexity utterly beyond human grasp. Even in the simplest cases\nthis is so. A servant who puts coals on the fire sees but few effects\nfrom the burning of a lump. The man of science, however, knows that\nthere are very many effects. He knows that the combustion establishes\nnumerous atmospheric currents, and through them moves thousands of\ncubic feet of air inside the house and out. He knows that the heat\ndiffused causes expansions and subsequent contractions of all bodies\nwithin its range. He knows that the persons warmed are affected in\ntheir rate of respiration and their waste of tissue; and that these\nphysiological {243} changes must have various secondary results. He\nknows that, could he trace to their ramified consequences all the\nforces disengaged, mechanical, chemical, thermal, electric\u2014could he\nenumerate all the subsequent effects of the evaporation caused, the\ngases generated, the light evolved, the heat radiated; a volume would\nscarcely suffice to enter them. If, now, from a simple inorganic change\nsuch numerous and complex results arise, how infinitely multiplied and\ninvolved must be the ultimate consequences of any force brought to bear\nupon society. Wonderfully constructed as it is\u2014mutually dependent as\nare its members for the satisfaction of their wants\u2014affected as each\nunit of it is by his fellows, not only as to his safety and prosperity,\nbut in his health, his temper, his culture; the social organism cannot\nbe dealt with in any one part, without all other parts being influenced\nin ways which cannot be foreseen. You put a duty on paper, and\nby-and-by find that, through the medium of the jacquard-cards employed,\nyou have inadvertently taxed figured silk, sometimes to the extent of\nseveral shillings per piece. On removing the impost from bricks, you\ndiscover that its existence had increased the dangers of mining, by\npreventing shafts from being lined and workings from being tunnelled.\nBy the excise on soap, you have, it turns out, greatly encouraged the\nuse of caustic washing-powders; and so have unintentionally entailed\nan immense destruction of clothes. In every case you perceive, on\ncareful inquiry, that besides acting upon that which you sought to act\nupon, you have acted upon many other things, and each of these again\non many others; and so have propagated a multitude of changes in all\ndirections. We need feel no surprise, then, that in their efforts to\ncure specific evils, legislators have continually caused collateral\nevils they never looked for. No Carlyle\u2019s wisest man, nor any body of\nsuch, could avoid causing them. Though their production is explicable\nenough after it has occurred, it is never anticipated. {244} When,\nunder the New Poor-law, provision was made for the accommodation of\nvagrants in the Union-houses, it was hardly expected that a body of\ntramps would be thereby called into existence, who would spend their\ntime in walking from Union to Union throughout the kingdom. It was\nlittle thought by those who in past generations assigned parish-pay\nfor the maintenance of illegitimate children, that, as a result, a\nfamily of such would by-and-by be considered a small fortune, and the\nmother of them a desirable wife; nor did the same statesmen see that,\nby the law of settlement, they were organizing a disastrous inequality\nof wages in different districts, and entailing a system of clearing\naway cottages, which would result in the crowding of bedrooms, and in\na consequent moral and physical deterioration. The English tonnage law\nwas enacted simply with a view to regulate the mode of measurement.\nIts framers overlooked the fact that they were practically providing\n\u201cfor the effectual and compulsory construction of bad ships;\u201d and\nthat \u201cto cheat the law, that is, to build a tolerable ship in spite\nof it, was the highest achievement left to an English builder.\u201d[30]\nGreater commercial security was alone aimed at by the partnership\nlaw. We now find, however, that the unlimited liability it insists\nupon is a serious hindrance to progress; it practically forbids the\nassociation of small capitalists; it is found a great obstacle to the\nbuilding of improved dwellings for the people; it prevents a better\nrelationship between artisans and employers; and by withholding from\nthe working-classes good investments for their savings, it checks\nthe growth of provident habits and encourages drunkenness. Thus on\nall sides are well-meant measures producing unforeseen mischiefs\u2014a\nlicensing law that promotes the adulteration of beer; a ticket-of-leave\nsystem that encourages men to commit crime; a {245} police regulation\nthat forces street-huxters into the workhouse. And then, in addition\nto the obvious and proximate evils, come the remote and less\ndistinguishable ones, which, could we estimate their accumulated\nresult, we should probably find even more serious.\n\n [30] Lecture before the Royal Institution, by J. Scott Russell, Esq.,\n \u201cOn Wave-line Ships and Yachts,\u201d Feb. 6, 1852.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut the thing to be discussed is, not so much whether, by any amount of\nintelligence, it is _possible_ for a government to work out the various\nends consigned to it, as whether its fulfilment of them is _probable_.\nIt is less a question of _can_ than a question of _will_. Granting\nthe absolute competence of the State, let us consider what hope there\nis of getting from it satisfactory performance. Let us look at the\nmoving force by which the legislative machine is worked, and then\ninquire whether this force is thus employed as economically as it would\notherwise be.\n\nManifestly, as desire of some kind is the invariable stimulus to action\nin the individual, every social agency, of what nature soever, must\nhave some aggregate of desires for its motive power. Men in their\ncollective capacity can exhibit no result but what has its origin in\nsome appetite, feeling, or taste common among them. Did not they like\nmeat, there could be no cattle-graziers, no Smithfield, no distributing\norganization of butchers. Operas, Philharmonic Societies, song-books,\nand street organ-boys, have all been called into being by our love\nof music. Look through the trades\u2019 directory; take up a guide to the\nLondon sights; read the index of Bradshaw\u2019s time-tables, the reports\nof the learned societies, or the advertisements of new books; and\nyou see in the publication itself, and in the things it describes,\nso many products of human activities, stimulated by human desires.\nUnder this stimulus grow up agencies alike the most gigantic and the\nmost insignificant, the most complicated and the most simple\u2014agencies\nfor national defence and for the sweeping of crossings; for the daily\ndistribution of letters, and for the collection of bits of coal out\n{246} of the Thames mud\u2014agencies that subserve all ends, from the\npreaching of Christianity to the protection of ill-treated animals;\nfrom the production of bread for a nation to the supply of groundsel\nfor caged singing-birds. The accumulated desires of individuals being,\nthen, the moving power by which every social agency is worked, the\nquestion to be considered is\u2014Which is the most economical kind of\nagency? The agency having no power in itself, but being merely an\ninstrument, our inquiry must be for the most efficient instrument\u2014the\ninstrument that costs least, and wastes the smallest amount of the\nmoving power\u2014the instrument least liable to get out of order, and most\nreadily put right again when it goes wrong. Of the two kinds of social\nmechanism exemplified above, the spontaneous and the governmental,\nwhich is the best?\n\nFrom the form of this question will be readily foreseen the intended\nanswer\u2014that is the best mechanism which contains the fewest parts. The\ncommon saying\u2014\u201cWhat you wish well done you must do yourself,\u201d embodies\na truth, equally applicable to political life as to private life. The\nexperience that farming by bailiff entails loss, while tenant-farming\npays, is an experience still better illustrated in national history\nthan in a landlord\u2019s account books. This transference of power from\nconstituencies to members of parliament, from these to the executive,\nfrom the executive to a board, from the board to inspectors, and from\ninspectors through their subs down to the actual workers\u2014this operating\nthrough a series of levers, each, of which absorbs in friction\nand inertia part of the moving force; is as bad, in virtue of its\ncomplexity, as the direct employment by society of individuals, private\ncompanies, and spontaneously-formed institutions, is good in virtue of\nits simplicity. Fully to appreciate the contrast, we must compare in\ndetail the working of the two systems.\n\nOfficialism is habitually slow. When non-governmental agencies are\ndilatory, the public has its remedy: it ceases {247} to employ them\nand soon finds quicker ones. Under this discipline all private bodies\nare taught promptness. But for delays in State-departments there is\nno such easy cure. Life-long Chancery suits must be patiently borne;\nMuseum-catalogues must be wearily waited for. While, by the people\nthemselves, a Crystal Palace is designed, erected, and filled, in the\ncourse of a few months, the legislature takes twenty years to build\nitself a new house. While, by private persons, the debates are daily\nprinted and dispersed over the kingdom within a few hours of their\nutterance, the Board of Trade tables are regularly published a month,\nand sometimes more, after date. And so throughout. Here is a Board of\nHealth which, since 1849, has been about to close the metropolitan\ngraveyards, but has not done it yet; and which has so long dawdled over\nprojects for cemeteries, that the London Necropolis Company has taken\nthe matter out of its hands. Here is a patentee who has had fourteen\nyears\u2019 correspondence with the Horse Guards, before getting a definite\nanswer respecting the use of his improved boot for the Army. Here is a\nPlymouth port-admiral who delays sending out to look for the missing\nboats of the Amazon until ten days after the wreck.\n\nAgain, officialism is stupid. Under the natural course of things each\ncitizen tends towards his fittest function. Those who are competent\nto the kind of work they undertake, succeed, and, in the average of\ncases, are advanced in proportion to their efficiency; while the\nincompetent, society soon finds out, ceases to employ, forces to\ntry something easier, and eventually turns to use. But it is quite\notherwise in State-organizations. Here, as every one knows, birth, age,\nback-stairs intrigue, and sycophancy, determine the selections rather\nthan merit. The \u201cfool of the family\u201d readily finds a place in the\nChurch, if \u201cthe family\u201d have good connexions. A youth too ill-educated\nfor any profession, does very well for an officer in the Army. Grey\n{248} hair, or a title, is a far better guarantee of naval promotion\nthan genius is. Nay, indeed, the man of capacity often finds that, in\ngovernment offices, superiority is a hindrance\u2014that his chiefs hate\nto be pestered with his proposed improvements, and are offended by\nhis implied criticisms. Not only, therefore, is legislative machinery\ncomplex, but it is made of inferior materials. Hence the blunders we\ndaily read of\u2014the supplying to the dockyards from the royal forests\nof timber unfit for use; the administration of relief during the\nIrish famine in such a manner as to draw labourers from the field,\nand diminish the subsequent harvest by one-fourth[31]; the filing\nof patents at three different offices and keeping an index at none.\nEverywhere does this bungling show itself, from the elaborate failure\nof House of Commons ventilation down to the publication of _The London\nGazette_, which invariably comes out wrongly folded.\n\nA further characteristic of officialism is its extravagance. In its\nchief departments, Army, Navy, and Church, it employs far more officers\nthan are needful, and pays some of the useless ones exorbitantly. The\nwork done by the Sewers Commission has cost, as Sir B. Hall tells\nus, from 300 to 400 per cent, over the contemplated outlay; while\nthe management charges have reached 35, 40, and 45 per cent. on the\nexpenditure. The trustees of Ramsgate Harbour\u2014a harbour, by the way,\nthat has taken a century to complete\u2014are spending 18,000_l._ a year\nin doing what 5000_l._ has been proved sufficient for. The Board of\nHealth is causing new surveys to be made of all the towns under its\ncontrol\u2014a proceeding which, as Mr. Stephenson states, and as every tyro\nin engineering knows, is, for drainage purposes, a wholly needless\nexpense. These public agencies are subject to no such influence as\nthat which obliges private enterprise to be economical. Traders and\nmercantile bodies succeed by serving society cheaply. Such of them\n{249} as cannot do this are continually supplanted by those who can.\nThey cannot saddle the nation with the results of their extravagance,\nand so are prevented from being extravagant. On works that are to\nreturn a profit it does not answer to spend 48 per cent. of the capital\nin superintendence, as in the engineering department of the Indian\nGovernment; and Indian railway companies, knowing this, manage to\nkeep their superintendence charges within 8 per cent. A shopkeeper\nleaves out of his accounts no item analogous to that 6,000,000_l._ of\nits revenues, which Parliament allows to be deducted on the way to\nthe Exchequer. Walk through a manufactory, and you see that the stern\nalternatives, carefulness or ruin, dictate the saving of every penny;\nvisit one of the national dockyards, and the comments you make on any\nglaring wastefulness are carelessly met by the slang phrase\u2014\u201cNunky\npays.\u201d\n\n [31] See Evidence of Major Larcom.\n\nThe unadaptiveness of officialism is another of its vices. Unlike\nprivate enterprise which quickly modifies its actions to meet\nemergencies\u2014unlike the shopkeeper who promptly finds the wherewith\nto satisfy a sudden demand\u2014unlike the railway company which doubles\nits trains to carry a special influx of passengers; the law-made\ninstrumentality lumbers on under all varieties of circumstances through\nits ordained routine at its habitual rate. By its very nature it is\nfitted only for average requirements, and inevitably fails under\nunusual requirements. You cannot step into the street without having\nthe contrast thrust upon you. Is it summer? You see the water-carts\ngoing their prescribed rounds with scarcely any regard to the needs\nof the weather\u2014to-day sprinkling afresh the already moist roads;\nto-morrow bestowing their showers with no greater liberality upon\nroads cloudy with dust. Is it winter? You see the scavengers do not\nvary in number and activity according to the quantity of mud; and if\nthere comes a heavy fall of snow, you find the thoroughfares remaining\nfor nearly a week in a scarcely passable state, without an effort\nbeing {250} made, even in the heart of London, to meet the exigency.\nThe late snow-storm, indeed, supplied a neat antithesis between the\ntwo orders of agencies in the effects it respectively produced on\nomnibuses and cabs. Not being under a law-fixed tariff, the omnibuses\nput on extra horses and raised their fares. The cabs on the contrary,\nbeing limited in their charges by an Act of Parliament which, with\nthe usual shortsightedness, never contemplated such a contingency as\nthis, declined to ply, deserted the stands and the stations, left\nluckless travellers to stumble home with their luggage as best they\nmight, and so became useless at the very time of all others when they\nwere most wanted! Not only by its unsusceptibility of adjustment does\nofficialism entail serious inconveniences, but it likewise entails\ngreat injustices. In this case of cabs for example, it has resulted\nsince the late change of law, that old cabs, which were before saleable\nat 10_l._ and 12_l._ each, are now unsaleable and have to be broken\nup; and thus legislation has robbed cab-proprietors of part of their\ncapital. Again, the recently-passed Smoke-Bill for London, which\napplies only within certain prescribed limits, has the effect of taxing\none manufacturer while leaving untaxed his competitor working within a\nquarter of a mile; and so, as we are credibly informed, gives one an\nadvantage of 1500_l._ a year over another. These typify the infinity\nof wrongs, varying in degrees of hardship, which legal regulations\nnecessarily involve. Society, a living growing organism, placed within\napparatuses of dead, rigid, mechanical formulas, cannot fail to be\nhampered and pinched. The only agencies which can efficiently serve it,\nare those through which its pulsations hourly flow, and which change as\nit changes.\n\nHow invariably officialism becomes corrupt every one knows. Exposed to\nno such antiseptic as free competition\u2014not dependent for existence,\nas private unendowed organizations are, on the maintenance of a\nvigorous {251} vitality; all law-made agencies fall into an inert,\nover-fed state, from which to disease is a short step. Salaries flow\nin irrespective of the activity with which duty is performed; continue\nafter duty wholly ceases; become rich prizes for the idle well born;\nand prompt to perjury, to bribery, to simony. East India directors are\nelected not for any administrative capacity they have; but they buy\nvotes by promised patronage\u2014a patronage alike asked and given in utter\ndisregard of the welfare of a hundred millions of people. Registrars\nof wills not only get many thousands a year each for doing work which\ntheir miserably paid deputies leave half done; but they, in some cases,\ndefraud the revenue, and that after repeated reprimands. Dockyard\npromotion is the result not of efficient services, but of political\nfavouritism. That they may continue to hold rich livings, clergymen\npreach what they do not believe; bishops make false returns of their\nrevenues; and at their elections to fellowships, well-to-do priests\nseverally make oath that they are _pauper_, _pius et doctus_. From\nthe local inspector whose eyes are shut to an abuse by a contractor\u2019s\npresent, up to the prime minister who finds lucrative berths for his\nrelations, this venality is daily illustrated; and that in spite of\npublic reprobation and perpetual attempts to prevent it. As we once\nheard said by a State-official of twenty-five years\u2019 standing\u2014\u201cWherever\nthere is government there is villainy.\u201d It is the inevitable result of\ndestroying the direct connexion between the profit obtained and the\nwork performed. No incompetent person hopes, by offering a _douceur_\nin the _Times_ to get a permanent place in a mercantile office. But\nwhere, as under government, there is no employer\u2019s self-interest to\nforbid\u2014where the appointment is made by some one on whom inefficiency\nentails no loss; there a _douceur_ is operative. In hospitals, in\npublic charities, in endowed schools, in all social agencies in which\nduty done and income gained do not go hand in hand, the like corruption\nis found; and is great in {252} proportion as the dependence of income\nupon duty is remote. In State-organizations, therefore, corruption is\nunavoidable. In trading-organizations it rarely makes its appearance;\nand when it does, the instinct of self-preservation soon provides a\nremedy.\n\nTo all which broad contrasts add this, that while private bodies are\nenterprising and progressive, public bodies are unchanging, and,\nindeed, obstructive. That officialism should be inventive nobody\nexpects. That it should go out of its easy mechanical routine to\nintroduce improvements, and this at a considerable expense of thought\nand application, without the prospect of profit, is not to be supposed.\nBut it is not simply stationary; it resists every amendment either\nin itself or in anything with which it deals. Until now that County\nCourts are taking away their practice, all agents of the law have\ndoggedly opposed law-reform. The universities have maintained an\nold _curriculum_ for centuries after it ceased to be fit; and are\nnow struggling to prevent a threatened reconstruction. Every postal\nimprovement has been vehemently protested against by the postal\nauthorities. Mr. Whiston can say how pertinacious is the conservatism\nof Church grammar-schools. Not even the gravest consequences in\nview preclude official resistance: witness the fact that though, as\nalready mentioned, Professor Barlow reported in 1820, of the Admiralty\ncompasses then in store, that \u201cat least one-half were mere lumber,\u201d yet\nnotwithstanding the constant risk of shipwrecks thence arising, \u201cvery\nlittle amelioration in this state of things appears to have taken place\nuntil 1838 to 1840.\u201d[32] Nor is official obstructiveness to be readily\noverborne even by a powerful public opinion: witness the fact that\nthough, for generations, nine-tenths of the nation have disapproved\nthis ecclesiastical system which pampers the drones and starves the\nworkers, and though commissions have been appointed to rectify it, it\nstill remains substantially as it {253} was: witness again the fact\nthat though, since 1818, there have been a score attempts to rectify\nthe scandalous maladministration of Charitable Trusts\u2014though ten times\nin ten successive years, remedial measures have been brought before\nParliament\u2014the abuses still continue in all their grossness. Not only\ndo these legal instrumentalities resist reforms in themselves, but they\nhinder reforms in other things. In defending their vested interests the\nclergy delay the closing of town burial-grounds. As Mr. Lindsay can\nshow, government emigration-agents are checking the use of iron for\nsailing-vessels. Excise officers prevent improvements in the processes\nthey have to overlook. That organic conservatism which is visible in\nthe daily conduct of all men, is an obstacle which in private life\nself-interest slowly overcomes. The prospect of profit does, in the\nend, teach farmers that deep draining is good; though it takes long\nto do this. Manufacturers do, ultimately, learn the most economical\nspeed at which to work their steam-engines; though precedent has long\nmisled them. But in the public service, where there is no self-interest\nto overcome it, this conservatism exerts its full force; and produces\nresults alike disastrous and absurd. For generations after book-keeping\nhad become universal, the Exchequer accounts were kept by notches cut\non sticks. In the estimates for the current year appears the item,\n\u201cTrimming the oil-lamps at the Horse-Guards.\u201d\n\n [32] \u201cRudimentary Magnetism,\u201d by Sir W. Snow Harris. Part III. p. 145.\n\nBetween these law-made agencies and the spontaneously formed ones,\nwho then can hesitate? The one class are slow, stupid, extravagant,\nunadaptive, corrupt, and obstructive: can any point out in the other,\nvices that balance these? It is true that trade has its dishonesties,\nspeculation its follies. These are evils inevitably entailed by the\nexisting imperfections of humanity. It is equally true, however, that\nthese imperfections of humanity are shared by State-functionaries;\nand that being unchecked in them by the same stern discipline, they\ngrow to far worse results. {254} Given a race of men having a certain\nproclivity to misconduct and the question is, whether a society of\nthese men shall be so organized that ill-conduct directly brings\npunishment, or whether it shall be so organized that punishment is but\nremotely contingent on ill-conduct? Which will be the most healthful\ncommunity\u2014that in which agents who perform their functions badly,\nimmediately suffer by the withdrawal of public patronage; or that in\nwhich such agents can be made to suffer only through an apparatus\nof meetings, petitions, polling booths, parliamentary divisions,\ncabinet-councils, and red-tape documents? Is it not an absurdly utopian\nhope that men will behave better when correction is far removed and\nuncertain than when it is near at hand and inevitable? Yet this is the\nhope which most political schemers unconsciously cherish. Listen to\ntheir plans, and you find that just what they propose to have done,\nthey assume the appointed agents will do. That functionaries are\ntrustworthy is their first postulate. Doubtless could good officers be\nensured, much might be said for officialism; just as despotism would\nhave its advantages could we ensure a good despot.\n\nIf, however, we would duly appreciate the contrast between the\nartificial modes and the natural modes of achieving social desiderata,\nwe must look not only at the vices of the one but at the virtues of the\nother. These are many and important. Consider first how immediately\nevery private enterprise is dependent on the need for it; and how\nimpossible it is for it to continue if there be no need. Daily are new\ntrades and new companies established. If they subserve some existing\npublic want, they take root and grow. If they do not, they die of\ninanition. It needs no agitation, no act of Parliament, to put them\ndown. As with all natural organizations, if there is no function for\nthem no nutriment comes to them, and they dwindle away. Moreover, not\nonly do the new agencies disappear if they {255} are superfluous, but\nthe old ones cease to be when they have done their work. Unlike public\ninstrumentalities\u2014unlike Heralds\u2019 Offices, which are maintained for\nages after heraldry has lost all value\u2014unlike Ecclesiastial Courts,\nwhich continue to flourish for generations after they have become an\nabomination; these private instrumentalities dissolve when they become\nneedless. A widely ramified coaching-system ceases to exist as soon as\na more efficient railway-system comes into being. And not simply does\nit cease to exist, and to abstract funds, but the materials of which\nit was made are absorbed and turned to use. Coachmen, guards, and the\nrest, are employed to profit elsewhere\u2014do not continue for twenty years\na burden, like the compensated officials of some abolished department\nof the State. Consider, again, how necessarily these unordained\nagencies fit themselves to their work. It is a law of all organized\nthings that efficiency presupposes apprenticeship. Not only is it true\nthat the young merchant must begin by carrying letters to the post,\nthat the way to be a successful innkeeper is to commence as waiter\u2014not\nonly is it true that in the development of the intellect there must\ncome first the perceptions of identity and duality, next of number,\nand that without these, arithmetic, algebra, and the infinitesimal\ncalculus, remain impracticable; but it is true that there is no part\nof an organism but begins in some simple form with some insignificant\nfunction, and passes to its final stage through successive phases of\ncomplexity. Every heart is at first a mere pulsatile sac; every brain\nbegins as a slight enlargement of the spinal chord. This law equally\nextends to the social organism. An instrumentality that is to work\nwell must not be designed and suddenly put together by legislators,\nbut must grow gradually from a germ; each successive addition must be\ntried and proved good by experience before another addition is made;\nand by this tentative process only, can an efficient instrumentality be\nproduced. From a {256} trustworthy man who receives deposits of money,\ninsensibly grows up a vast banking system, with its notes, checks,\nbills, its complex transactions, and its Clearing-house. Pack-horses,\nthen waggons, then coaches, then steam-carriages on common roads, and,\nfinally, steam-carriages on roads made for them\u2014such has been the slow\ngenesis of our present means of communication. Not a trade in the\ndirectory but has formed itself an apparatus of manufacturers, brokers,\ntravellers, and retailers, in so gradual a way that no one can trace\nthe steps. And so with organizations of another order. The Zoological\nGardens began as the private collection of a few naturalists. The best\nworking-class school known\u2014that at Price\u2019s factory\u2014commenced with\nhalf-a-dozen boys sitting among the candle-boxes, after hours, to teach\nthemselves writing with worn-out pens. Mark, too, that as a consequence\nof their mode of growth, these spontaneously-formed agencies expand to\nany extent required. The same stimulus which brought them into being\nmakes them send their ramifications wherever they are needed. But\nsupply does not thus readily follow demand in governmental agencies.\nAppoint a board and a staff, fix their duties, and let the apparatus\nhave a generation or two to consolidate, and you cannot get it to\nfulfil larger requirements without some act of parliament obtained only\nafter long delay and difficulty.\n\nWere there space, much more might be said upon the superiority of what\nnaturalists would call the _exogenous_ order of institutions over the\n_endogenous_ one. But, from the point of view indicated, the further\ncontrasts between their characteristics will be sufficiently visible.\n\nHence then the fact, that while the one order of means is ever failing,\nmaking worse, or producing more evils than it cures, the other order\nof means is ever succeeding, ever improving. Strong as it looks at the\noutset, State-agency perpetually disappoints every one. Puny as are its\nfirst {257} stages, private effort daily achieves results that astound\nthe world. It is not only that joint-stock companies do so much\u2014it is\nnot only that by them a whole kingdom is covered with railways in the\nsame time that it takes the Admiralty to build a hundred-gun ship; but\nit is that public instrumentalities are outdone even by individuals.\nThe often quoted contrast between the Academy whose forty members took\nfifty-six years to compile the French Dictionary, while Dr. Johnson\nalone compiled the English one in eight\u2014a contrast still marked enough\nafter making due set-off for the difference in the works\u2014is by no\nmeans without parallel. That great sanitary desideratum\u2014the bringing\nof the New River to London\u2014which the wealthiest corporation in the\nworld attempted and failed, Sir Hugh Myddleton achieved single-handed.\nThe first canal in England\u2014a work of which government might have\nbeen thought the fit projector, and the only competent executor\u2014was\nundertaken and finished as the private speculation of one man\u2014the\nDuke of Bridgewater. By his own unaided exertions, William Smith\ncompleted that great achievement, the geological map of Great Britain;\nmeanwhile, the Ordnance Survey\u2014a very accurate and elaborate one, it\nis true\u2014has already occupied a large staff for some two generations,\nand will not be completed before the lapse of another. Howard and\nthe prisons of Europe; Bianconi and Irish travelling; Waghorn and\nthe Overland route; Dargan and the Dublin Exhibition\u2014do not these\nsuggest startling contrasts? While private gentlemen like Mr. Denison,\nbuild model lodging-houses in which the deaths are greatly below the\naverage, the State builds barracks in which the deaths are greatly\nabove the average, even of the much-pitied town populations: barracks\nwhich, though filled with picked men under medical supervision, show\nan annual mortality per thousand of 13\u00b76, 17\u00b79 and even 20\u00b74; though\namong civilians of the same age in the same places, the mortality\n{258} per thousand is but 11\u00b79.[33] While the State has laid out\nlarge sums at Parkhurst in the effort to reform juvenile criminals,\nwho are _not_ reformed, Mr. Ellis takes fifteen of the worst young\nthieves in London\u2014thieves considered by the police irreclaimable\u2014and\nreforms them all. Side by side with the Emigration Board, under whose\nmanagement hundreds die of fever from close packing, and under whose\nlicence sail vessels which, like the _Washington_, are the homes of\nfraud, brutality, tyranny, and obscenity, stands Mrs. Chisholm\u2019s Family\nColonisation Loan Society, which does not provide worse accommodation\nthan ever before but much better; which does not demoralize by\npromiscuous crowding but improves by mild discipline; which does not\npauperize by charity but encourages providence; which does not increase\nour taxes, but is self-supporting. Here are lessons for the lovers of\nlegislation. The State outdone by a working shoemaker! The State beaten\nby a woman!\n\nStronger still becomes this contrast between the results of public\naction and private action, when we remember that the one is constantly\neked out by the other, even in doing the things unavoidably left to\nit. Passing over military and naval departments, in which much is done\nby contractors and not by men receiving government pay,\u2014passing over\nthe Church, which is constantly extended not by law but by voluntary\neffort\u2014passing over the Universities, where the efficient teaching is\ngiven not by the appointed officers but by private tutors; let us look\nat the mode in which our judicial system is worked. Lawyers perpetually\ntell us that codification is impossible; and some are simple enough\nto believe them. Merely remarking, in passing, that what government\nand all its employ\u00e9s cannot do for the Acts of Parliament in general,\nwas done for the 1500 Customs acts in 1825 by the energy of one\nman\u2014Mr. Deacon Hume\u2014let us see {259} how the absence of a digested\nsystem of law is made good. In preparing themselves for the bar, and\nfinally the bench, law-students, by years of research, have to gain\nan acquaintance with this vast mass of unorganized legislation; and\nthat organization which it is held impossible for the State to effect,\nit is held possible (sly sarcasm on the State!) for each student to\neffect for himself. Every judge can privately codify, though \u201cunited\nwisdom\u201d cannot. But how is each judge enabled to codify? By the\nprivate enterprise of men who have prepared the way for him; by the\npartial codifications of Blackstone, Coke, and others; by the digests\nof Partnership Law, Bankruptcy Law, Law of Patents, Laws affecting\nWomen, and the rest that daily issue from the press; by abstracts of\ncases, and volumes of reports\u2014every one of them unofficial products.\nSweep away all these fractional codifications made by individuals, and\nthe State would be in utter ignorance of its own laws! Had not the\nbunglings of legislators been made good by private enterprise, the\nadministration of justice would have been impossible!\n\n [33] See \u201cStatistical Reports on the Sickness, Mortality, and\n Invaliding amongst the Troops.\u201d 1853.\n\nWhere, then, is the warrant for the constantly-proposed extensions of\nlegislative action? If, as we have seen in a large class of cases,\ngovernment measures do not remedy the evils they aim at; if, in another\nlarge class, they make these evils worse instead of remedying them;\nand if, in a third large class, while curing some evils they entail\nothers, and often greater ones\u2014if, as we lately saw, public action is\ncontinually outdone in efficiency by private action; and if, as just\nshown, private action is obliged to make up for the shortcomings of\npublic action, even in fulfilling the vital functions of the State;\nwhat reason is there for wishing more public administrations? The\nadvocates of such may claim credit for philanthropy, but not for\nwisdom; unless wisdom is shown by disregarding experience.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\u201cMuch of this argument is beside the question,\u201d will {260} rejoin our\nopponents. \u201cThe true point at issue is, not whether individuals and\ncompanies outdo the State when they come in competition with it, but\nwhether there are not certain social wants which the State alone can\nsatisfy. Admitting that private enterprise does much, and does it well,\nit is nevertheless true that we have daily thrust upon our notice many\ndesiderata which it has not achieved, and is not achieving. In these\ncases its incompetency is obvious; and in these cases, therefore, it\nbehoves the State to make up for its deficiencies: doing this, if not\nwell, yet as well as it can.\u201d\n\nNot to fall back upon the many experiences already quoted, showing\nthat the State is likely to do more harm than good in attempting this;\nnor to dwell upon the fact that, in most of the alleged cases, the\napparent insufficiency of private enterprise is a _result_ of previous\nState-interferences, as may be conclusively shown; let us deal with\nthe proposition on its own terms. Though there would have been no need\nfor a Mercantile Marine Act to prevent the unseaworthiness of ships\nand the ill-treatment of sailors, had there been no Navigation Laws to\nproduce these; and though were all like cases of evils and shortcomings\ndirectly or indirectly produced by law, taken out of the category,\nthere would probably remain but small basis for the plea above put; yet\nlet it be granted that, every artificial obstacle having been removed,\nthere would still remain many desiderata unachieved, which there was\nno seeing how spontaneous effort could achieve. Let all this, we say,\nbe granted; the propriety of legislative action may yet be rightly\nquestioned.\n\nFor the said plea involves the unwarrantable assumption that social\nagencies will continue to work only as they are now working; and will\nproduce no results but those they seem likely to produce. It is the\nhabit of this school of thinkers to make a limited human intelligence\nthe measure of phenomena which it requires omniscience to grasp. {261}\nThat which it does not see the way to, it does not believe will\ntake place. Though society has, generation after generation, been\ngrowing to developments which none foresaw, yet there is no practical\nbelief in unforeseen developments in the future. The parliamentary\ndebates constitute an elaborate balancing of probabilities, having\nfor data things as they are. Meanwhile every day adds new elements\nto things as they are, and seemingly improbable results constantly\noccur. Who, a few years ago, expected that a Leicester-square refugee\nwould shortly become Emperor of the French? Who looked for free trade\nfrom a landlords\u2019 ministry? Who dreamed that Irish over-population\nwould spontaneously cure itself, as it is now doing? So far from\nsocial changes arising in likely ways, they usually arise in ways\nwhich, to common sense, appear unlikely. A barber\u2019s shop was not a\nprobable-looking place for the germination of the cotton manufacture.\nNo one supposed that important agricultural improvements would come\nfrom a Leadenhall-street tradesman. A farmer would have been the last\nman thought of to bring to bear the screw propulsion of steam-ships.\nThe invention of a new species of architecture we should have hoped\nfrom any one rather than a gardener. Yet while the most unexpected\nchanges are daily wrought out in the strangest ways, legislation daily\nassumes that things will go just as human foresight thinks they will\ngo. Though by the trite exclamation\u2014\u201cWhat would our forefathers have\nsaid!\u201d there is a frequent acknowledgment of the fact that wonderful\nresults have been achieved in modes wholly unforeseen, yet there seems\nno belief that this will be again. Would it not be wise to admit such a\nprobability into our politics? May we not rationally infer that, as in\nthe past so in the future?\n\nThis strong faith in State-agencies is, however, accompanied by so weak\na faith in natural agencies (the two being antagonistic), that, spite\nof past experience, it will by {262} many be thought absurd to rest in\nthe conviction that existing social needs will be spontaneously met,\nthough we cannot say how they will be met. Nevertheless, illustrations\nexactly to the point are now transpiring before their eyes. Instance\nthe scarcely credible phenomenon lately witnessed in the midland\ncounties. Every one has heard of the distress of the stockingers\u2014a\nchronic evil of some generation or two\u2019s standing. Repeated petitions\nhave prayed Parliament for remedy; and legislation has made attempts,\nbut without success. The disease seemed incurable. Two or three years\nsince, however, the circular knitting machine was introduced\u2014a machine\nimmensely outstripping the old stocking-frame in productiveness, but\nwhich can make only the legs of stockings, not the feet. Doubtless, the\nLeicester and Nottingham artizans regarded this new engine with alarm,\nas likely to intensify their miseries. On the contrary, it has wholly\nremoved them. By cheapening production it has so enormously increased\nconsumption, that the old stocking-frames, which were before too many\nby half for the work to be done, are now all employed in putting feet\nto the legs which the new machines make. How insane would he have been\nthought who anticipated cure from such a cause! If from the unforeseen\nremoval of evils we turn to the unforeseen achievement of desiderata,\nwe find like cases. No one recognized in Oersted\u2019s electro-magnetic\ndiscovery the germ of a new agency for the catching of criminals and\nthe facilitation of commerce. No one expected railways to become agents\nfor the diffusion of cheap literature, as they now are. No one supposed\nwhen the Society of Arts was planning an international exhibition of\nmanufactures in Hyde Park, that the result would be a place for popular\nrecreation and culture at Sydenham.\n\nBut there is yet a deeper reply to the appeals of impatient\nphilanthropists. It is not simply that social vitality may be trusted\nby-and-by to fulfil each much-exaggerated {263} requirement in some\nquiet spontaneous way\u2014it is not simply that when thus naturally\nfulfilled it will be fulfilled efficiently, instead of being botched\nas when attempted artificially; but it is that until thus naturally\nfulfilled it ought not to be fulfilled at all. A startling paradox,\nthis, to many; but one quite justifiable, as we hope shortly to show.\n\nIt was pointed out some distance back, that the force which produces\nand sets in motion every social mechanism\u2014governmental, mercantile,\nor other\u2014is some accumulation of personal desires. As there is no\nindividual action without a desire, so, it was urged, there can be no\nsocial action without an aggregate of desires. To which there here\nremains to add, that as it is a general law of the individual that the\nintenser desires\u2014those corresponding to all-essential functions\u2014are\nsatisfied first, and if need be to the neglect of the weaker and\nless important ones; so, it must be a general law of society that\nthe chief requisites of social life\u2014those necessary to popular\nexistence and multiplication\u2014will, in the natural order of things, be\nsubserved before those of a less pressing kind. As the private man\nfirst ensures himself food; then clothing and shelter; these being\nsecured, takes a wife; and, if he can afford it, presently supplies\nhimself with carpeted rooms, and piano, and wines, hires servants and\ngives dinner parties; so, in the evolution of society, we see first a\ncombination for defence against enemies, and for the better pursuit\nof game; by-and-by come such political arrangements as are needed\nto maintain this combination; afterwards, under a demand for more\nfood, more clothes, more houses, arises division of labour; and when\nsatisfaction of the animal wants has been provided for, there slowly\ngrow up literature, science, and the arts. Is it not obvious that these\nsuccessive evolutions occur in the order of their importance? Is it not\nobvious, that, being each of them produced by an aggregate of desires,\nthey _must_ occur in the order of their importance, if it be a law of\nthe individual that the {264} strongest desires correspond to the most\nneedful actions? Is it not, indeed, obvious that the order of relative\nimportance will be more uniformly followed in social action than in\nindividual action; seeing that the personal idiosyncrasies which\ndisturb that order in the latter case are _averaged_ in the former? If\nany one does not see this, let him take up a book describing life at\nthe gold-diggings. There he will find the whole process exhibited in\nlittle. He will read that as the diggers must eat, they are compelled\nto offer such prices for food that it pays better to keep a store than\nto dig. As the store-keepers must get supplies, they give enormous sums\nfor carriage from the nearest town; and some men, quickly seeing they\ncan get rich at that, make it their business. This brings drays and\nhorses into demand; the high rates draw these from all quarters; and,\nafter them, wheelwrights and harness-makers. Blacksmiths to sharpen\npickaxes, doctors to cure fevers, get pay exorbitant in proportion\nto the need for them; and are so brought flocking in proportionate\nnumbers. Presently commodities become scarce; more must be fetched\nfrom abroad; sailors must have increased wages to prevent them from\ndeserting and turning miners; this necessitates higher charges for\nfreight; higher freights quickly bring more ships; and so there rapidly\ndevelops an organization for supplying goods from all parts of the\nworld. Every phase of this evolution takes place in the order of its\nnecessity; or as we say\u2014in the order of the intensity of the desires\nsubserved. Each man does that which he finds pays best; that which\npays best is that for which other men will give most; that for which\nthey will give most is that which, under the circumstances, they most\ndesire. Hence the succession must be throughout from the more important\nto the less important. A requirement which at any period remains\nunfulfilled, must be one for the fulfilment of which men will not pay\nso much as to make it worth any one\u2019s while to fulfil it\u2014must be a\n_less_ requirement than all the {265} others for the fulfilment of\nwhich they will pay more; and must wait until other more needful things\nare done. Well, is it not clear that the same law holds good in every\ncommunity? Is it not true of the latter phases of social evolution, as\nof the earlier, that when things are let alone the smaller desiderata\nwill be postponed to the greater.\n\nHence, then, the justification of the seeming paradox, that until\nspontaneously fulfilled a public want should not be fulfilled at all.\nIt must, on the average, result in our complex state, as in simpler\nones, that the thing left undone is a thing by doing which citizens\ncannot gain so much as by doing other things\u2014is therefore a thing which\nsociety does not want done so much as it wants these other things done;\nand the corollary is, that to effect a neglected thing by artificially\nemploying citizens to do it, is to leave undone some more important\nthing which they would have been doing\u2014is to sacrifice the greater\nrequisite to the smaller.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d it will perhaps be objected, \u201cif the things done by a\ngovernment, or at least by a representative government, are also done\nin obedience to some aggregate desire, why may we not look for this\nnormal subordination of the more needful to the less needful in them\ntoo?\u201d The reply is, that though they have a certain tendency to follow\nthis order\u2014though those primal desires for public defence and personal\nprotection, out of which government originates, were satisfied through\nits instrumentality in proper succession\u2014though, possibly, some other\nearly and simple requirements may have been so too; yet, when the\ndesires are not few, universal and intense, but, like those remaining\nto be satisfied in the latter stages of civilization, numerous,\npartial, and moderate, the judgment of a government is no longer to be\ntrusted. To select out of an immense number of minor wants, physical,\nintellectual, and moral, felt in different degrees by different\nclasses, and by a total mass varying in every case, the want that is\nmost pressing, is a task which no legislature can accomplish. No man or\nmen {266} by inspecting society can _see_ what it most needs; society\nmust be left to _feel_ what it most needs. The mode of solution must be\nexperimental, not theoretical. When left, day after day, to experience\nevils and dissatisfactions of various kinds, affecting them in various\ndegrees, citizens gradually acquire repugnance to these proportionate\nto their greatness, and corresponding desires to get rid of them, which\nby spontaneously fostering remedial agencies are likely to end in the\nworst inconvenience being first removed. And however irregular this\nprocess may be (and we admit that men\u2019s habits and prejudices produce\nmany anomalies, or seeming anomalies, in it) it is a process far more\ntrustworthy than are legislative judgments. For those who question this\nthere are instances; and, that the parallel may be the more conclusive,\nwe will take a case in which the ruling power is deemed specially fit\nto decide. We refer to our means of communication.\n\nDo those who maintain that railways would have been better laid out\nand constructed by government, hold that the order of importance would\nhave been as uniformly followed as it has been by private enterprise?\nUnder the stimulus of an enormous traffic\u2014a traffic too great for the\nthen existing means\u2014the first line sprung up between Liverpool and\nManchester. Next came the Grand Junction and the London and Birmingham\n(now merged in the London and North Western); afterwards the Great\nWestern, the South Western, the South Eastern, the Eastern Counties,\nthe Midland. Since then subsidiary lines and branches have occupied\nour capitalists. As they were quite certain to do, companies made\nfirst the most needed, and therefore the best paying, lines; under the\nsame impulse that a labourer chooses high wages in preference to low.\nThat government would have adopted a better order can hardly be, for\nthe best has been followed; but that it would have adopted a worse,\nall the evidence we have goes to show. In default of materials {267}\nfor a direct parallel, we might cite from India and the colonies,\ncases of injudicious road-making. Or, as exemplifying State-efforts to\nfacilitate communication, we might dwell on the fact that while our\nrulers have sacrificed hundreds of lives and spent untold treasure in\nseeking a North-west passage, which would be useless if found, they\nhave left the exploration of the Isthmus of Panama, and the making\nrailways and canals through it, to private companies. But, not to make\nmuch of this indirect evidence, we will content ourselves with the one\nsample of a State-made channel for commerce, which we have at home\u2014the\nCaledonian Canal. Up to the present time (1853), this public work has\ncost upwards of 1,100,000_l._ It has now been open for many years, and\nsalaried emissaries have been constantly employed to get traffic for\nit. The results, as given in its forty-seventh annual report, issued\nin 1852, are\u2014receipts during the year, 7,909_l._; expenditure ditto,\n9,261_l._\u2014loss, 1,352_l._ Has any such large investment been made with\nsuch a pitiful result by a private canal company?\n\nAnd if a government is so bad a judge of the relative importance of\nsocial requirements, when these requirements are _of the same kind_,\nhow worthless a judge must it be when they are of different kinds.\nIf, where a fair share of intelligence might be expected to lead them\nright, legislators and their officers go so wrong, how terribly will\nthey err where no amount of intelligence would suffice them,\u2014where\nthey must decide among hosts of needs, bodily, intellectual, and\nmoral, which admit of no direct comparisons; and how disastrous must\nbe the results if they act out their erroneous decisions. Should any\none need this bringing home to him by an illustration, let him read\nthe following extract from the last of the series of letters some time\nsince published in the _Morning Chronicle_, on the state of agriculture\nin France. After expressing the opinion that French farming is some\ncentury behind English farming, the writer goes on to say:\u2015\n\n  \u201cThere are two causes principally chargeable with this. In the first\n {268} place, strange as it may seem in a country in which two-thirds\n of the population are agriculturists, agriculture is a very unhonoured\n occupation. Develope in the slightest degree a Frenchman\u2019s mental\n faculties, and he flies to a town as surely as steel filings fly to\n a loadstone. He has no rural tastes, no delight in rural habits. A\n French amateur farmer would indeed be a sight to see. Again, this\n national tendency is directly encouraged by the centralising system\n of government\u2014by the multitude of officials, and by the payment of\n all functionaries. From all parts of France, men of great energy and\n resource struggle up, and fling themselves on the world of Paris.\n There they try to become great functionaries. Through every department\n of the eighty-four, men of less energy and resource struggle up to the\n _chef-lieu_\u2014the provincial capital. There they try to become little\n functionaries. Go still lower\u2014deal with a still smaller scale\u2014and\n the result will be the same. As is the department to France, so\n is the arrondissement to the department, and the commune to the\n arrondissement. All who have, or think they have, heads on their\n shoulders, struggle into towns to fight for office. All who are, or\n are deemed by themselves or others, too stupid for anything else, are\n left at home to till the fields, and breed the cattle, and prune the\n vines, as their ancestors did for generations before them. Thus there\n is actually no intelligence left in the country. The whole energy, and\n knowledge, and resource of the land are barreled up in the towns. You\n leave one city, and in many cases you will not meet an educated or\n cultivated individual until you arrive at another\u2014all between is utter\n intellectual barrenness.\u201d\u2014_Morning Chronicle._ August, 1851.\n\nTo what end now is this constant abstraction of able men from rural\ndistricts? To the end that there may be enough functionaries to achieve\nthose many desiderata which French governments have thought ought to\nbe achieved\u2014to provide amusements, to manage mines, to construct roads\nand bridges, to erect numerous buildings\u2014to print books, encourage the\nfine arts, control this trade, and inspect that manufacture\u2014to do all\nthe hundred-and-one things which the State does in France. That the\narmy of officers needed for this may be maintained, agriculture must go\nunofficered. That certain social conveniences may be better secured,\nthe chief social necessity is neglected. The very basis of the national\nlife is sapped, to gain a few non-essential advantages. Said we not\ntruly, then, that until a requirement is spontaneously fulfilled, it\nshould not be fulfilled at all?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd here indeed we may recognise the close kinship {269} between the\nfundamental fallacy involved in these State-meddlings and the fallacy\nlately exploded by the free-trade agitation. These various law-made\ninstrumentalities for effecting ends which might otherwise not yet be\neffected, all embody a subtler form of the protectionist hypothesis.\nThe same short-sightedness which, looking at commerce, prescribed\nbounties and restrictions, looking at social affairs in general,\nprescribes these multiplied administrations; and the same criticism\napplies alike to all its proceedings.\n\nFor was not the error that vitiated every law aiming at the artificial\nmaintenance of a trade, substantially that which we have just been\ndwelling upon; namely, this overlooking of the fact that, in setting\npeople to do one thing, some other thing is inevitably left undone? The\nstatesmen who thought it wise to protect home-made silks against French\nsilks, did so under the impression that the manufacture thus secured\nconstituted a pure gain to the nation. They did not reflect that the\nmen employed in this manufacture would otherwise have been producing\nsomething else\u2014a something else which, as they could produce it without\nlegal help, they could more profitably produce. Landlords who have\nbeen so anxious to prevent foreign wheat from displacing their own\nwheat, have never duly realized the fact that if their fields would not\nyield wheat so economically as to prevent the feared displacement, it\nsimply proved that they were growing unfit crops in place of fit crops;\nand so working their land at a relative loss. In all cases where, by\nrestrictive duties, a trade has been upheld that would otherwise not\nhave existed, capital has been turned into a channel less productive\nthan some other into which it would naturally have flowed. And so, to\npursue certain State-patronized occupations, men have been drawn from\nmore advantageous occupations.\n\nClearly then, as above alleged, the same oversight runs through all\nthese interferences; be they with commerce, or be they with other\nthings. In employing people to achieve {270} this or that desideratum,\nlegislators have not perceived that they were thereby preventing the\nachievement of some other desideratum. They have habitually assumed\nthat each proposed good would, if secured, be a pure good, instead of\nbeing a good purchasable only by submission to some evil which would\nelse have been remedied; and, making this error, have injuriously\ndiverted men\u2019s labour. As in trade, so in other things, labour will\nspontaneously find out, better than any government can find out for\nit, the things on which it may best expend itself. Rightly regarded,\nthe two propositions are identical. This division into commercial and\nnon-commercial affairs is quite a superficial one. All the actions\ngoing on in society come under the generalization\u2014human effort\nministering to human desire. Whether the ministration be effected\nthrough a process of buying and selling, or whether in any other way,\nmatters not so far as the general law of it is concerned. In all cases\nit must be true that the stronger desires will get themselves satisfied\nbefore the weaker ones; and in all cases it must be true that to get\nsatisfaction for the weaker ones before they would naturally have it,\nis to deny satisfaction to the stronger ones.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTo the immense positive evils entailed by over-legislation have to be\nadded the equally great negative evils\u2014evils which, notwithstanding\ntheir greatness, are scarcely at all recognized, even by the\nfar-seeing. While the State does those things which it ought not to do,\n_as an inevitable consequence_, it leaves undone those things which it\nought to do. Time and activity being limited, it necessarily follows\nthat legislators\u2019 sins of _commission_ entail sins of _omission_.\nMischievous meddling involves disastrous neglect; and until statesmen\nare ubiquitous and omnipotent, must ever do so. In the very nature\nof things an agency employed for two purposes must fulfil both\nimperfectly; partly because, while fulfilling the one it cannot be\nfulfilling {271} the other, and partly because its adaptation to both\nends implies incomplete fitness for either. As has been well said _\u00e0\npropos_ of this point,\u2014\u201cA blade which is designed both to shave and to\ncarve, will certainly not shave so well as a razor or carve so well\nas a carving-knife. An academy of painting, which should also be a\nbank, would in all probability exhibit very bad pictures and discount\nvery bad bills. A gas company, which should also be an infant-school\nsociety, would, we apprehend, light the streets ill, and teach the\nchildren ill.\u201d[34] And if an institution undertakes, not two functions\nbut a score\u2014if a government, whose office it is to defend citizens\nagainst aggressors, foreign and domestic, engages also to disseminate\nChristianity, to administer charity, to teach children their lessons,\nto adjust prices of food, to inspect coal-mines, to regulate railways,\nto superintend house-building, to arrange cab-fares, to look into\npeople\u2019s stink-traps, to vaccinate their children, to send out\nemigrants, to prescribe hours of labour, to examine lodging-houses, to\ntest the knowledge of mercantile captains, to provide public libraries,\nto read and authorize dramas, to inspect passenger-ships, to see that\nsmall dwellings are supplied with water, to regulate endless things\nfrom a banker\u2019s issues down to the boat-fares on the Serpentine\u2014is it\nnot manifest that its primary duty must be ill-discharged in proportion\nto the multiplicity of affairs it busies itself with? Must not its\ntime and energies be frittered away in schemes, and inquiries, and\namendments, in discussions, and divisions, to the neglect of its\nessential business? And does not a glance over the debates make it\nclear that this is the fact? and that, while parliament and public are\nalike occupied with these mischievous interferences, these Utopian\nhopes, the one thing needful is left almost undone?\n\n [34] _Edinburgh Review_, April, 1839.\n\nSee here, then, the proximate cause of our legal abominations. We drop\nthe substance in our efforts to catch shadows. While our firesides,\nand clubs, and taverns are {272} filled with talk about corn-law\nquestions, and church questions, and education questions, and poor-law\nquestions\u2014all of them raised by over-legislation\u2014the justice question\ngets scarcely any attention; and we daily submit to be oppressed,\ncheated, robbed. This institution which should succour the man who\nhas fallen among thieves, turns him over to solicitors, barristers,\nand a legion of law-officers; drains his purse for writs, briefs,\naffidavits, subp\u0153nas, fees of all kinds and expenses innumerable;\ninvolves him in the intricacies of common courts, chancery courts,\nsuits, counter-suits, and appeals; and often ruins where it should\naid. Meanwhile, meetings are called, and leading articles written,\nand votes asked, and societies formed, and agitations carried on, not\nto rectify these gigantic evils, but partly to abolish our ancestors\u2019\nmischievous meddlings and partly to establish meddlings of our own. Is\nit not obvious that this fatal neglect is a result of this mistaken\nofficiousness? Suppose that external and internal protection had been\nthe sole recognized functions of the ruling powers. Is it conceivable\nthat our administration of justice would have been as corrupt as now?\nCan any one believe that had parliamentary elections been habitually\ncontested on questions of legal reform, our judicial system would\nstill have been what Sir John Romilly calls it,\u2014\u201ca technical system\ninvented for the creation of costs?\u201d Does any one suppose that, if\nthe efficient defence of person and property had been the constant\nsubject-matter of hustings pledges, we should yet be waylaid by a\nChancery Court which has now more than two hundred millions of property\nin its clutches?\u2014which keeps suits pending fifty years, until all the\nfunds are gone in fees\u2014which swallows in costs two millions annually?\nDare any one assert that had constituencies been always canvassed\non principles of law-reform versus law-conservatism, Ecclesiastical\nCourts would have continued for centuries fattening on the goods of\nwidows and orphans? The questions are next to absurd. A child may {273}\nsee that with the general knowledge people have of legal corruptions\nand the universal detestation of legal atrocities, an end would long\nsince have been put to them, had the administration of justice always\nbeen _the_ political topic. Had not the public mind been constantly\npre-occupied, it could never have been tolerated that a man neglecting\nto file an answer to a bill in due course, should be imprisoned\nfifteen years for contempt of court, as Mr. James Taylor was. It would\nhave been impossible that, on the abolition of their sinecures, the\nsworn-clerks should have been compensated by the continuance of their\nexorbitant incomes, not only till death, but for seven years after,\nat a total estimated cost of \u00a3700,000. Were the State confined to its\ndefensive and judicial functions, not only the people but legislators\nthemselves would agitate against abuses. The sphere of activity and\nthe opportunities for distinction being narrowed, all the thought,\nand industry, and eloquence which members of Parliament now expend on\nimpracticable schemes and artificial grievances, would be expended in\nrendering justice pure, certain, prompt, and cheap. The complicated\nfollies of our legal verbiage, which the uninitiated cannot understand\nand which the initiated interpret in various senses, would be quickly\nput an end to. We should no longer frequently hear of Acts of\nParliament so bunglingly drawn up that it requires half a dozen actions\nand judges\u2019 decisions under them, before even lawyers can say how they\napply. There would be no such stupidly-designed measures as the Railway\nWinding-up Act, which, though passed in 1846 to close the accounts\nof the bubble schemes of the mania, leaves them still unsettled in\n1854\u2014which, even with funds in hand, withholds payment from creditors\nwhose claims have been years since admitted. Lawyers would no longer\nbe suffered to maintain and to complicate the present absurd system\nof land titles, which, besides the litigation and loss it perpetually\ncauses, lowers the value of estates, prevents the {274} ready\napplication of capital to them, checks the development of agriculture,\nand thus hinders the improvement of the peasantry and the prosperity\nof the country. In short, the corruptions, follies, and terrors of law\nwould cease; and that which men now shrink from as an enemy they would\ncome to regard as what it purports to be\u2014a friend.\n\nHow vast then is the negative evil which, in addition to the positive\nevils before enumerated, this meddling policy entails on us! How many\nare the grievances men bear, from which they would otherwise be free!\nWho is there that has not submitted to injuries rather than run the\nrisk of heavy law-costs? Who is there that has not abandoned just\nclaims rather than \u201cthrow good money after bad?\u201d Who is there that\nhas not paid unjust demands rather than withstand the threat of an\naction? This man can point to property that has been alienated from\nhis family from lack of funds or courage to fight for it. That man can\nname several relations ruined by a law-suit. Here is a lawyer who has\ngrown rich on the hard earnings of the needy and the savings of the\noppressed. There is a once wealthy trader who has been brought by legal\niniquities to the workhouse or the lunatic asylum. The badness of our\njudicial system vitiates our whole social life: renders almost every\nfamily poorer than it would otherwise be; hampers almost every business\ntransaction; inflicts daily anxieties on every trader. And all this\nloss of property, time, temper, comfort, men quietly submit to from\nbeing absorbed in the pursuit of schemes which eventually bring on them\nother mischiefs.\n\nNay, the case is even worse. It is distinctly proveable that many of\nthese evils about which outcries are raised, and to cure which special\nActs of Parliament are loudly invoked, are themselves _produced_\nby our disgraceful judicial system. For example, it is well known\nthat the horrors out of which our sanitary agitators make political\ncapital, {275} are found in their greatest intensity on properties\nthat have been for a generation in Chancery\u2014are distinctly traceable\nto the ruin thus brought about; and would never have existed but for\nthe infamous corruptions of law. Again, it has been shown that the\nlong-drawn miseries of Ireland, which have been the subject of endless\nlegislation, have been mainly produced by inequitable land-tenure\nand the complicated system of entail: a system which wrought such\ninvolvements as to prevent sales; which practically negatived all\nimprovement; which brought landlords to the workhouse; and which\nrequired an Incumbered Estates Act to cut its gordian knots and render\nthe proper cultivation of the soil possible. Judicial negligence, too,\nis the main cause of railway accidents. If the State would fulfil\nits true function, by giving passengers an easy remedy for breach of\ncontract when trains are behind time, it would do more to prevent\naccidents than can be done by the minutest inspection or the most\ncunningly-devised regulations; for it is notorious that the majority\nof accidents are primarily caused by irregularity. In the case of bad\nhouse-building, also, it is obvious that a cheap, rigorous, and certain\nadministration of justice, would make Building Acts needless. For is\nnot the man who erects a house of bad materials ill put together, and,\nconcealing these with papering and plaster, sells it as a substantial\ndwelling, guilty of fraud? And should not the law recognize this fraud\nas it does in the analogous case of an unsound horse? And if the\nlegal remedy were easy, prompt, and sure, would not builders cease\ntransgressing? So is it in other cases: the evils which men perpetually\ncall on the State to cure by superintendence, themselves arise from\nnon-performance of its original duty.\n\nSee then how this vicious policy complicates itself. Not only does\nmeddling legislation fail to cure the evils it aims at; not only does\nit make many evils worse; not only does it create new evils greater\nthan the old; but while doing {276} this it entails on men the\noppressions, robberies, ruin, which flow from the non-administration\nof justice. And not only to the positive evils does it add this vast\nnegative one, but this again, by fostering many social abuses that\nwould not else exist, furnishes occasions for more meddlings which\nagain act and re-act in the same way. And thus as ever, \u201cthings bad\nbegun make strong themselves by ill.\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAfter assigning reasons thus fundamental, for condemning all\nState-action save that which universal experience has proved to be\nabsolutely needful, it would seem superfluous to assign subordinate\nones. Were it called for, we might, taking for text Mr. Lindsay\u2019s work\non \u201cNavigation and Mercantile Marine Law,\u201d say much upon the complexity\nto which this process of adding regulation to regulation\u2014each\nnecessitated by foregoing ones\u2014ultimately leads: a complexity which, by\nthe misunderstandings, delays, and disputes it entails, greatly hampers\nour social life. Something, too, might be added upon the perturbing\neffects of that \u201cgross delusion,\u201d as M. Guizot calls it, \u201ca belief in\nthe sovereign power of political machinery\u201d\u2014a delusion to which he\npartly ascribes the late revolution in France; and a delusion which\nis fostered by every new interference. But, passing over these, we\nwould dwell for a short space upon the national enervation which this\nState-superintendence produces.\n\nThe enthusiastic philanthropist, urgent for some act of parliament\nto remedy this evil or secure the other good, thinks it a trivial\nand far-fetched objection that the people will be morally injured by\ndoing things for them instead of leaving them to do things themselves.\nHe vividly conceives the benefit he hopes to get achieved, which is\na positive and readily imaginable thing. He does not conceive the\ndiffused, invisible, and slowly-accumulating effect wrought on the\npopular mind, and so does not believe in it; or, if he admits it,\nthinks it beneath consideration. Would he but {277} remember, however,\nthat all national character is gradually produced by the daily action\nof circumstances, of which each day\u2019s result seems so insignificant as\nnot to be worth mentioning, he would perceive that what is trifling\nwhen viewed in its increments may be formidable when viewed in its\ntotal. Or if he would go into the nursery, and watch how repeated\nactions\u2014each of them apparently unimportant,\u2014create, in the end, a\nhabit which will affect the whole future life; he would be reminded\nthat every influence brought to bear on human nature tells, and, if\ncontinued, tells seriously. The thoughtless mother who hourly yields\nto the requests\u2014\u201cMamma, tie my pinafore,\u201d \u201cMamma, button my shoe,\u201d\nand the like, cannot be persuaded that each of these concessions is\ndetrimental; but the wiser spectator sees that if this policy be long\npursued, and be extended to other things, it will end in inaptitude.\nThe teacher of the old school who showed his pupil the way out of every\ndifficulty, did not perceive that he was generating an attitude of\nmind greatly militating against success in life. The modern teacher,\nhowever, induces his pupil to solve his difficulties himself; believes\nthat in so doing he is preparing him to meet the difficulties which,\nwhen he goes into the world, there will be no one to help him through;\nand finds confirmation for this belief in the fact that a great\nproportion of the most successful men are self-made. Well, is it not\nobvious that this relationship between discipline and success holds\ngood nationally? Are not nations made of men; and are not men subject\nto the same laws of modification in their adult years as in their early\nyears? Is it not true of the drunkard, that each carouse adds a thread\nto his bonds? of the trader, that each acquisition strengthens the\nwish for acquisitions? of the pauper, that the more you assist him the\nmore he wants? of the busy man, that the more he has to do the more\nhe can do? And does it not follow that if every individual is subject\nto this process of adaptation to conditions, a whole nation must be\n{278} so\u2014that just in proportion as its members are little helped by\nextraneous power they will become self-helping, and in proportion as\nthey are much helped they will become helpless? What folly is it to\nignore these results because they are not direct, and not immediately\nvisible. Though slowly wrought out they are inevitable. We can no\nmore elude the laws of human development than we can elude the law of\ngravitation; and so long as they hold true must these effects occur.\n\nIf we are asked in what special directions this alleged helplessness,\nentailed by much State-superintendence, shows itself; we reply\nthat it is seen in a retardation of all social growths requiring\nself-confidence in the people\u2014in a timidity that fears all difficulties\nnot before encountered\u2014in a thoughtless contentment with things as\nthey are. Let any one, after duly watching the rapid evolution going\non in England, where men have been comparatively little helped by\ngovernments\u2014or better still, after contemplating the unparalleled\nprogress of the United States, which is peopled by self-made men, and\nthe recent descendants of self-made men;\u2014let such an one, we say, go\non to the Continent, and consider the relatively slow advance which\nthings are there making; and the still slower advance they would\nmake but for English enterprise. Let him go to Holland, and see that\nthough the Dutch early showed themselves good mechanics, and have\nhad abundant practice in hydraulics, Amsterdam has been without any\ndue supply of water until now that works are being established by an\nEnglish company. Let him go to Berlin, and there be told that, to give\nthat city a water-supply such as London has had for generations, the\nproject of an English firm is about to be executed by English capital,\nunder English superintendence. Let him go to Vienna, and learn that\nit, in common with other continental cities, is lighted by an English\ngas-company. Let him go on the Rhone, on the Loire, on the Danube,\nand discover that Englishmen established steam {279} navigation on\nthose rivers. Let him inquire concerning the railways in Italy, Spain,\nFrance, Sweden, Denmark, how many of them are English projects, how\nmany have been largely helped by English capital, how many have been\nexecuted by English contractors, how many have had English engineers.\nLet him discover, too, as he will, that where railways have been\ngovernment-made, as in Russia, the energy, the perseverance, and\nthe practical talent developed in England and the United States\nhave been called in to aid. And then if these illustrations of the\nprogressiveness of a self-dependent race, and the torpidity of\npaternally-governed ones, do not suffice him, he may read Mr. Laing\u2019s\nsuccessive volumes of European travel, and there study the contrast\nin detail. What, now, is the cause of this contrast? In the order of\nnature, a capacity for self-help must in every case have been brought\ninto existence by the practice of self-help; and, other things equal, a\nlack of this capacity must in every case have arisen from the lack of\ndemand for it. Do not these two antecedents and their two consequents\nagree with the facts as presented in England and Europe? Were not the\ninhabitants of the two, some centuries ago, much upon a par in point\nof enterprise? Were not the English even behind in their manufactures,\nin their colonization, in their commerce? Has not the immense relative\nchange the English have undergone in this respect, been coincident with\nthe great relative self-dependence they have been since habituated\nto? And has not the one been caused by the other? Whoever doubts it,\nis asked to assign a more probable cause. Whoever admits it, must\nadmit that the enervation of a people by perpetual State-aids is\nnot a trifling consideration, but the most weighty consideration. A\ngeneral arrest of national growth he will see to be an evil greater\nthan any special benefits can compensate for. And, indeed, when, after\ncontemplating this great fact, the overspreading of the Earth by the\nEnglish, he remarks the {280} absence of any parallel achievement\nby a continental race\u2014when he reflects how this difference must\ndepend chiefly on difference of character, and how such difference of\ncharacter has been mainly produced by difference of discipline; he will\nperceive that the policy pursued in this matter may have a large share\nin determining a nation\u2019s ultimate fate.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe are not sanguine, however, that argument will change the convictions\nof those who put their trust in legislation. With men of a certain\norder of thought the foregoing reasons will have weight. With men\nof another order of thought they will have little or none; nor\nwould any accumulation of such reasons affect them. The truth that\nexperience teaches, has its limits. The experiences which teach, must\nbe experiences which can be appreciated; and experiences exceeding a\ncertain degree of complexity become inappreciable to the majority.\nIt is thus with most social phenomena. If we remember that for these\ntwo thousand years and more, mankind have been making regulations for\ncommerce, which have all along been strangling some trades and killing\nothers with kindness, and that though the proofs of this have been\nconstantly before their eyes, they have only just discovered that they\nhave been uniformly doing mischief\u2014if we remember that even now only a\nsmall portion of them see this; we are taught that perpetually-repeated\nand ever-accumulating experiences will fail to teach, until there exist\nthe mental conditions required for the assimilation of them. Nay, when\nthey are assimilated, it is very imperfectly. The truth they teach is\nonly half understood, even by those supposed to understand it best. For\nexample, Sir Robert Peel, in one of his last speeches, after describing\nthe immensely increased consumption consequent on free trade, goes on\nto say:\u2015\n\n  \u201cIf, then, you can only continue that consumption\u2014if, _by your\n legislation_, under the favour of Providence, _you can maintain the\n demand for labour and make your trade and manufactures prosperous_,\n you are not only increasing the {281} sum of human happiness, but are\n giving the agriculturists of this country the best chance of that\n increased demand which must contribute to their welfare.\u201d\u2014_Times_,\n Feb. 22, 1850.\n\nThus the prosperity really due to the abandonment of all legislation,\nis ascribed to a particular kind of legislation. \u201c_You_ can maintain\nthe demand,\u201d he says; \u201c_you_ can make trade and manufactures\nprosperous;\u201d whereas, the facts he quotes prove that they can do this\nonly by doing nothing. The essential truth of the matter\u2014that law had\nbeen doing immense harm, and that this prosperity resulted not from law\nbut from the absence of law\u2014is missed; and his faith in legislation in\ngeneral, which should, by this experience, have been greatly shaken,\nseemingly remains as strong as ever. Here, again, is the House of\nLords, apparently not yet believing in the relationship of supply and\ndemand, adopting within these few weeks the standing order\u2015\n\n \u201cThat before the first reading of any bill for making any work in the\n construction of which compulsory power is sought to take thirty houses\n or more inhabited by the labouring classes in any one parish or place,\n the promoters be required to deposit in the office of the clerk of\n the parliaments a statement of the number, description, and situation\n of the said houses, the number (so far as they can be estimated) of\n persons to be displaced, _and whether any and what provision is made\n in the bill for remedying the inconvenience likely to arise from such\n displacements_.\u201d\n\nIf, then, in the comparatively simple relationships of trade, the\nteachings of experience remain for so many ages unperceived, and are\nso imperfectly apprehended when they are perceived, it is scarcely\nto be hoped that where all social phenomena\u2014moral, intellectual, and\nphysical\u2014are involved, any due appreciation of the truths displayed\nwill presently take place. The facts cannot yet get recognized as\nfacts. As the alchemist attributed his successive disappointments to\nsome disproportion in the ingredients, some impurity, or some too\ngreat temperature, and never to the futility of his process or the\nimpossibility of his aim; so, every failure of State-regulations\nthe law-worshipper explains away as being caused by this trifling\noversight, or that little {282} mistake: all which oversights and\nmistakes he assures you will in future be avoided. Eluding the facts\nas he does after this fashion, volley after volley of them produce no\neffect.\n\nIndeed this faith in governments is in a certain sense organic; and\ncan diminish only by being outgrown. From the time when rulers were\nthought demi-gods, there has been a gradual decline in men\u2019s estimates\nof their power. This decline is still in progress, and has still far\nto go. Doubtless, every increment of evidence furthers it in _some_\ndegree, though not to the degree that at first appears. Only in so\nfar as it modifies character does it produce a permanent effect. For\nwhile the mental type remains the same, the removal of a special error\nis inevitably followed by the growth of other errors of the same\ngenus. All superstitions die hard; and we fear that this belief in\ngovernment-omnipotence will form no exception.\n\n{283}\n\n\n\n\nREPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT\u2014WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?\n\n[_First published in _The Westminster Review_ for October 1857._]\n\n\nShakspeare\u2019s simile for adversity\u2015\n\n Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous,\n Wears yet a precious jewel in his head,\n\nmight fitly be used also as a simile for a disagreeable truth.\nRepulsive as is its aspect, the hard fact which dissipates a cherished\nillusion, is presently found to contain the germ of a more salutary\nbelief. The experience of every one furnishes instances in which an\nopinion long shrunk from as seemingly at variance with all that is\ngood, but finally accepted as irresistible, turns out to be fraught\nwith benefits. It is thus with self-knowledge: much as we dislike to\nadmit our defects, we find it better to know and guard against than to\nignore them. It is thus with changes of creed: alarming as looks the\nreasoning by which superstitions are overthrown, the convictions to\nwhich it leads prove to be healthier ones than those they superseded.\nAnd it is thus with political enlightenment: men eventually see cause\nto thank those who pull to pieces their political air-castles, hateful\nas they once seemed. Moreover, not only is it always better to believe\ntruth than error; but the repugnant-looking facts are ever found to\nbe parts of something far better than the ideal which they {284}\ndispelled. To the many illustrations of this which might be cited, we\nshall presently add another.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is a conviction almost universally entertained here in England,\nthat our method of making and administering laws possesses every\nvirtue. Prince Albert\u2019s unlucky saying that \u201cRepresentative Government\nis on its trial,\u201d is vehemently repudiated: we consider that the\ntrial has long since ended in our favour on all the counts. Partly\nfrom ignorance, partly from the bias of education, partly from that\npatriotism which leads the men of each nation to pride themselves in\ntheir own institutions, we have an unhesitating belief in the entire\nsuperiority of our form of political organization. Yet unfriendly\ncritics can point out vices that are manifestly inherent. And if we\nmay believe the defenders of despotism, these vices are fatal to its\nefficiency.\n\nNow instead of denying or blinking these allegations, it would\nbe wiser candidly to inquire whether they are true; and if true,\nwhat they imply. If, as most of us are so confident, government by\nrepresentatives is better than any other, we can afford to listen\npatiently to all adverse remarks: believing that they are either\ninvalid, or that if valid they do not essentially tell against its\nmerits. If our political system is well founded, this crucial criticism\nwill serve but to bring out its worth more clearly than ever; and to\ngive us higher conceptions of its nature, its meaning, its purpose. Let\nus, then, banishing for the nonce all prepossessions, and taking up a\nthoroughly antagonistic point of view, set down without mitigation its\nmany flaws, vices, and absurdities.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIs it not manifest that a ruling body made up of many individuals,\nwho differ in character, education, and aims, who belong to classes\nhaving antagonistic ideas and feelings, and who are severally swayed\nby the special {285} opinions of the districts deputing them, must\nbe a cumbrous apparatus for the management of public affairs? When we\ndevise a machine we take care that its parts are as few as possible;\nthat they are adapted to their respective ends; that they are properly\njoined with one another; and that they work smoothly to their common\npurpose. Our political machine, however, is constructed upon directly\nopposite principles. Its parts are extremely numerous: multiplied,\nindeed, beyond all reason. They are not severally chosen as specially\nqualified for particular functions. No care is taken that they shall\nfit well together: on the contrary, our arrangements are such that\nthey are certain not to fit. And that, as a consequence, they do not\nand cannot act in harmony, is a fact nightly demonstrated to all the\nworld. In truth, had the problem been to find an appliance for the\nslow and bungling transaction of business, it could scarcely have been\nbetter solved. Immense hindrance results from the mere multiplicity of\nparts; a further immense hindrance results from their incongruity; yet\nanother immense hindrance results from the frequency with which they\nare changed; while the greatest hindrance of all results from the want\nof subordination of the parts to their functions\u2014from the fact that the\npersonal welfare of the legislator is not bound up with the efficient\nperformance of his political duty.\n\nThese defects are inherent in the very nature of our institutions;\nand they cannot fail to produce disastrous mismanagement. If proofs\nbe needed, they may be furnished in abundance, both from the current\nhistory of our central representative government, and from that of\nlocal ones, public and private. Let us, before going on to contemplate\nthese evils as displayed on a great scale in our legislature, glance at\nsome of them in their simpler and smaller manifestations.\n\nWe will not dwell on the comparative inefficiency of deputed\nadministration in mercantile affairs. The {286} untrustworthiness\nof directorial management might be afresh illustrated by the recent\njoint-stock-bank catastrophies: the recklessness and dishonesty of\nrulers whose interests are not one with those of the concern they\ncontrol, being in these cases conspicuously displayed. Or we could\nenlarge on the same truth as exhibited in the doings of railway-boards:\ninstancing the malversations proved against their members; the\ncarelessness which has permitted Robson and Redpath frauds; the\nrashness perseveringly shown in making unprofitable branches and\nextensions. But facts of this kind are sufficiently familiar.\n\nLet us pass, then, to less notorious examples. Mechanics\u2019 Institutions\nwill supply our first. The theory of these is plausible enough.\nArtizans wanting knowledge, and benevolent middle-class people wishing\nto help them to it, constitute the raw material. By uniting their\nmeans they propose to obtain literary and other advantages, which\nelse would be beyond their reach. And it is concluded that, being all\ninterested in securing the proposed objects, and the governing body\nbeing chosen out of their number, the results cannot fail to be such as\nwere intended. In most cases, however, the results are quite otherwise.\nIndifference, stupidity, party-spirit, and religious dissension,\nnearly always thwart the efforts of the promoters. It is thought good\npolicy to select as president some local notability; probably not\ndistinguished for wisdom, but whose donation or prestige more than\ncounterbalances his defect in this respect. Vice-presidents are chosen\nwith the same view: a clergyman or two; some neighbouring squires,\nif they can be had; an ex-mayor; several aldermen; half a dozen\nmanufacturers and wealthy tradesmen; and a miscellaneous complement.\nWhile the committee, mostly elected more because of their position\nor popularity than their intelligence or fitness for co-operation,\nexhibit similar incongruities. Causes of dissension quickly arise. A\nbook much wished for by the mass of the members, is tabooed, because\n{287} ordering it would offend the clerical party in the institution.\nRegard for the prejudices of certain magistrates and squires who figure\namong the vice-presidents, forbids the engagement of an otherwise\ndesirable and popular lecturer, whose political and religious opinions\nare somewhat extreme. The selection of newspapers and magazines for\nthe reading-room, is a fruitful source of disputes. Should some,\nthinking it would be a great boon to those for whom the institution\nwas established, propose to open the reading-room on Sundays, there\narises a violent fight; ending, perhaps, in the secession of some of\nthe defeated party. The question of amusements, again, furnishes a bone\nof contention. Shall the institution exist solely for instruction, or\nshall it add gratification? The refreshment-question, also, is apt to\nbe raised, and to add to the other causes of difference. In short,\nthe stupidity, prejudice, party-spirit, and squabbling, are such as\neventually to drive away in disgust those who should have been the\nadministrators; and to leave the control in the hands of a clique, who\npursue some humdrum middle course, satisfying nobody. Instead of that\nprosperity which would probably have been achieved under the direction\nof one good man-of-business, whose welfare was bound up with its\nsuccess, the institution loses its prestige, and dwindles away: ceases\nalmost entirely to be what was intended\u2014a _mechanics_\u2019 institution; and\nbecomes little more than a middle-class lounge, kept up not so much by\nthe permanent adhesion of its members, as by the continual addition of\nnew ones in place of the old ones constantly falling off. Meanwhile,\nthe end originally proposed is fulfilled, so far as it gets fulfilled\nat all, by private enterprise. Cheap newspapers and cheap periodicals,\nprovided by publishers having in view the pockets and tastes of the\nworking-classes; coffee-shops and penny reading-rooms, set up by men\nwhose aim is profit; are the instruments of the chief proportion of\nsuch culture as is going on.\n\nIn higher-class institutions of the same order\u2014in Literary {288}\nSocieties and Philosophical Societies, etc.\u2014the like inefficiency of\nrepresentative government is generally displayed. Quickly following\nthe vigour of early enthusiasm, come class and sectarian differences,\nthe final supremacy of a party, bad management, apathy. Subscribers\ncomplain they cannot get what they want; and one by one desert to\nprivate book-clubs or to Mudie.\n\nTurning from non-political to political institutions, we might, had\nwe space, draw illustrations from the doings of the old poor-law\nauthorities, or from those of modern boards of guardians; but omitting\nthese and others such, we will, among local governments, confine\nourselves to the reformed municipal corporations.\n\nIf, leaving out of sight all other evidences, and forgetting that\nthey are newly-organized bodies into which corruption has scarcely\nhad time to creep, we were to judge of these municipal corporations\nby the town-improvements they have effected, we might pronounce\nthem successful. But, even without insisting on the fact that such\nimprovements are more due to the removal of obstructions, and to that\nsame progressive spirit which has established railways and telegraphs,\nthan to the positive virtues of these civic governments; it is to be\nremarked that the execution of numerous public works is by no means\nan adequate test. With power of raising funds limited only by a\nrebellion of ratepayers, it is easy in prosperous, increasing towns,\nto make a display of efficiency. The proper questions to be asked\nare:\u2014Do municipal elections end in the choice of the fittest men who\nare to be found? Does the resulting administrative body, perform well\nand economically the work which devolves on it? And does it show\nsound judgment in refraining from needless or improper work? To these\nquestions the answers are by no means satisfactory.\n\nTown-councils are not conspicuous for either intelligence or high\ncharacter. There are competent judges who think that, on the average,\ntheir members are inferior to those of {289} the old corporations\nthey superseded. As all the world knows, the elections turn mainly on\npolitical opinions. The first question respecting any candidate is,\nnot whether he has great knowledge, judgment, or business-faculty\u2014not\nwhether he has any special aptitude for the duty to be discharged;\nbut whether he is Whig or Tory. Even supposing his politics to be\nunobjectionable, his nomination still does not depend chiefly on his\nproved uprightness or capacity, but much more on his friendly relations\nwith the dominant clique. A number of the town magnates, habitually\nmeeting probably at the chief hotel, and there held together as much\nby the brotherhood of conviviality as by that of opinion, discuss the\nmerits of all whose names are before the public, and decide which are\nthe most suitable. This gin-and-water caucus it is which practically\ndetermines the choice of candidates; and, by consequence, the\nelections. Those who will succumb to leadership\u2014those who will merge\ntheir private opinions in the policy of their party, of course have\nthe preference. Men too independent for this\u2014too far-seeing to join in\nthe shibboleth of the hour, or too refined to mix with the \u201cjolly good\nfellows\u201d who thus rule the town, are shelved; notwithstanding that they\nare, above all others, fitted for office. Partly from this underhand\ninfluence, and partly from the consequent disgust which leads them\nto decline standing if asked, the best men are generally not in the\ngoverning body. It is notorious that in London the most respectable\nmerchants will have nothing to do with the local government. And in\nNew York, \u201cthe exertions of its better citizens are still exhausted\nin private accumulation, while the duties of administration are left\nto other hands,\u201d It cannot then be asserted that in town-government,\nthe representative system succeeds in bringing the ablest and most\nhonourable men to the top.\n\nThe efficient and economical discharge of duties is, of course,\nhindered by this inferiority of the deputies chosen; {290} and it\nis further hindered by the persistent action of party and personal\nmotives. Not whether he knows well how to handle a level, but\nwhether he voted for the popular candidate at the last parliamentary\nelection, is the question on which may, and sometimes does, hang the\nchoice of a town-surveyor; and if sewers are ill laid out, it is a\nnatural consequence. When, a new public edifice having been decided\non, competition designs are advertised for; and when the designs,\nostensibly anonymous but really identifiable, have been sent in; T.\nSquare, Esq., who has an influential relative in the corporation,\nmakes sure of succeeding, and is not disappointed: albeit his plans\nare not those which would have been chosen by any one of the judges,\nhad the intended edifice been his own. Brown, who has for many years\nbeen on the town-council and is one of the dominant clique, has a\nson who is a doctor; and when, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament,\nan officer of health is to be appointed, Brown privately canvasses\nhis fellow-councillors, and succeeds in persuading them to elect his\nson; though his son is by no means the fittest man the place can\nfurnish. Similarly with the choice of tradesmen to execute work for\nthe town. A public clock which is frequently getting out of order, and\nBoard-of-Health water-closets which disgust those who have them (we\nstate facts), sufficiently testify that stupidity, favouritism, or\nsome sinister influence, is ever causing mismanagement. The choice of\ninferior representatives, and by them of inferior _employ\u00e9s_, joined\nwith private interest and divided responsibility, inevitably prevent\nthe discharge of duties from being satisfactory.\n\nMoreover, the extravagance which is now becoming a notorious vice of\nmunicipal bodies, is greatly increased by the practice of undertaking\nthings which they ought not to undertake; and the incentive to do this\nis, in many cases, traceable to the representative origin of the body.\nThe system of compounding with landlords for municipal {291} rates,\nleads the lower class of occupiers into the erroneous belief that\ntown-burdens do not fall in any degree on them; and they therefore\napprove of an expenditure which seemingly gives them gratis advantages\nwhile it creates employment. As they form the mass of the constituency,\nlavishness becomes a popular policy; and popularity-hunters vie with\none another in bringing forward new and expensive projects. Here is\na councillor who, having fears about his next election, proposes an\nextensive scheme for public gardens\u2014a scheme which many who disapprove\ndo not oppose, because they, too, bear in mind the next election. There\nis another councillor, who keeps a shop, and who raises and agitates\nthe question of baths and wash-houses; very well knowing that his trade\nis not likely to suffer from such a course. And so in other cases:\nthe small direct interest which each member of the corporation has in\neconomical administration, is antagonized by so many indirect interests\nof other kinds, that he is not likely to be a good guardian of the\npublic purse.\n\nThus, neither in respect of the deputies chosen, nor the efficient\nperformance of their work, nor the avoidance of unfit work, can\nthe governments of our towns be held satisfactory. And if in these\nrecently-formed bodies the defects are so conspicuous, still more\nconspicuous are they where they have had time to grow to their full\nmagnitude: witness the case of New York. According to the _Times_\ncorrespondent in that city, the New York people pay \u201cover a million\nand a half sterling, for which they have badly-paved streets, a police\nby no means as efficient as it should be, though much better than\nformerly, the greatest amount of dirt north of Italy, the poorest\ncab-system of any metropolis in the world, and only unsheltered wooden\npiers for the discharge of merchandize.\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd now, having glanced at the general bearings of the question in\nthese minor cases, let us take the major case of {292} our central\ngovernment; and, in connexion with it, pursue the inquiry more closely.\nHere the inherent faults of the representative system are much more\nclearly displayed. The greater multiplicity of rulers involves greater\ncumbrousness, greater confusion, greater delay. Differences of class,\nof aims, of prejudices, are both larger in number and wider in degree;\nand hence arise dissensions still more multiplied. The direct effect\nwhich each legislator is likely to experience from the working of\nany particular measure, is usually very small and remote; while the\nindirect influences which sway him are, in this above all other cases,\nnumerous and strong: whence follows a marked tendency to neglect\npublic welfare for private advantage. But let us set out from the\nbeginning\u2014with the constituencies.\n\nThe representative theory assumes that if a number of citizens,\ndeeply interested as they all are in good government, are endowed\nwith political power, they will choose the wisest and best men for\ngovernors. Seeing how greatly they suffer from bad administration of\npublic affairs, it is considered self-evident that they must have\nthe _will_ to select proper representatives; and it is taken for\ngranted that average common sense gives the _ability_ to select proper\nrepresentatives. How does experience bear out these assumptions? Does\nit not to a great degree negative them?\n\nSeveral considerable classes of electors have little or no _will_ in\nthe matter. Not a few of those on the register pique themselves on\ntaking no part in politics\u2014claim credit for having the sense not to\nmeddle with things which they say do not concern them. Many others\nthere are whose interest in the choice of a member of Parliament is\nso slight, that they do not think it worth while to vote. A notable\nproportion, too, shopkeepers especially, care so little about the\nresult, that their votes are determined by their wishes to please\ntheir chief patrons or to avoid offending them. In the minds of a\nyet larger class, small sums of money, or {293} even _ad libitum_\nsupplies of beer, outweigh any desires they have to use their political\npowers independently. Those who adequately recognize the importance of\nhonestly exercising their judgments in the selection of legislators,\nand who give conscientious votes, form but a minority; and the election\nusually hangs less upon their wills than upon the illegitimate\ninfluences which sway the rest. Here, therefore, the theory fails.\n\nThen, again, as to intelligence. Even supposing that the mass of\nelectors have a sufficiently decided _will_ to choose the best rulers,\nwhat evidence have we of their _ability_? Is picking out the wisest\nman among them, a task within the range of their capacities? Let any\none listen to the conversation of a farmer\u2019s market-table, and then\nanswer how much he finds of that wisdom which is required to discern\nwisdom in others. Or let him read the clap-trap speeches made from the\nhustings with a view of pleasing constituents, and then estimate the\npenetration of those who are to be thus pleased. Even among the higher\norder of electors he will meet with gross political ignorance\u2014with\nnotions that Acts of Parliament can do whatever it is thought well they\nshould do; that the value of gold can be fixed by law; that distress\ncan be cured by poor-laws; and so forth. If he descends a step, he will\nfind in the still-prevalent ideas that machinery is injurious to the\nworking-classes, and that extravagance is \u201cgood for trade,\u201d indices\nof a yet smaller insight. And in the lower and larger class, formed\nby those who think that their personal interest in good government is\nnot worth the trouble of voting, or is outbalanced by the loss of a\ncustomer, or is of less value than a bribe, he will perceive an almost\nhopeless stupidity. Without going the length of Mr. Carlyle, and\ndefining the people as \u201ctwenty-seven millions, mostly fools,\u201d he will\nconfess that they are but sparely gifted with wisdom.\n\nThat these should succeed in choosing the fittest {294} governors,\nwould be strange; and that they do not so succeed is manifest. Even as\njudged by the most common-sense tests, their selections are absurd, as\nwe shall shortly see.\n\nIt is a self-evident truth that we may most safely trust those whose\ninterests are identical with our own; and that it is very dangerous\nto trust those whose interests are antagonistic to our own. All\nthe legal securities we take in our transactions with one another,\nare so many recognitions of this truth. We are not satisfied with\n_professions_. If another\u2019s position is such that he must be liable\nto motives at variance with the promises he makes, we take care, by\nintroducing an artificial motive (the dread of legal penalties), to\nmake it his interest to fulfil these promises. Down to the asking for\na receipt, our daily business-habits testify that, in consequence of\nthe prevailing selfishness, it it extremely imprudent to expect men to\nregard the claims of others equally with their own: all asseverations\nof good faith notwithstanding. Now it might have been thought that\neven the modicum of sense possessed by the majority of electors,\nwould have led them to recognize this fact in the choice of their\nrepresentatives. But they show a total disregard of it. While the\ntheory of our Constitution, in conformity with this same fact, assumes\nthat the three divisions composing the Legislature will severally\npursue each its own ends\u2014while our history shows that Monarch, Lords,\nand Commons, _have_ all along more or less conspicuously done this;\nour electors manifest by their votes, the belief that their interests\nwill be as well cared for by members of the titled class as by members\nof their own class. Though, in their determined opposition to the\nReform-Bill, the aristocracy showed how greedy they were, not only of\ntheir legitimate power but of their illegitimate power\u2014though, by the\nenactment and pertinacious maintenance of the Corn-Laws, they proved\nhow little popular welfare weighed in the {295} scale against their\nown profits\u2014though they have ever displayed a watchful jealousy even of\ntheir smallest privileges, whether equitable or inequitable (as witness\nthe recent complaint in the House of Lords, that the Mercantile Marine\nAct calls on lords of manors to show their titles before they can claim\nthe wrecks thrown on the shores of their estates, which before they\nhad always done by prescription)\u2014though they have habitually pursued\nthat self-seeking policy which men so placed were sure to pursue;\nyet constituencies have decided that members of the aristocracy may\nfitly be chosen as representatives of the people. Our present House\nof Commons contains 98 Irish peers and sons of English peers; 66\nblood-relations of peers; and 67 connexions of peers by marriage: in\nall, 231 members whose interests, or sympathies, or both, are with the\nnobility rather than the commonalty. We are quite prepared to hear the\ndoctrine implied in this criticism condemned by rose-water politicians\nas narrow and prejudiced. To such we simply reply that they and their\nfriends fully recognize this doctrine when it suits them to do so. Why\ndo they wish to prevent the town-constituencies from predominating\nover the county-ones; if they do not believe that each division of the\ncommunity will consult its own welfare? Or what plea can there be for\nLord John Russell\u2019s proposal to represent minorities, unless it be the\nplea that those who have the opportunity will sacrifice the interests\nof others to their own? Or how shall we explain the anxiety of the\nupper class, to keep a tight rein on the growing power of the lower\nclass, save from their consciousness that _bon\u00e2 fide_ representatives\nof the lower class would be less regardful of their privileges than\nthey are themselves? If there be any reason in the theory of the\nConstitution, then, while the members of the House of Peers should\nbelong to the peerage, the members of the House of Commons should\nbelong to the commonalty. Either the constitutional theory is sheer\nnonsense, or else {296} the choice of lords as representatives of the\npeople proves the folly of constituencies.\n\nBut this folly by no means ends here: it works out other results quite\nas absurd. What should we think of a man giving his servants equal\nauthority with himself over the affairs of his household? Suppose\nthe shareholders in a railway-company were to elect, as members of\ntheir board of directors, the secretary, engineer, superintendent,\ntraffic-manager, and others such. Should we not be astonished at\ntheir stupidity? Should we not prophesy that the private advantage of\nofficials would frequently override the welfare of the company? Yet our\nparliamentary electors commit a blunder of just the same kind. For what\nare military and naval officers but servants of the nation; standing to\nit in a relation like that in which the officers of a railway-company\nstand to the company? Do they not perform public work? do they not\ntake public pay? And do not their interests differ from those of the\npublic, as the interests of the employed from those of the employer?\nThe impropriety of admitting executive agents of the State into the\nLegislature, has over and over again thrust itself into notice; and\nin minor cases has been prevented by sundry Acts of Parliament.\nEnumerating those disqualified for the House of Commons, Blackstone\nsays\u2015\n\n \u201cNo persons concerned in the management of any duties or taxes created\n since 1692, except the commissioners of the treasury, nor any of the\n officers following, _viz._ commissioners of prizes, transports, sick\n and wounded, wine licences, navy, and victualling; secretaries or\n receivers of prizes; comptrollers of the army accounts; agents for\n regiments; governors of plantations, and their deputies; officers of\n Minorca or Gibraltar; officers of the excise and customs; clerks and\n deputies in the several offices of the treasury, exchequer, navy,\n victualling, admiralty, pay of the army and navy, secretaries of\n state, salt, stamps, appeals, wine licences, hackney coaches, hawkers\n and pedlars, nor any persons that hold any new office under the crown\n created since 1705, are capable of being elected, or sitting as\n members.\u201d\n\nIn which list naval and military officers would doubtless have been\nincluded, had they not always been too powerful a body and too closely\nidentified with the dominant classes. {297} Glaring, however, as\nis the impolicy of appointing public servants to make the laws;\nand clearly as this impolicy is recognized in the above-specified\nexclusions from time to time enacted; the people at large seem totally\noblivious of it. At the last general election they returned 9 naval\nofficers, 46 military officers, and 51 retired military officers,\nwho, in virtue of education, friendship, and _esprit de corps_, take\nthe same views with their active comrades\u2014in all 106: not including\n64 officers of militia and yeomanry, whose sympathies and ambitions\nare in a considerable degree the same. If any one thinks that this\nlarge infusion of officialism is of no consequence, let him look in\nthe division-lists. Let him inquire how much it has had to do with the\nmaintenance of the purchase-system. Let him ask whether the almost\ninsuperable obstacles to the promotion of the private soldier, have\nnot been strengthened by it. Let him see what share it had in keeping\nup those worn-out practices, and forms, and mis-arrangements, which\nentailed the disasters of our late war. Let him consider whether the\nhushing-up of the Crimean Inquiry and the whitewashing of delinquents\nwere not aided by it. Yet, though abundant experience thus confirms\nwhat common sense would beforehand have predicted; and though,\nnotwithstanding the late disasters, exposures, and public outcry for\narmy-reform, the influence of the military caste is so great that the\nreform has been staved-off; our constituencies are stupid enough to\nsend to Parliament as many military officers as ever!\n\nNot even now have we reached the end of these impolitic selections.\nThe general principle on which we have been insisting, and which is\nrecognized by expounders of the constitution when they teach that\nthe legislative and executive divisions of the Government should be\ndistinct\u2014this general principle is yet further sinned against; though\nnot in so literal a manner. For though they do not take State-pay, and\nare not nominally Government-officers, yet, {298} practically, lawyers\nare members of the executive organization. They form an important part\nof the apparatus for the administration of justice. By the working of\nthis apparatus they make their profits; and their welfare depends on\nits being so worked as to bring them profits, rather than on its being\nso worked as to administer justice. Exactly as military officers have\ninterests distinct from, and often antagonistic to, the efficiency\nof the army; so, barristers and solicitors have interests distinct\nfrom, and often antagonistic to, the cheap and prompt enforcement of\nthe law. And that they are habitually swayed by these antagonistic\ninterests, is notorious. So strong is the bias, as sometimes even\nto destroy the power of seeing from any other than the professional\nstand-point. We have ourselves heard a lawyer declaiming on the damage\nwhich the County-Courts-Act had done to the profession; and expecting\nhis non-professional hearers to join him in condemning it there-for!\nAnd if, as all the world knows, the legal conscience is not of the\ntenderest, is it wise to depute lawyers to frame the laws which they\nwill be concerned in carrying out; and the carrying out of which must\naffect their private incomes? Are barristers, who constantly take fees\nfor work which they do not perform, and attorneys, whose bills are so\noften exorbitant that a special office has been established for taxing\nthem\u2014are these, of all others, to be trusted in a position which would\nbe trying even to the most disinterested? Nevertheless, the towns and\ncounties of England have returned to the present House of Commons 98\nlawyers\u2014some 60 of them in actual practice, and the rest retired,\nbut doubtless retaining those class-views acquired during their\nprofessional careers.\n\nThese criticisms on the conduct of constituencies do not necessarily\ncommit us to the assertion that _none_ belonging to the official and\naristocratic classes ought to be chosen. Though it would be safer to\ncarry out, in these important {299} cases, the general principle\nwhich, as above shown, Parliament has itself recognized and enforced\nin unimportant cases; yet we are not prepared to say that occasional\nexceptions might not be made, on good cause being shown. All we aim\nto show is the gross impolicy of selecting so large a proportion of\nrepresentatives from classes having interests different from those of\nthe general public. That in addition to more than a third taken from\nthe dominant class, who already occupy one division of the Legislature,\nthe House of Commons should contain nearly another third taken from\nthe naval, military, and legal classes, whose policy, like that of\nthe dominant class, is to maintain things as they are; we consider a\ndecisive proof of electoral misjudgment. That out of the 654 members,\nof which the People\u2019s House now consists, there should be but 250 who,\nas considered from a class point of view, are eligible, or tolerably\neligible (for we include a considerable number who are more or less\nobjectionable), is significant of anything but popular good sense. That\ninto an assembly established to protect their interests, the commonalty\nof England should have sent one-third whose interests are the same as\ntheir own, and two-thirds whose interests are at variance with their\nown, proves a scarcely credible lack of wisdom; and seems an awkward\nfact for the representative theory.\n\nIf the intelligence of the mass is thus not sufficient even to choose\nout men who by position and occupation are fit representatives,\nstill less is it sufficient to choose out men who are the fittest\nin character and capacity. To see who will be liable to the bias\nof private advantage is a very easy thing; to see who is wisest is\na very difficult thing; and those who do not succeed in the first\nmust necessarily fail in the last. The higher the wisdom the more\nincomprehensible does it become by ignorance. It is a manifest fact\nthat the popular man or writer, is always one who is but little in\nadvance of the mass, and consequently {300} understandable by them:\nnever the man who is far in advance of them and out of their sight.\nAppreciation of another implies some community of thought. \u201cOnly the\nman of worth can recognize worth in men. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. The worthiest, if he\nappealed to universal suffrage, would have but a poor chance. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\nAlas! Jesus Christ, asking the Jews what _he_ deserved\u2014was not the\nanswer, Death on the gallows!\u201d And though men do not now-a-days stone\nthe prophet, they, at any rate, ignore him. As Mr. Carlyle says in his\nvehement way\u2015\n\n \u201cIf of ten men nine are recognisable as fools, which is a common\n calculation, how, .\u00a0.\u00a0. in the name of wonder, will you ever get a\n ballot-box to grind you out a wisdom from the votes of these ten men?\n .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. I tell you a million blockheads looking authoritatively into\n one man of what you call genius, or noble sense, will make nothing but\n nonsense out of him and his qualities, and his virtues and defects, if\n they look till the end of time.\u201d\n\nSo that, even were electors content to choose the man proved by general\nevidence to be the most far-seeing, and refrained from testing him\nby the coincidence of his views with their own, there would be small\nchance of their hitting on the best. But judging of him, as they do, by\nasking him whether he thinks this or that crudity which they think, it\nis manifest that they will fix on one far removed from the best. Their\ndeputy will be truly representative;\u2014representative, that is, of the\naverage stupidity.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd now let us look at the assembly of representatives thus chosen.\nAlready we have noted the unfit composition of this assembly as\nrespects the interests of its members; and we have just seen what the\nrepresentative theory itself implies as to their intelligence. Let us\nnow, however, consider them more nearly under this last head.\n\nAnd first, what is the work they undertake? Observe, we do not say the\nwork which they _ought_ to do, but the work which they _propose_ to do,\nand _try_ to do. This comprehends the regulation of nearly all actions\ngoing on throughout society. Besides devising measures to prevent {301}\nthe aggression of citizens on one another, and to secure each the\nquiet possession of his own; and besides assuming the further function,\nalso needful in the present state of mankind, of defending the nation\nas a whole against invaders; they unhesitatingly take on themselves\nto provide for countless wants, to cure countless ills, to oversee\ncountless affairs. Out of the many beliefs men have held respecting\nGod, Creation, the Future, etc., they presume to decide which are\ntrue; and authorize an army of priests to perpetually repeat them to\nthe people. The distress resulting from improvidence, they undertake\nto remove: they settle the minimum which each ratepayer shall give\nin charity, and how the proceeds shall be administered. Judging that\nemigration will not naturally go on fast enough, they provide means for\ncarrying off some of the labouring classes to the colonies. Certain\nthat social necessities will not cause a sufficiently rapid spread\nof knowledge, and confident that they know what knowledge is most\nrequired, they use public money for the building of schools and paying\nof teachers; they print and publish State-school-books; they employ\ninspectors to see that their standard of education is conformed to.\nPlaying the part of doctor, they insist that every one shall use their\nspecific, and escape the danger of small-pox by submitting to an attack\nof cow-pox. Playing the part of moralist, they decide which dramas are\nfit to be acted and which are not. Playing the part of artist, they\nprompt the setting up of drawing-schools, provide masters and models;\nand, at Marlborough House, enact what shall be considered good taste\nand what bad. Through their lieutenants, the corporations of towns,\nthey furnish appliances for the washing of peoples\u2019 skins and clothes;\nthey, in some cases, manufacture gas and put down water-pipes; they lay\nout sewers and cover over cess-pools; they establish public libraries\nand make public gardens. Moreover, they determine how houses shall be\nbuilt, and what is a safe construction for a ship; they take measures\nfor the {302} security of railway-travelling; they fix the hour\nafter which public-houses may not be open; they regulate the prices\nchargeable by vehicles plying in the London streets; they inspect\nlodging-houses; they arrange for burial-grounds; they fix the hours\nof factory hands. If some social process does not seem to them to be\ngoing on fast enough, they stimulate it; where the growth is not in the\ndirection which they think most desirable, they alter it; and so they\nseek to realize some undefined ideal community.\n\nSuch being the task undertaken, what, let us ask, are the\nqualifications for discharging it? Supposing it possible to achieve\nall this, what must be the knowledge and capacities of those who\nshall achieve it? Successfully to prescribe for society, it is\nneedful to know the structure of society\u2014the principles on which\nit is organized\u2014the natural laws of its progress. If there be not\na true understanding of what constitutes social development, there\nmust necessarily be grave mistakes made in checking these changes and\nfostering those. If there be lack of insight respecting the mutual\ndependence of the many functions which, taken together, make up the\nnational life, unforeseen disasters will ensue from not perceiving\nhow an interference with one will affect the rest. That is to say,\nthere must be a due acquaintance with the social science\u2014the science\ninvolving all others; the science standing above all others in\ncomplexity.\n\nAnd now, how far do our legislators possess this qualification? Do\nthey in any moderate degree display it? Do they make even a distant\napproximation to it? That many of them are very good classical scholars\nis beyond doubt: not a few have written first-rate Latin verses, and\ncan enjoy a Greek play; but there is no obvious relation between a\nmemory well stocked with the words spoken two thousand years ago,\nand an understanding disciplined to deal with modern society. That\nin learning the languages of the past they have learnt some of its\nhistory, is true; but considering that this history is mainly a {303}\nnarrative of battles and plots and negociations and treacheries, it\ndoes not throw much light on social philosophy\u2014not even the simplest\nprinciples of political economy have ever been gathered from it. We\ndo not question, either, that a moderate per centage of members of\nParliament are fair mathematicians; and that mathematical discipline\nis valuable. As, however, political problems are not susceptible of\nmathematical analysis, their studies in this direction cannot much aid\nthem in legislation. To the large body of military officers who sit as\nrepresentatives, we would not for a moment deny a competent knowledge\nof fortification, of strategy, of regimental discipline; but we do not\nsee that these throw much light on the causes and cure of national\nevils. Indeed, considering that war fosters anti-social sentiments,\nand that the government of soldiers is necessarily despotic, military\neducation and habits are more likely to unfit than to fit men for\nregulating the doings of a free people. Extensive acquaintance with\nthe laws, may doubtless be claimed by the many barristers chosen by\nour constituencies; and this seems a kind of information having some\nrelation to the work to be done. Unless, however, this information\nis more than technical\u2014unless it is accompanied by knowledge of the\nramified consequences which laws have produced in times past and are\nproducing now (which nobody will assert), it cannot give much insight\ninto Social Science. A familiarity with laws is no more a preparation\nfor rational legislation, than would a familiarity with all the\nnostrums men have ever used be a preparation for the rational practice\nof medicine. Nowhere, then, in our representative body, do we find\nappropriate culture. Here is a clever novelist, and there a successful\nmaker of railways; this member has acquired a large fortune in trade,\nand that member is noted as an agricultural improver; but none of\nthese achievements imply fitness for controlling and adjusting social\nprocesses. Among the many who have passed through the public {304}\nschool and university _curriculum_\u2014including though they may a few\nOxford double-firsts and one or two Cambridge wranglers\u2014there are none\nwho have received the discipline required by the true legislator. None\nhave that competent knowledge of Science in general, culminating in\nthe Science of Life, which can alone form a basis for the Science of\nSociety. For it is one of those open secrets which seem the more secret\nbecause they are so open, that all phenomena displayed by a nation are\nphenomena of Life, and are dependent on the laws of Life. There is\nno growth, decay, evil, improvement, or change of any kind, going on\nin the body politic, but what has its cause in the actions of human\nbeings; and there are no actions of human beings but what conform to\nthe laws of Life in general, and cannot be truly understood until those\nlaws are understood.\n\nSee, then, the immense incongruity between the end and the means. See\non the one hand the countless difficulties of the task; and on the\nother hand the almost total unpreparedness of those who undertake\nit. Need we wonder that legislation is ever breaking down? Is it\nnot natural that complaint, amendment, and repeal, should form the\nstaple business of every session? Is there anything more than might be\nexpected in the absurd Jack-Cadeisms which disgrace the debates? Even\nwithout setting up so high a standard of qualification as that above\nspecified, the unfitness of most representatives for their duties is\nabundantly manifest. You need but glance over the miscellaneous list\nof noblemen, baronets, squires, merchants, barristers, engineers,\nsoldiers, sailors, railway-directors, etc., and then ask what training\ntheir previous lives have given them for the intricate business of\nlegislation, to see at once how extreme must be the incompetence. One\nwould think that the whole system had been framed on the sayings of\nsome political Dogberry:\u2014\u201cThe art of healing is difficult; the art of\ngovernment easy. The understanding of {305} arithmetic comes by study;\nwhile the understanding of society comes by instinct. Watchmaking\nrequires a long apprenticeship; but there needs none for the making\nof institutions. To manage a shop properly requires teaching; but the\nmanagement of a people may be undertaken without preparation.\u201d Were\nwe to be visited by some wiser Gulliver, or, as in the \u201cMicromegas\u201d\nof Voltaire, by some inhabitant of another sphere, his account of our\npolitical institutions might run somewhat as follows:\u2015\n\n\u201cI found that the English were governed by an assembly of men, said to\nembody the \u2018collective wisdom.\u2019 This assembly, joined with some other\nauthorities which seem practically subordinate to it, has unlimited\npower. I was much perplexed by this. With us it is customary to define\nthe office of any appointed body; and, above all things, to see that\nit does not defeat the ends for which it was appointed. But both the\ntheory and the practice of this English Government imply that it may do\nwhatever it pleases. Though, by their current maxims and usages, the\nEnglish recognize the right of property as sacred\u2014though the infraction\nof it is considered by them one of the gravest crimes\u2014though the laws\nprofess to be so jealous of it as to punish even the stealing of a\nturnip; yet their legislators suspend it at will. They take the money\nof citizens for any project which they choose to undertake; though\nsuch project was not in the least contemplated by those who gave them\nauthority\u2014nay, though the greater part of the citizens from whom the\nmoney is taken had no share in giving them such authority. Each citizen\ncan hold property only so long as the 654 deputies do not want it. It\nseemed to me that an exploded doctrine once current among them of \u2018the\ndivine right of kings,\u2019 had simply been changed into the divine right\nof Parliaments.\n\n\u201cI was at first inclined to think that the constitution of things\non the Earth was totally different from what it is with us; for the\ncurrent political philosophy here, implies {306} that acts are not\nright or wrong in themselves but are made one or the other by the votes\nof law-makers. In our world it is considered manifest that if a number\nof beings live together, there must, in virtue of their natures, be\ncertain primary conditions on which only they can work satisfactorily\nin concert; and we infer that the conduct which breaks through these\nconditions is bad. In the English legislature, however, a proposal to\nregulate conduct by any such abstract standard would be held absurd.\nI asked one of their members of Parliament whether a majority of the\nHouse could legitimize murder. He said, No. I asked him whether it\ncould sanctify robbery. He thought not. But I could not make him see\nthat if murder and robbery are intrinsically wrong, and not to be made\nright by decisions of statesmen, that similarly _all_ actions must be\neither right or wrong, apart from the authority of the law; and that if\nthe right and wrong of the law are not in harmony with this intrinsic\nright and wrong, the law itself is criminal. Some, indeed, among the\nEnglish think as we do. One of their remarkable men (_not_ included in\ntheir Assembly of Notables) writes thus:\u2015\n\n \u201c\u2018To ascertain better and better what the will of the Eternal was\n and is with us, what the laws of the Eternal are, all Parliaments,\n Ecumenic Councils, Congresses, and other Collective Wisdoms, have\n had this for their object. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Nevertheless, in the inexplicable\n universal votings and debatings of these Ages, an idea or rather a\n dumb presumption to the contrary has gone idly abroad; and at this\n day, over extensive tracts of the world, poor human beings are to be\n found, whose practical belief it is that if we \u201cvote\u201d this or that,\n so this or that will thenceforth _be_. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Practically, men have\n come to imagine that the Laws of this Universe, like the laws of\n constitutional countries, are decided by voting. .\u00a0.\u00a0. It is an idle\n fancy. The Laws of this Universe, of which if the Laws of England are\n not an exact transcript, they should passionately study to become\n such, are fixed by the everlasting congruity of things, and are not\n fixable or changeable by voting!\u2019\n\n\u201cBut I find that, contemptuously disregarding all such protests, the\nEnglish legislators persevere in their hyperatheistic notion, that an\nAct of Parliament duly enforced by State-officers, will work out any\nobject: no question being {307} put whether Laws of Nature permit.\nI forgot to ask whether they considered that different kinds of food\ncould be made wholesome or unwholesome by State-decree.\n\n\u201cOne thing that struck me was the curious way in which the members of\ntheir House of Commons judge of one another\u2019s capacities. Many who\nexpressed opinions of the crudest kinds, or trivial platitudes, or\nworn-out superstitions, were civilly treated. Follies as great as that\nbut a few years since uttered by one of their ministers, who said that\nfree-trade was contrary to common sense, were received in silence. But\nI was present when one of their number, who, as I thought, was speaking\nvery rationally, made a mistake in his pronunciation\u2014made what they\ncall a wrong quantity; and immediately there arose a shout of derision.\nIt seemed quite tolerable that a member should know little or nothing\nabout the business he was there to transact; but quite intolerable that\nhe should be ignorant on a point of no moment.\n\n\u201cThe English pique themselves on being especially practical\u2014have a\ngreat contempt for theorizers, and profess to be guided exclusively\nby facts. Before making or altering a law it is the custom to appoint\na committee of inquiry, who send for men able to give information\nconcerning the matter in hand, and ask them some thousands of\nquestions. These questions, and the answers given to them, are printed\nin large books, and distributed among the members of the Houses of\nParliament; and I was told that they spent about \u00a3100,000 a year in\nthus collecting and distributing evidence. Nevertheless, it appeared\nto me that the ministers and representatives of the English people,\npertinaciously adhere to theories long ago disproved by the most\nconspicuous facts. They pay great respect to petty details of evidence,\nbut of large truths they are quite regardless. Thus, the experience\nof age after age has shown that their state-management is almost\ninvariably bad. The national estates are so miserably administered as\noften to bring loss {308} instead of gain. The government ship-yards\nare uniformly extravagant and inefficient. The judicial system works\nso ill that most citizens will submit to serious losses rather than\nrun risks of being ruined by law-suits. Countless facts prove the\nGovernment to be the worst owner, the worst manufacturer, the worst\ntrader: in fact, the worst manager, be the thing managed what it may.\nBut though the evidence of this is abundant and conclusive\u2014though,\nduring a recent war, the bunglings of officials were as glaring and\nmultitudinous as ever; yet the belief that any proposed duties will\nbe satisfactorily discharged by a new public department appointed to\nthem, seems not a whit the weaker. Legislators, thinking themselves\npractical, cling to the plausible theory of an officially-regulated\nsociety, spite of overwhelming evidence that official regulation\nperpetually fails.\n\n\u201cNay, indeed, the belief seems to gain strength among these fact-loving\nEnglish statesmen, notwithstanding the facts are against it. Proposals\nfor State-control over this and the other, have been of late more rife\nthan ever. And, most remarkable of all, their representative assembly\nlately listened with grave faces to the assertion, made by one of their\nhigh authorities, that State-workshops are more economical than private\nworkshops. Their prime minister, in defending a recently-established\narms-factory, actually told them that, at one of their arsenals,\ncertain missiles of war were manufactured not only better than by the\ntrade, but at about one-third the price; and added, \u2018_so it would be in\nall things_.\u2019 The English being a trading people, who must be tolerably\nfamiliar with the usual rates of profit among manufacturers, and the\nmargin for possible economy, the fact that they should have got for\ntheir chief representative one so utterly in the dark on these matters,\nstruck me as a wonderful result of the representative system.\n\n\u201cI did not inquire much further, for it was manifest that {309} if\nthese were really their wisest men, the English were not a wise people.\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nRepresentative government, then, cannot be called a success, in so far\nas the choice of men is concerned. Those it puts into power are the\nfittest neither in respect of their interests, nor their culture, nor\ntheir wisdom. And as a consequence, partly of this and partly of its\ncomplex and cumbrous nature, representative government is anything\nbut efficient for administrative purposes. In these respects it is\nmanifestly inferior to monarchical government. This has the advantage\nof simplicity, which is always conducive to efficiency. And it has the\nfurther advantage that the power is in the hands of one who is directly\nconcerned in the good management of national affairs; seeing that the\ncontinued maintenance of his power\u2014nay, often his very life\u2014depends\non this. For his own sake a monarch chooses the wisest councillors he\ncan find, regardless of class-distinctions. His interest in getting\nthe best help is too great to allow of prejudices standing between\nhim and a far-seeing man. We see this abundantly illustrated. Did not\nthe kings of France take Richelieu, and Mazarin, and Turgot to assist\nthem? Had not Henry VIII. his Wolsey, Elizabeth her Burleigh, James his\nBacon, Cromwell his Milton? And were not these men of greater calibre\nthan those who hold the reins under our constitutional _r\u00e9gime?_ So\nstrong is the motive of an autocrat to make use of ability wherever it\nexists, that he will, like Louis XI., take even his barber into council\nif he finds him a clever fellow. Besides choosing them for ministers\nand advisers, he seeks out the most competent men for other offices.\nNapoleon raised his marshals from the ranks; and owed his military\nsuccess in great part to the readiness with which he saw and availed\nhimself of merit wherever found. We have recently seen in Russia how\nprompt was the recognition and promotion of engineering talent in\nthe case of Todleben; and know to {310} our cost how greatly the\nprolonged defence of Sebastopol was due to this. In the marked contrast\nto these cases supplied by our own army, in which genius is ignored\nwhile muffs are honoured\u2014in which wealth and caste make the advance\nof plebeian merit next to impossible\u2014in which jealousies between\nQueen\u2019s service and Company\u2019s service render the best generalship\nalmost unavailable; we see that the representative system fails in\nthe officering of its executive, as much as in the officering of its\nlegislative. A striking antithesis between the actions of the two forms\nof government, is presented in the evidence given before the Sebastopol\nCommittee respecting the supply of huts to the Crimean army\u2014evidence\nshowing that while, in his negotiations with the English Government,\nthe contractor for the huts met with nothing but vacillation, delay,\nand official rudeness, the conduct of the French Government was\nmarked by promptitude, decision, sound judgment, and great civility.\nEverything goes to show that for administrative efficiency, autocratic\npower is the best. If your aim is a well-organized army\u2014if you want\nto have sanitary departments, and educational departments, and\ncharity-departments, managed in a business-like way\u2014if you would have\nsociety actively regulated by staffs of State-agents; then by all means\nchoose that system of complete centralization which we call despotism.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nProbably, notwithstanding the hints dropped at the outset, most have\nread the foregoing pages with surprise. Very likely some have referred\nto the cover of the _Review_, to see whether they have not, in mistake,\ntaken up some other than the \u201c_Westminster_;\u201d while some may, perhaps,\nhave accompanied their perusal by a running commentary of epithets\ncondemnatory of our seeming change of principles. Let them not be\nalarmed. We have not in the least swerved from the confession of faith\nset forth in our prospectus. On the contrary, as we shall shortly show,\n{311} our adhesion to free institutions is as strong as ever\u2014nay, has\neven gained strength through this apparently antagonistic criticism.\n\nThe subordination of a nation to a man, is not a wholesome but a\nvicious state of things: needful, indeed, for a vicious humanity; but\nto be outgrown as fast as may be. The instinct which makes it possible\nis anything but a noble one. Call it \u201chero-worship,\u201d and it looks\nrespectable. Call it what it is\u2014a blind awe and fear of power, no\nmatter of what kind, but more especially of the brutal kind; and it is\nby no means to be admired. Watch it in early ages deifying the cannibal\nchief; singing the praises of the successful thief; commemorating the\nmost blood-thirsty warriors; speaking with reverence of those who had\nshown undying revenge; and erecting altars to such as carried furthest\nthe vices which disgrace humanity; and the illusion disappears. Read\nhow, where it was strongest, it immolated crowds of victims at the tomb\nof the dead king\u2014how, at the altars raised to its heroes, it habitually\nsacrificed prisoners and children to satisfy their traditional appetite\nfor human flesh\u2014how it produced that fealty of subjects to rulers which\nmade possible endless aggressions, battles, massacres, and horrors\ninnumerable\u2014how it has mercilessly slain those who would not lick the\ndust before its idols;\u2014read all this, and the feeling no longer seems\nso worthy an one. See it in later days idealizing the worst as well\nas the best monarchs; receiving assassins with acclamation; hurrahing\nbefore successful treachery; rushing to applaud the processions and\nshows and ceremonies wherewith effete power strengthens itself;\nand it looks far from laudable. Autocracy presupposes inferiority\nof nature on the part of both ruler and subject: on the one side a\ncold, unsympathetic sacrificing of other\u2019s wills to self-will; on the\nother side a mean, cowardly abandonment of the claims of manhood.\nOur very language {312} bears testimony to this. Do not _dignity_,\n_independence_, and other words of approbation, imply a nature at\nvariance with this relation? Are not _tyrannical_, _arbitrary_,\n_despotic_, epithets of reproach? and are not _truckling_, _fawning_,\n_cringing_, epithets of contempt? Is not _slavish_ a condemnatory\nterm? Does not _servile_, that is, serf-like, imply littleness,\nmeanness? And has not the word _villain_, which originally meant\nbondsman, come to signify everything which is hateful? That language\nshould thus inadvertently embody dislike for those who most display\nthe instinct of subordination, is alone sufficient proof that this\ninstinct is associated with evil dispositions. It has been the parent\nof countless crimes. It is answerable for the torturing and murder of\nthe noble-minded who would not submit\u2014for the horrors of Bastiles and\nSiberias. It has ever been the represser of knowledge, of free thought,\nof true progress. In all times it has fostered the vices of courts, and\nmade those vices fashionable throughout nations. With a George IV. on\nthe throne, it weekly tells ten thousand lies, in the shape of prayers\nfor a \u201cmost religious and gracious king.\u201d Whether you read the annals\nof the far past\u2014whether you look at the various uncivilized races\ndispersed over the globe\u2014or whether you contrast the existing nations\nof Europe; you equally find that submission to authority decreases as\nmorality and intelligence increase. From ancient warrior-worship down\nto modern flunkeyism, the sentiment has ever been strongest where human\nnature has been vilest.\n\nThis relation between barbarism and loyalty, is one of those beneficent\narrangements which \u201cthe servant and interpreter of nature\u201d everywhere\nmeets with. The subordination of many to one, is a form of society\nneedful for men so long as their natures are savage, or anti-social;\nand that it may be maintained, it is needful that they should have an\nextreme awe of the one. Just in proportion {313} as their conduct\nto one another is such as to breed perpetual antagonism, endangering\nsocial union; just in that proportion must there be a reverence for\nthe strong, determined, cruel ruler, who alone can repress their\nexplosive natures and keep them from mutual destruction. Among such a\npeople any form of free government is an impossibility. There must be a\ndespotism as stern as the people are savage; and, that such a despotism\nmay exist, there must be a superstitious worship of the despot. But\nas fast as the discipline of social life modifies character\u2014as fast\nas, through lack of use, the old predatory instincts dwindle\u2014as fast\nas the sympathetic feelings grow; so fast does this hard rule become\nless necessary; so fast does the authority of the ruler diminish; so\nfast does the awe of him disappear. From being originally god, or\ndemi-god, he comes at length to be a very ordinary person; liable to\nbe criticized, ridiculed, caricatured. Various influences conspire to\nthis result. Accumulating knowledge gradually divests the ruler of\nthose supernatural attributes at first ascribed to him. The conceptions\nwhich developing science gives of the grandeur of creation, as well\nas the constancy and irresistibleness of its Omnipresent Cause, make\nall feel the comparative littleness of human power; and the awe once\nfelt for the great man is, by degrees, transferred to that Universe of\nwhich the great man is seen to form but an insignificant part. Increase\nof population, with its average per-centage of great men, involves\nthe comparative frequency of such; and the more numerous they are the\nless respect can be given to each: they dwarf one another. As society\nbecomes settled and organized, its welfare and progress become more\nand more independent of any one. In a primitive society the death of a\nchief may alter the whole course of things; but in a society like ours,\nthings go on much as before, no matter who dies. Thus, many influences\ncombine to diminish autocratic power, whether political or other. It\nis true, {314} not only in the sense in which Tennyson writes it, but\nalso in a higher sense, that\u2015\n\n .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0\u201cthe individual withers, and the world is more and more.\u201d\n\nFurther, it is to be noted that while the unlimited authority of the\ngreatest man ceases to be needful; and while the superstitious awe\nwhich upholds that unlimited authority decreases; it at the same time\nbecomes impossible to get the greatest man to the top. In a rude social\nstate, where might is right, where war is the business of life, where\nthe qualities required in the ruler, alike for controlling his subjects\nand defeating his enemies, are bodily strength, courage, cunning, will,\nit is easy to pick out the best; or rather\u2014he picks himself out. The\nqualities which make him the fittest governor for the barbarians around\nhim, are the qualities by which he gets the mastery over them. But\nin an advanced, complex, and comparatively peaceful state like ours,\nthese are not the qualities needed; and even were they needed, the\nfirmly-organized arrangements of society do not allow the possessor of\nthem to break through to the top. For the rule of a settled, civilized\ncommunity, the characteristics required are\u2014not a love of conquest but\na desire for the general happiness; not undying hate of enemies but\na calm dispassionate equity; not artful man\u0153uvring but philosophic\ninsight. How is the man most endowed with these to be found? In no\ncountry is he ordinarily born heir to the throne; and that he can be\nchosen out of thirty millions of people none will be foolish enough\nto think. The incapacity for recognizing the greatest worth, we have\nalready seen illustrated in our parliamentary elections. And if the few\nthousands forming a constituency cannot pick out from among themselves\ntheir wisest man, still less can the millions forming a nation do it.\nJust as fast as society becomes populous, complex, peaceful; so fast\ndoes the political supremacy of the best become impossible. {315}\n\nBut even were the relation of autocrat and slave a morally wholesome\none; and even were it possible to find the fittest man to be autocrat;\nwe should still contend that such a form of government is bad. We\nshould not contend this simply on the ground that self-government is a\nvaluable educator. But we should take the ground that no human being,\nhowever wise and good, is fit to be sole ruler over the doings of an\ninvolved society; and that, with the best intentions, a benevolent\ndespot is very likely to produce the most terrible mischiefs which\nwould else have been impossible. We will take the case of all others\nthe most favourable to those who would give supreme power to the\nbest. We will instance Mr. Carlyle\u2019s model hero\u2014Cromwell. Doubtless\nthere was much in the manners of the times when Puritanism arose, to\njustify its disgust. Doubtless the vices and follies bequeathed by\neffete Catholicism still struggling for existence, were bad enough to\ncreate a reactionary asceticism. It is in the order of Nature, however,\nthat men\u2019s habits and pleasures are not to be changed suddenly. For\nany _permanent_ effect to be produced it must be produced slowly.\nBetter tastes, higher aspirations, must be developed; not enforced\nfrom without. Disaster is sure to result from the withdrawal of\nlower gratifications before higher ones have taken their places; for\ngratification of some kind is a condition to healthful existence.\nWhatever ascetic morality, or rather immorality, may say, pleasures\nand pains are the incentives and restraints by which Nature keeps her\nprogeny from destruction. No contemptuous title of \u201cpig-philosophy\u201d\nwill alter the eternal fact that Misery is the highway to Death; while\nHappiness is added Life and the giver of Life. But indignant Puritanism\ncould not see this truth; and with the extravagance of fanaticism\nsought to abolish pleasure in general. Getting into power, it put down\nnot only questionable amusements but all others along with them. And\n{316} for these repressions Cromwell, either as enacting, maintaining,\nor allowing them, was responsible. What, now, was the result of this\nattempt to dragoon men into virtue? What came when the strong man\nwho thought he was thus \u201chelping God to mend all,\u201d died? A dreadful\nreaction brought in one of the most degraded periods of our history.\nInto the newly-garnished house entered \u201cseven other spirits more wicked\nthan the first.\u201d For generations the English character was lowered.\nVice was gloried in, virtue was ridiculed; dramatists made marriage the\nstock-subject of laughter; profaneness and obscenity flourished; high\naspirations ceased; the whole age was corrupt. Not until George III.\nreigned was there a better standard of living. And for this century of\ndemoralization we have, in great measure, to thank Cromwell. Is it,\nthen, so clear that the domination of one man, righteous though he may\nbe, is a blessing?\n\nLastly, it is to be remarked that when the political supremacy of the\ngreatest no longer exists in an overt form, it still continues in a\ndisguised and more beneficent form. For is it not manifest that in\nthese latter days the wise man eventually gets his edicts enforced\nby others, if not by himself. Adam Smith, from his chimney-corner,\ndictated greater changes than prime ministers do. A General Thompson\nwho forges the weapons with which the Anti-Corn-Law battle is fought\u2014a\nCobden and a Bright who add to and wield them, forward civilization\nmuch more than those who hold sceptres. Repugnant as the fact may\nbe to statesmen, it is yet one not to be gainsayed. Whoever, to the\ngreat effects already produced by Free-trade, joins the far greater\neffects which will be hereafter produced, must see that the revolution\ninitiated by these men is far wider than has been initiated by any\npotentate of modern times. As Mr. Carlyle very well knows, those\nwho elaborate new truths and teach them to their fellows, are {317}\nnow-a-days the real rulers\u2014\u201cthe unacknowledged legislators\u201d\u2014the\nvirtual kings. Thus we have the good which great men can do us, while\nwe are saved from the evil.\n\nNo; the old _r\u00e9gime_ has passed away. For ourselves at least, the\nsubordination of the many to the one has become alike needless,\nrepugnant, and impossible. Good for its time, bad for ours, the ancient\n\u201chero-worship\u201d is dead; and happily no declamations, be they never so\neloquent, can revive it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHere seem to be two irreconcileable positions\u2014two mutually-destructive\narguments. First, a condemnatory criticism on representative\ngovernment, and then a still more condemnatory criticism on monarchical\ngovernment: each apparently abolishing the other.\n\nNevertheless, the paradox is easily explicable. It is quite possible\nto say all that we have said concerning the defects of representative\ngovernment, and still to hold that it is the best form of government.\nNay, it is quite possible to derive a more profound conviction of its\nsuperiority from the very evidence which appears so unfavourable to it.\n\nFor nothing that we have urged tells against its goodness as a means\nof securing justice between man and man, or class and class. Abundant\nevidence shows that the maintenance of equitable relations among its\nsubjects, which forms the essential business of a ruling power, is\nsurest when the ruling power is of popular origin; notwithstanding the\ndefects to which such a ruling power is liable. For discharging the\ntrue function of a government, representative government is shown to be\nthe best, alike by its _origin_, its _theory_, and its _results_. Let\nus glance at the facts under these three heads.\n\nAlike in Spain, in England, and in France, popular power embodied\nitself as a check upon kingly tyranny, that is\u2014kingly injustice. The\nearliest accounts we have of the Spanish Cortes, say that it was their\noffice to advise {318} the King; and to follow their advice was\nhis duty. They petitioned, remonstrated, complained of grievances,\nand supplicated for redress. The King, having acceded to their\nrequirements, swore to observe them; and it was agreed that any act\nof his in contravention of the statutes thus established, should be\n\u201crespected as the King\u2019s commands, but not executed, as contrary to\nthe rights and privileges of the subject.\u201d In all which we see very\nclearly that the special aim of the Cortes was to get rectified the\ninjustices committed by the King or others; that the King was in the\nhabit of breaking the promises of amendment he made to them; and that\nthey had to adopt measures to enforce the fulfilment of his promises.\nIn England we trace analogous facts. The Barons who bridled the tyranny\nof King John, though not formally appointed, were virtually impromptu\nrepresentatives of the nation; and in their demand that justice should\nneither be sold, denied, nor delayed, we discern the social evils\nwhich led to this taking of the power into their own hands. In early\ntimes the knights and burgesses, summoned by the King with the view\nof getting supplies from them, had for their especial business to\nobtain from him the redress of grievances, that is\u2014the execution of\njustice; and in their eventually-obtained and occasionally-exercised\npower of withholding supplies until justice was granted, we see both\nthe need there was for remedying the iniquities of autocracy, and the\nadaptation of representative institutions to this end. And the further\ndevelopment of popular power latterly obtained, originated from the\ndemand for fairer laws\u2014for less class-privilege, class-exemption,\nclass-injustice: a fact which the speeches of the Reform-Bill agitation\nabundantly prove. In France, again, representative government grew into\na definite form under the stimulus of unbearable oppression. When the\naccumulated extortion of centuries had reduced the mass of the people\nto misery\u2014when millions of haggard faces were seen throughout the {319}\nland\u2014when starving complainants were hanged on \u201ca gallows forty feet\nhigh\u201d\u2014when the exactions and cruelties of good-for-nothing kings and\nvampire-nobles had brought the nation to the eve of dissolution; there\ncame, as a remedy, an assembly of men elected by the people.\n\nThat, considered _a priori_, representative government is fitted for\nestablishing just laws, is implied by the unanimity with which Spanish,\nEnglish, and French availed themselves of it to this end; as well as\nby the endeavours latterly made by other European nations to do the\nlike. The _rationale_ of the matter is simple enough. Manifestly,\non the average of cases, a man will protect his own interests more\nsolicitously than others will protect them for him. Manifestly, where\nregulations have to be made affecting the interests of several men,\nthey are most likely to be equitably made when all those concerned are\npresent, and have equal shares in the making of them. And manifestly,\nwhere those concerned are so numerous and so dispersed, that it is\nphysically impossible for them all to take part in the framing of\nsuch regulations, the next best thing is for the citizens in each\nlocality to appoint one of their number to speak for them, to care\nfor their claims, to be their representative. The general principle\nis that the welfare of all will be most secure when each looks after\nhis own welfare; and the principle is carried out as directly as the\ncircumstances permit. It is inferable, alike from human nature and from\nhistory, that a single man cannot be trusted with the interests of a\nnation of men, where his real or imagined interests clash with theirs.\nIt is similarly inferable from human nature and from history, that no\nsmall section of a nation, as the nobles, can be expected to consult\nthe welfare of the people at large in preference to their own. And it\nis further inferable that only in a general diffusion of political\npower, is there a safeguard for the general welfare. This has all\nalong been the conviction under which representative government has\nbeen advocated, {320} maintained, and extended. From the early writs\nsummoning the members of the House of Commons\u2014writs which declared it\nto be a most equitable rule that the laws which concerned all should be\napproved of by all\u2014down to the reasons now urged by the unenfranchised\nfor a participation in political power, this is the implied theory.\nObserve, nothing is said about wisdom or administrative ability. From\nthe beginning, the end in view has been _justice_. Whether we consider\nthe question in the abstract, or whether we examine the opinions men\nhave entertained upon it from old times down to the present day, we\nequally see the theory of representative government to be, that it is\nthe best means of insuring equitable social relations.\n\nAnd do not the results justify the theory? Did not our early\nParliaments, after long-continued struggles, succeed in curbing the\nlicentious exercise of royal power, and in establishing the rights\nof the subject? Are not the comparative security and justice enjoyed\nunder our form of government, indicated by the envy with which other\nnations regard it? Was not the election of the French Constituent\nAssembly followed by the sweeping away of the grievous burdens that\nweighed down the people\u2014by the abolition of tithes, seignorial dues,\ngabelle, excessive preservation of game\u2014by the withdrawal of numerous\nfeudal privileges and immunities\u2014by the manumission of the slaves in\nthe French colonies?\u2014And has not that extension of our own electoral\nsystem embodied in the Reform-Bill, brought about more equitable\narrangements?\u2014as witness the repeal of the Corn-Laws, and the\nequalization of probate and legacy duties. The proofs are undeniable.\nIt is clear, both _a priori_ and _a posteriori_, that representative\ngovernment is especially adapted for the establishment and maintenance\nof just laws.\n\nAnd now mark that the objections to representative government awhile\nsince urged, scarcely tell against it at all, so long as it does\nnot exceed this comparatively limited {321} function. Though its\nmediocrity of intellect makes it incompetent to oversee and regulate\nthe countless involved processes which make up the national life; it\nnevertheless has quite enough intellect to enact and enforce those\nsimple principles of equity which underlie the right conduct of\ncitizens to one another. These are such that the commonest minds can\nunderstand their chief applications. Stupid as may be the average\nelector, he can see the propriety of such regulations as shall prevent\nmen from murdering and robbing; he can understand the fitness of\nlaws which enforce the payment of debts; he can perceive the need of\nmeasures to prevent the strong from tyrannizing over the weak; and he\ncan feel the rectitude of a judicial system that is the same for rich\nand poor. The average representative may be but of small capacity, but\nhe is competent, under the leadership of his wiser fellows, to devise\nappliances for carrying out these necessary restraints; or rather\u2014he is\ncompetent to uphold the set of appliances slowly elaborated by the many\ngenerations of his predecessors, and to do something towards improving\nand extending them in those directions where the need is most manifest.\nIt is true that even these small demands upon electoral and senatorial\nwisdom are but imperfectly met. But though constituencies are blind\nto the palpable truth that if they would escape laws which favour the\nnobility at the expense of the commonalty, they must cease to choose\nrepresentatives from among the nobility; yet when the injustice of\nthis class-legislation is glaring\u2014as in the case of the Corn-Laws\u2014they\nhave sense enough to use means for getting it abolished. And though\nmost legislators have not sufficient penetration to perceive that\nthe greater part of the evils which they attempt to cure by official\ninspection and regulation, would disappear were there a certain,\nprompt, and cheap administration of justice; yet the County-Courts-Act\nand other recent law-reforms, show that they do eventually recognize\nthe importance of more efficient {322} judicial arrangements. While,\ntherefore, the lower average of intelligence which necessarily\ncharacterizes representative government, unfits it for discharging the\ncomplex business of regulating the entire national life; it does not\nunfit it for discharging the comparatively simple duties of protector.\nAgain, in respect of this all-essential function of a government, there\nis a much clearer identity of interest between representative and\ncitizen, than in respect of the multitudinous other functions which\ngovernments undertake. Though it is generally of but little consequence\nto the member of Parliament whether state-teachers, state-preachers,\nstate-officers of health, state-dispensers of charity, etc., do their\nwork well, it is of great consequence to him that life and property\nshould be secure; and hence he is more likely to care for the efficient\nadministration of justice than for the efficient administration of\nanything else. Moreover, the complexity, incongruity of parts, and\ngeneral cumbrousness which deprive a representative government of\nthat activity and decision required for paternally-superintending\nthe affairs of thirty millions of citizens; do not deprive it of the\nability to establish and maintain the regulations by which these\ncitizens are prevented from trespassing against one another. For the\nprinciples of equity are permanent as well as simple; and once having\nbeen legally embodied in their chief outlines, all that devolves\non a government is to develop them more perfectly, and improve the\nappliances for enforcing them: an undertaking for which the slow and\ninvolved action of a representative government does not unfit it.\nSo that while by its origin, theory, and results, representative\ngovernment is shown to be the best for securing justice between class\nand class, as well as between man and man, the objections which so\nstrongly tell against it in all its other relations to society, do not\ntell against it in this fundamental relation.\n\nThus, then, we reach the solution of the paradox. Here is the\nreconciliation between the two seemingly-contradictory {323} positions\nawhile since taken. To the question\u2014What is representative government\ngood for? our reply is\u2014It is good, especially good, good above all\nothers, for doing the thing which a government should do. It is bad,\nespecially bad, bad above all others, for doing the things which a\ngovernment should not do.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOne point remains. We said, some distance back, that not only may\nrepresentative government be the best, notwithstanding its many\nconspicuous deficiencies; but that it is even possible to discern\nin these very deficiencies further proofs of its superiority.\nThe conclusion just arrived at, implying, as it does, that these\ndeficiencies tend to hinder it from doing the things which\nno government should do, has already furnished a key to this\nstrange-looking assertion. But it will be well here to make a more\nspecific justification of it. This brings us to the pure science of the\nmatter.\n\nThe ever-increasing complexity which characterizes advancing societies,\nis a complexity that results from the multiplication of different parts\nperforming different duties. The doctrine of the division of labour\nis now-a-days understood by most to some extent; and most know that\nby this division of labour each operative, each manufacturer, each\ntown, each district, is constantly more and more restricted to one\nkind of work. Those who study the organization of living bodies find\nthe uniform process of development to be, that each organ gradually\nacquires a definite and limited function: there arises, step by step,\na more perfect \u201cphysiological division of labour.\u201d And in an article\non \u201cProgress: its Law and Cause,\u201d published in our April number, we\npointed out that this increasing specialization of functions which goes\non in all organized bodies, social as well as individual, is one of\nthe manifestations of a still more general process pervading creation,\ninorganic as well as organic.\n\nNow this specialization of functions, which is the law of {324} all\norganization, has a twofold implication. At the same time that each\npart grows adapted to the particular duty it has to discharge, it grows\nunadapted to all other duties. The becoming especially fit for one\nthing, is a becoming less fit than before for everything else. We have\nnot space here to exemplify this truth. Any modern work on physiology,\nhowever, will furnish the reader with abundant illustrations of it,\nas exhibited in the evolution of living creatures; and as exhibited\nin the evolution of societies, it may be studied in the writings of\npolitical economists. All which we wish here to point out is, that the\ngovernmental part of the body politic exemplifies this truth equally\nwith its other parts. In virtue of this universal law, a government\ncannot gain ability to perform its special work without losing such\nability as it had to perform other work.\n\nThis then is, as we say, the pure science of the matter. The original\nand essential office of a government is that of protecting its\nsubjects against aggression external and internal. In low, undeveloped\nforms of society, where yet there is but little differentiation of\nparts, and little specialization of functions, this essential work,\ndischarged with extreme imperfection, is joined with endless other\nwork: the government has a controlling action over all conduct,\nindividual and social\u2014regulates dress, food, ablutions, prices, trade,\nreligion\u2014exercises unbounded power. In becoming so constituted as\nto discharge better its essential function, the government becomes\nmore limited alike in the power and the habit of doing other things.\nIncreasing ability to perform its true duty, involves decreasing\nability to perform all other kinds of actions. And this conclusion,\ndeducible from the universal law of organization, is the conclusion\nto which inductive reasoning has already led us. We have seen that,\nwhether considered in theory or practice, representative government\nis the best for securing justice. We have also seen that, whether\n{325} considered in theory or practice, it is the worst for all other\npurposes. And here we find that this last characteristic is a necessary\naccompaniment of the first. These various incapacities, which seem to\ntell so seriously against the goodness of representative government,\nare but the inevitable consequences of its more complete adaptation to\nits proper work; and, so understood, are themselves indications that\nit is the form of government natural to a more highly-organized and\nadvanced social state.\n\nWe do not expect this consideration to weigh much with those whom\nit most concerns. Truths of so abstract a character find no favour\nwith senates. The metamorphosis we have described is not mentioned in\nOvid. History, as at present written, makes no comments on it. There\nis nothing about it to be found in blue-books and committee-reports.\nNeither is it proved by statistics. Evidently, then, it has but small\nchance of recognition by the \u201cpractical\u201d legislator. But to the select\nfew who study the Social Science, properly so called, we commend\nthis general fact as one of the highest significance. Those who know\nsomething of the general laws of life, and who perceive that these\ngeneral laws of life underlie all social phenomena, will see that this\ndual change in the character of advanced governments, involves an\nanswer to the first of all political questions. They will see that this\nspecialization in virtue of which an advanced government gains power to\nperform one function, while it loses power to perform others, clearly\nindicates the true limitations of State-duty. They will see that, even\nleaving out all other evidence, this fact alone shows conclusively what\nis the proper sphere of legislation.\n\n{326}\n\n\n\n\nSTATE-TAMPERINGS WITH MONEY AND BANKS.\n\n[_First published in_ The Westminster Review _for January 1858_.]\n\n\nAmong unmitigated rogues, mutual trust is impossible. Among people\nof absolute integrity, mutual trust would be unlimited. These are\ntruisms. Given a nation made up of liars and thieves, and all trade\namong its members must be carried on either by barter or by a currency\nof intrinsic value: nothing in the shape of _promises_-to-pay can pass\nin place of _actual_ payments; for, by the hypothesis, such promises\nbeing never fulfilled, will not be taken. On the other hand, given a\nnation of perfectly honest men\u2014men as careful of others\u2019 rights as of\ntheir own\u2014and nearly all trade among its members may be carried on\nby memoranda of debts and claims, eventually written off against one\nanother in the books of bankers; seeing that as, by the hypothesis,\nno man will ever issue more memoranda of debts than his goods and his\nclaims will liquidate, his paper will pass current for whatever it\nrepresents. Coin will be needed only as a measure of value, and to\nfacilitate those small transactions for which it is physically the most\nconvenient. These we take to be self-evident truths.\n\nFrom them follows the corollary that in a nation neither wholly honest\nnor wholly dishonest, there may, and eventually will, be established a\nmixed currency\u2014a currency {327} partly of intrinsic value and partly\nof credit-value. The ratio between the quantities of these two kinds of\ncurrency, will be determined by a combination of several causes.\n\nSupposing that there is no legislative meddling to disturb the\nnatural balance, it is clear from what has already been said, that,\nfundamentally, the proportion of coin to paper will depend on the\naverage conscientiousness of the people. Daily experience must ever\nbe teaching each citizen, which other citizens he can put confidence\nin, and which not. Daily experience must also ever be teaching him how\nfar this confidence may be carried. From personal experiment, and from\ncurrent opinion, which results from the experiments of others, every\none must learn, more or less truly, what credit may safely be given.\nIf all find that their neighbours are little to be trusted, but few\npromises-to-pay will circulate. And the circulation of promises-to-pay\nwill be great, if all find that the fulfilment of trading engagements\nis tolerably certain. The degree of _honesty_ characterizing a\ncommunity, being the first regulator of a credit-currency; the second\nis the degree of _prudence_. Other things equal, it is manifest that\namong a sanguine, speculative people, promissory payments will be taken\nmore readily, and will therefore circulate more largely, than among\na cautious people. Two men having exactly the same experiences of\nmercantile risks will, under the same circumstances, respectively give\ncredit and refuse it, if they are respectively rash and circumspect.\nAnd two nations thus contrasted in prudence, will be similarly\ncontrasted in the relative quantities of notes and bills in circulation\namong them. Nay, they will be more than similarly contrasted in this\nrespect; seeing that the prevailing incautiousness, besides making\neach citizen unduly ready to give credit, will also produce in him\nan undue readiness to risk his own capital in speculations, and a\nconsequent undue demand for credit from other citizens. There will be\nboth an increased pressure for credit and a diminished resistance; and\ntherefore a more {328} than proportionate excess of paper-currency.\nOf this national characteristic and its consequences, we have a\nconspicuous example in the United States.\n\nTo these comparatively permanent moral causes, on which the ordinary\nratio of hypothetical to real money in a community depends, have to\nbe added certain temporary moral and physical causes, which produce\ntemporary variations in the ratio. The prudence of any people is liable\nto more or less fluctuation. In railway-manias and the like, we see\nthat irrational expectations may spread through a whole nation, and\nlead its members to give and take credit almost recklessly. But the\nchief causes of temporary variations are those which directly affect\nthe quantity of available capital. Wars, deficient harvests, or losses\nconsequent on the misfortunes of other nations, will, by impoverishing\nthe community, inevitably lead to an increase in the ratio of\n_promissory payments to actual payments_. For what must be done by\nthe citizen disabled by such causes from meeting his engagements?\u2014the\nshopkeeper whose custom has fallen off in consequence of the high\nprice of bread; or the manufacturer whose goods lie in his ware-rooms\nunsaleable; or the merchant whose foreign correspondents fail him? As\nthe proceeds of his business do not suffice to liquidate the claims on\nhim that are falling due, he is compelled either to find other means\nof liquidating them, or to stop payment. Rather than stop payment, he\nwill, of course, make temporary sacrifices\u2014will give high terms to\nwhoever will furnish him with the desired means. If, by depositing\nsecurities with his banker, he can get a loan at an advanced rate of\ninterest, well. If not, by offering an adequate temptation, he may\nmortgage his property to some one having good credit; who either gives\nbills, or draws on his banker for the sum agreed to. In either case,\nextra promises to pay are issued; or, if the difficulty is met by\naccommodation-bills, the same result follows. And in proportion to the\nnumber of citizens obliged to resort to one {329} or other of these\nexpedients, must be the increase of promissory payments in circulation.\n\nReduce this proposition to its most general terms, and it becomes\nself-evident. Thus:\u2014All bank-notes, cheques, bills of exchange, etc.,\nare so many _memoranda of claims_. No matter what may be the technical\ndistinctions among them, on which upholders of the \u201ccurrency principle\u201d\nseek to establish their dogma, they all come within this definition.\nUnder the ordinary state of things, the amount of available wealth in\nthe hands, or at the command, of those concerned, suffices to meet\nthese claims as they are severally presented for payment; and they are\npaid either by equivalents of intrinsic value, as coin, or by giving\nin place of them other memoranda of claims on some body of undoubted\nsolvency. But now let the amount of available wealth in the hands\nof the community be greatly diminished. Suppose a large portion of\nthe necessaries of life, or of coin, which is the most exchangeable\nequivalent of such necessaries, has been sent abroad to support an\narmy, or to subsidize foreign states; or, suppose that there has\nbeen a failure in the crops of grain or potatoes. What follows? It\nfollows that part of the claims cannot be liquidated. And what must\nhappen from their non-liquidation? It must happen that those unable to\nliquidate them will either fail, or they will redeem them by directly\nor indirectly giving in exchange certain memoranda of claims on their\nstock-in-trade, houses, or land. That is, such of these claims as the\ndeficient _floating_ capital does not suffice to meet, are replaced\nby claims on _fixed_ capital. The memoranda of claims which should\nhave _dis_appeared by liquidation, _re_-appear in a new form; and the\nquantity of paper-currency is increased. If the war, famine, or other\ncause of impoverishment, continues, the process is repeated. Those\nwho have no further fixed capital to mortgage, become bankrupt; while\nthose whose fixed capital admits of it, mortgage still further, and\nstill further increase the promissory {330} payments in circulation.\nManifestly, if the members of a community whose annual returns but\nlittle more than suffice to meet their annual payments suddenly lose\npart of their annual returns, they must become proportionately in\ndebt to one another; and the documents expressive of debt must be\nproportionately multiplied.\n\nThis _a priori_ conclusion is in perfect harmony with mercantile\nexperience. The last hundred years have furnished repeated\nillustrations of its truth. After the enormous export of gold in\n1795\u20136 for war-loans to Germany, and to meet bills drawn on the\nTreasury by British agents abroad; and after large advances made under\na moral compulsion by the Bank of England to the Government; there\nfollowed an excessive issue of bank-notes. In 1796\u20137, there were\nfailures of the provincial banks; a panic in London; a run on the\nnearly-exhausted Bank of England; and a suspension of cash-payments\u2014a\nState-authorized refusal to redeem promises to pay. In 1800, the\nfurther impoverishment consequent on a bad harvest, joined with\nthe legalized inconvertibility of bank-notes, entailed so great a\nmultiplication of them as to cause their depreciation. During the\ntemporary peace of 1802, the country partly recovered itself; and\nthe Bank of England would have liquidated the claims on it had the\nGovernment allowed. On the subsequent resumption of war, the phenomenon\nwas repeated; as in later times it has been on each occasion when the\ncommunity, carried away by irrational hopes, has locked up an undue\nproportion of its capital in permanent works. Moreover, we have still\nmore conclusive illustrations\u2014illustrations of the sudden cessation of\ncommercial distress and bankruptcy, resulting from a sudden increase of\ncredit-circulation. When, in 1793, there came a general crash, mainly\ndue to an unsafe banking-system which had grown up in the provinces\n_in consequence_ of the Bank of England monopoly\u2014when the pressure,\nextending to London, became so great as to alarm the Bank-directors\nand to cause {331} them suddenly to restrict their issues, thereby\nproducing a frightful multiplication of bankruptcies; the Government\n(to mitigate an evil indirectly produced by legislation) determined\nto issue Exchequer-Bills to such as could give adequate security.\nThat is, they allowed hard-pressed citizens to mortgage their fixed\ncapitals for equivalents of State-promises to pay, with which to\nliquidate the demands on them. The effect was magical. \u00a32,202,000 only\nof Exchequer-Bills were required. The consciousness that loans could be\nhad, in many cases prevented them from being needed. The panic quickly\nsubsided; and all the loans were very soon repaid. In 1825, again,\nwhen the Bank of England, after having intensified a panic by extreme\nrestriction of its issues, suddenly changed its policy, and in four\ndays advanced \u00a35,000,000 notes on all sorts of securities, the panic at\nonce ceased.\n\nAnd now, mark two important truths. As just implied, those expansions\nof paper-circulation which naturally take place in times of\nimpoverishment or commercial difficulty, are highly salutary. This\nissuing of securities for future payment when there does not exist the\nwherewith for immediate payment, is a means of mitigating national\ndisasters. The process amounts to a postponement of trading-engagements\nwhich cannot at once be met. And the alternative questions to be asked\nrespecting it are\u2014Shall all the merchants, manufacturers, shopkeepers,\netc., who, by unwise investments, or war, or famine, or great losses\nabroad, have been in part deprived of the means of meeting the claims\nupon them, be allowed to mortgage their fixed capital? or, by being\ndebarred from issuing memoranda of claims on their fixed capital, shall\nthey be made bankrupts? On the one hand, if they are permitted to avail\nthemselves of that credit which their fellow-citizens willingly give\nthem on the strength of the proffered securities, most of them will\ntide over their difficulties; and in virtue of that accumulation of\nsurplus capital ever going on, they will be {332} able, by-and-by, to\nliquidate their debts in full. On the other hand, if they are forthwith\nbankrupted, carrying with them others, and these again others, there\nfollows a disastrous loss to all the creditors: property to an\nimmense amount being peremptorily sold at a time when there can be\ncomparatively few able to buy, must go at a great sacrifice; and those\nwho in a year or two would have been paid in full, must be content with\n10_s._ in the pound. Added to which evil comes the still greater one\u2014an\nextensive damage to the organization of society. Numerous importing,\nproducing, and distributing establishments are swept away; tens of\nthousands of their dependents are left without work; and before the\nindustrial fabric can be repaired, a long time must elapse, much labour\nmust lie idle, and great distress be borne. Between these alternatives,\nwho, then, can pause? Let this spontaneous remedial process follow its\nown course, and the evil will either be in great measure eventually\nescaped, or will be spread little by little over a considerable period.\nStop this remedial process, and the whole evil, falling at once on\nsociety, will bring wide-spread ruin and misery.\n\nThe second of these important truths is, that an expanded circulation\nof promises to pay, caused by absolute or relative impoverishment,\ncontracts to its normal limits as fast as the need for expansion\ndisappears. For the conditions of the case imply that all who have\nmortgaged their fixed capitals to obtain the means of meeting their\nengagements, have done so on unfavourable terms; and are therefore\nunder a strong stimulus to pay off their mortgages as quickly as\npossible. Every one who, at a time of commercial pressure, gets a loan\nfrom a bank, has to give high interest. Hence, as fast as prosperity\nreturns, and his profits accumulate, he gladly escapes this heavy\ntax by repaying the loan; in doing which he, directly or indirectly,\ntakes back to the bank as large a number of its credit documents as he\noriginally received, and so diminishes the {333} credit-circulation\nas much as his original transaction had increased it. Considered apart\nfrom technical distinctions, a banker performs, in such case, the\nfunction of an agent in whose name traders issue negotiable memoranda\nof claims on their estates. The agent is already known to the public\nas one who issues memoranda of claims on capital that is partly\nfloating and partly fixed\u2014memoranda of claims that have an established\ncharacter, and are convenient in their amounts. What the agent does\nunder the circumstances specified, is to issue more such memoranda of\nclaims, on the security of more fixed, and partially-fixed, capital\nput in his possession. His clients hypothecate their estates through\nthe banker, instead of doing it in their own names, simply because\nof the facilities which he has and which they have not. And as the\nbanker requires to be paid for his agency and his risk, his clients\nredeem their estates, and close these special transactions with him, as\nquickly as they can: thereby diminishing the amount of credit-currency.\n\nThus we see that the balance of a mixed currency of voluntary origin\nis, under all circumstances, self-adjusting. Supposing considerations\nof physical convenience out of the question, the average ratio of paper\nto coin is primarily dependent on the average trustworthiness of the\npeople, and secondarily dependent on their average prudence. When,\nin consequence of unusual prosperity, there is an unusual increase\nin the number of mercantile transactions, there is a corresponding\nincrease in the quantity of currency, both metallic and paper, to meet\nthe requirement. And when from war, famine, or over-investment, the\navailable wealth in the hands of citizens is insufficient to pay their\ndebts to one another, the memoranda of debts in circulation acquire an\nincreased ratio to the quantity of gold: to decrease again as fast as\nthe excess of debts can be liquidated.\n\nThat these self-regulating processes act but imperfectly, is doubtless\ntrue. With an imperfect humanity, they cannot {334} act otherwise\nthan imperfectly. People who are dishonest, or rash, or stupid,\nwill inevitably suffer the penalties of dishonesty, or rashness, or\nstupidity. If any think that by some patent legislative mechanism,\na society of bad citizens can be made to work together as well\nas a society of good ones, we shall not take pains to show them\nthe contrary. If any think that the dealings of men deficient in\nuprightness and foresight, may be so regulated by cunningly-devised\nActs of Parliament as to secure the effects of uprightness and\nforesight, we have nothing to say to them. Or if there are any (and\nwe fear there are numbers) who think that in times of commercial\ndifficulty, resulting from impoverishment or other natural causes, the\nevil can be staved-off by some ministerial sleight of hand, we despair\nof convincing them that the thing is impossible. See it or not, the\ntruth is that the State can do none of these things. As we shall show,\nthe State can, and sometimes does, _produce_ commercial disasters.\nAs we shall also show, it can, and sometimes does, _exacerbate_ the\ncommercial disasters otherwise produced. But while it can create and\ncan make worse, it cannot prevent.\n\nAll which the State has to do in the matter is to discharge its\nordinary office\u2014to administer justice. The enforcement of contracts is\none of the functions included in its general function of maintaining\nthe rights of citizens. And among other contracts which it is called\non to enforce, are the contracts expressed in credit-documents\u2014bills\nof exchange, cheques, bank-notes. If any one issues a promise-to-pay,\neither on demand or at specified date, and does not fulfil that\npromise, the State, when appealed to by the creditor, is bound in its\nprotective capacity to obtain fulfilment of the promise, at whatever\ncost to the debtor, or such partial fulfilment of it as his effects\nsuffice for. The State\u2019s duty in the case of the currency, as in other\ncases, is sternly to threaten the penalty of bankruptcy on all who make\nengagements which they cannot meet, and sternly to inflict the {335}\npenalty when called on by those aggrieved. If it falls short of this,\nmischief ensues. If it exceeds this, mischief ensues. Let us glance at\nthe facts.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHad we space to trace in detail the history of the Bank of England\u2014to\nshow how the privileges contained in its first charter were bribes\ngiven by a distressed Government in want of a large loan\u2014how, soon\nafterwards, the law which forbad a partnership of more than six persons\nfrom becoming bankers, was passed to prevent the issue of notes by\nthe South-Sea Company, and so to preserve the Bank-monopoly\u2014how the\ncontinuance of State-favours to the Bank, corresponded with the\ncontinuance of the Bank\u2019s claims on the State; we should see that, from\nthe first, banking-legislation has been an organized injustice. But\npassing over earlier periods, let us begin with the events that closed\nthe last century. Our rulers of that day had entered into a war\u2014whether\nwith adequate reason needs not here be discussed. They had lent vast\nsums in gold to their allies. They had demanded large advances from\nthe Bank of England, which the Bank durst not refuse. They had thus\nnecessitated an excessive issue of notes by the Bank. That is, they\nhad so greatly diminished the floating capital of the community, that\nengagements could not be met; and an immense number of promises-to-pay\ntook the place of actual payments. Soon after, the fulfilment of these\npromises became so difficult that it was forbidden by law; that is,\ncash-payments were suspended. Now for these results\u2014for the national\nimpoverishment and consequent abnormal condition of the currency, the\nState was responsible. How much of the blame lay with the governing\nclasses and how much with the nation at large, we do not pretend to\nsay. What it concerns us here to note is, that the calamity arose from\nthe acts of the ruling power. When, again, in 1802, after a short\npeace, the available capital of the community had so far increased\nthat the redemption of promises-to-pay became {336} possible, and the\nBank of England was anxious to begin redeeming them, the legislature\ninterposed its veto; and so continued the evils of an inconvertible\npaper-currency after they would naturally have ceased. Still more\ndisastrous, however, were the results that by-and-by ensued from\nState-meddlings. Cash-payments having been suspended\u2014the Government,\ninstead of enforcing all contracts, having temporarily cancelled a\ngreat part of them, by saying to every banker, \u201cYou shall not be called\non to liquidate in coin the promises-to-pay which you issue;\u201d the\nnatural checks to the multiplication of promises-to-pay, disappeared.\nWhat followed? Banks being no longer required to cash their notes in\ncoin; and easily obtaining from the Bank of England, supplies of its\nnotes in exchange for fixed securities; were ready to make advances to\nalmost any extent. Not being obliged to raise their rate of discount in\nconsequence of the diminution of their available capital; and reaping a\nprofit by every loan (of notes) made on fixed capital; there arose both\nan abnormal facility of borrowing, and an abnormal desire to lend. Thus\nwere fostered the wild speculations of 1809\u2014speculations that were not\nonly thus fostered, but were in great measure _caused_ by the previous\nover-issue of notes; which, by further exaggerating the natural rise\nof prices, increased the apparent profitableness of investments. And\nall this, be it remembered, took place at a time when there should have\nbeen rigid economy\u2014at a time of impoverishment consequent on continued\nwar\u2014at a time when, but for law-produced illusions, there would have\nbeen commercial straitness and a corresponding carefulness. Just when\nits indebtedness was unusually great, the community was induced still\nfurther to increase its indebtedness. Clearly, then, the progressive\naccumulation and depreciation of promises-to-pay, and the commercial\ndisasters which finally resulted from it in 1814\u201315\u201316, when ninety\nprovincial banks were broken and more dissolved, were State-produced\nevils: partly due to {337} a war which, whether necessary or not,\nwas carried on by the Government, and greatly exacerbated by the\ncurrency-regulations which that Government had made.\n\nBefore passing to more recent facts, let us parenthetically notice\nthe similarly-caused degradation of the currency which had previously\narisen in Ireland. When examined by a parliamentary committee in 1804,\nMr. Colville, one of the directors of the Bank of Ireland, stated\nthat before the passing of the Irish Bank-Restriction-Bill (the bill\nby which cash-payments were suspended) the directors habitually met\nany unusual demand for gold by diminishing their issues. That is to\nsay, in the ordinary course of business, they raised their rate of\ndiscount whenever the demand enabled them; and so, both increased\ntheir profits and warded-off the danger of bankruptcy. During this\nunregulated period their note-circulation was between \u00a3600,000 and\n\u00a3700,000. But as soon as they were guaranteed by law against the danger\nof bankruptcy, their circulation began rapidly to increase; and very\nsoon reached \u00a33,000,000. The results, as proved before the committee,\nwere these:\u2014The exchange with England became greatly depressed;\nnearly all the good specie was exported to England; it was replaced\nin Dublin (where small notes could not be issued) by a base coinage,\nadulterated to the extent of fifty per cent.; and elsewhere it was\nreplaced by notes payable at twenty-one days\u2019 date, issued by all sorts\nof persons, for sums down even as low as sixpence. And this excessive\nmultiplication of small notes was _necessitated_ by the impossibility\nof otherwise carrying on retail trade, after the disappearance of\nthe silver coinage. For these disastrous effects, then, legislation\nwas responsible. The swarms of \u201csilver-notes\u201d resulted from the\nexportation of silver; the exportation of silver was due to the great\ndepression of the exchange with England; this great depression arose\nfrom the excessive issue of notes by the Bank of Ireland; and this\n{338} excessive issue followed from their legalized inconvertibility.\nYet, though these facts were long ago established by a committee\nof the House of Commons, the defenders of the \u201ccurrency-principle\u201d\nare actually blind enough to cite this multiplication of sixpenny\npromises-to-pay, _as proving the evils of an unregulated currency_!\n\nReturning now to the case of the Bank of England, let us pass at once\nto the Act of 1844. While still a protectionist\u2014while still a believer\nin the beneficence of law as a controller of commerce\u2014Sir Robert Peel\nundertook to stop the recurrence of monetary crises, like those of\n1825, 1836, and 1839. Overlooking the truth that, when not _caused_ by\nthe meddlings of legislators, a monetary crisis is due, either to an\nabsolute impoverishment, or to a relative impoverishment consequent\non speculative over-investment; and that for the bad season, or the\nimprudence, causing this, there is no remedy; he boldly proclaimed that\n\u201c_it is better to prevent the paroxysm than to excite it_:\u201d and he\nbrought forward the Bank-Act of 1844 as the means of prevention. How\nmerciless has been Nature\u2019s criticism on this remnant of Protectionism,\nwe all know. The monetary sliding-scale has been as great a failure as\nits prototype. Within three years arose one of these crises which were\nto have been prevented. Within another ten years has arisen a second\nof these crises. And on both occasions this intended safeguard has so\nintensified the evil, that a temporary repeal of it has been imperative.\n\nWe should have thought that, even without facts, every one might have\nseen that it is impossible, by Act of Parliament, to prevent imprudent\npeople from doing imprudent things; and, if facts were needed, we\nshould have thought that our commercial history up to 1844 supplied a\nsufficiency. But a superstitious faith in State-ordinances disregards\nsuch facts. And we doubt not that even now, though there have been two\nglaring failures of this professed check on over-speculation\u2014though\nthe evidence conclusively {339} shows that the late commercial\ncatastrophes have had nothing whatever to do with the issue of\nbank-notes, but, as in the case of the Western Bank of Scotland,\noccurred along with diminished issues\u2014and though in Hamburg, where the\n\u201ccurrency principle\u201d has been rigidly carried out to the very letter,\nthere has been a worse crisis than anywhere else; yet there will remain\nplenty of believers in the efficiency of Sir R. Peel\u2019s prophylactic.\n\nBut, as already said, the measure has not only failed; it has made\nworse the panics it was to have warded-off. And it was sure to do\nthis. As shown at the outset, the multiplication of promises-to-pay\nthat occurs at a period of impoverishment caused by war, famine,\nover-investment, or losses abroad, is a salutary process of\nmitigation\u2014is a mode of postponing actual payments till actual payments\nare possible\u2014is a preventive of wholesale bankruptcy\u2014is a spontaneous\nact of self-preservation. We pointed out, not only that this is an\n_a priori_ conclusion, but that facts in our own mercantile history\nillustrate at once the naturalness, the benefits, the necessity of it.\nAnd if this conclusion needs enforcing by further evidence, we have\nit in the recent events at Hamburg. In that city, there are no notes\nin circulation but such as are represented by actual equivalents of\nbullion or jewels in the bank: no one is allowed, as with us, to obtain\nbank-promises-to-pay in return for securities. Hence it resulted that\nwhen the Hamburg merchants, lacking their remittances from abroad,\nwere suddenly deprived of the wherewith to meet their engagements;\nand were prevented by law from getting bank-promises-to-pay by\npawning their estates; bankruptcy swept them away wholesale. And\nwhat finally happened? To prevent universal ruin, the Government\nwas obliged to decree that all bills of exchange coming due, should\nhave a month\u2019s grace; and that there should be immediately formed a\nState-Discount-Bank\u2014an office for issuing State-promises-to-pay in\nreturn for securities. That is, having first by its {340} restrictive\nlaw ruined a host of merchants, the Government was obliged to legalize\nthat postponement of payments which, but for its law, would have\nspontaneously taken place. With such further confirmation of an\n_a priori_ conclusion, can it be doubted that our late commercial\ndifficulties were intensified by the measure of 1844? Is it not,\nindeed, notorious in the City, that the progressively-increasing demand\nfor accommodation, was in great part due to the conviction that, in\nconsequence of the Bank-Act, there would shortly be no accommodation\nat all? Does not every London merchant know that his neighbours who\nhad bills coming due, and who saw that by the time they were due the\nBank would discount only at still higher rates, or not at all, decided\nto lay in beforehand the means of meeting those bills? Is it not an\nestablished fact that the hoarding thus induced, not only rendered the\npressure on the Bank greater than it would otherwise have been, but, by\ntaking both gold and notes out of circulation, made the Bank\u2019s issues\ntemporarily useless to the general public? Did it not happen in this\ncase, as in 1793 and 1825, that when at last restriction was removed,\nthe mere consciousness that loans could be had, itself prevented them\nfrom being required? And, indeed, is not the simple fact that the panic\nquickly subsided when the Act was suspended, sufficient proof that the\nAct had, in great measure, produced it.\n\nSee, then, for what we have to thank legislative meddling. During\nordinary times Sir R. Peel\u2019s Act, by obliging the Bank of England,\nand occasionally provincial banks, to keep more gold than they would\notherwise have kept (and if it has not done this it has done nothing),\nhas inflicted a tax on the nation to the extent of the interest on such\nportion of the gold-currency as was in excess of the need: a tax which,\nin the course of the last thirteen years, has probably amounted to some\nmillions. And then, on the two occasions when there have arisen the\ncrises that were to {341} have been prevented, the Act, after having\nintensified the pressure, made bankrupt a great number of respectable\nfirms which would else have stood, and increased the distress not only\nof the trading but of the working population, has been twice abandoned\nat the moment when its beneficence was to have been conspicuous. It\nhas been a cost, a mischief, and a failure. Yet such is the prevailing\ndelusion that, judging from appearances, it will be maintained!\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d ask our opponents, \u201cshall the Bank be allowed to let gold drain\nout of the country without check? Shall it have permission to let its\nreserve of gold diminish so greatly as to risk the convertibility of\nits notes? Shall it be enabled recklessly to increase its issues, and\nso produce a depreciated paper-currency?\u201d\n\nReally, in these Free-trade days, it seems strange to have to answer\nquestions like these; and, were it not for the confusion of facts and\nideas which legislation has produced, it would be inexcusable to ask\nthem.\n\nIn the first place, the common notion that the draining of gold out of\nthe country is intrinsically, and in all cases, an evil, is nothing\nbut a political superstition\u2014a superstition in part descended from the\nantique fallacy that money is the only wealth, and in part from the\nmaxims of an artificial, law-produced state of things, under which\nthe exportation of gold really _was_ a sign of a corrupted currency:\nwe mean, during the suspension of cash-payments. Law having cancelled\nmillions of contracts which it was its duty to enforce\u2014law having\nabsolved bankers from liquidating their promises-to-pay in coin, having\nrendered it needless to keep a stock of coin with which to liquidate\nthem, and having thus taken away that natural check which prevents the\nover-issue and depreciation of notes\u2014law having partly suspended that\n_home_ demand for gold which ordinarily competes with and balances\nthe _foreign_ demand; there resulted an abnormal exportation of gold.\nBy-and-by it {342} was seen that this efflux of gold was a consequence\nof the over-issue of notes; and that the accompanying high price of\ngold, as paid for in notes, proved the depreciation of notes. And then\nit became an established doctrine that an adverse state of the foreign\nexchanges, indicating a drain of gold, was significant of an excessive\ncirculation of notes; and that the issue of notes should be regulated\nby the state of the exchanges.\n\nThis unnatural condition of the currency having continued for a quarter\nof a century, the concomitant doctrine rooted itself in the general\nmind. And now mark one of the multitudinous evils of legislative\nmeddling. This artificial test, good only for an artificial state, has\nsurvived the return to a natural state; and men\u2019s ideas about currency\nhave been reduced by it to chronic confusion.\n\nThe truth is that while, during a legalized inconvertibility of\nbank-notes, an efflux of gold may, and often does, indicate an\nexcessive issue of bank-notes; under ordinary circumstances an efflux\nof gold has little or nothing to do with the issue of bank-notes,\nbut is determined by merely mercantile causes. And the truth is\nthat far from being an evil, an efflux of gold thus brought about\nby mercantile causes, is a good. Leaving out of the question, as of\ncourse we must, such exportations of gold as take place for the support\nof armies abroad; the cause of efflux is either an actual plethora\nof all commodities, gold included, which results in gold being sent\nout of the country for the purpose of foreign investment; or else an\nabundance of gold as compared with other leading commodities. And\nwhile, in this last case, the efflux of gold indicates some absolute\nor relative impoverishment of the nation, it is a means of mitigating\nthe bad consequences of that impoverishment. Consider the question as\none of political economy, and this truth becomes obvious. Thus:\u2014The\nnation habitually requires for use and consumption certain quantities\nof commodities, of which gold is one. These commodities {343} are\nseverally and collectively liable to fall short; either from deficient\nharvests, from waste in war, from losses abroad, or from too great\na diversion of labour or capital in some special direction. When a\nscarcity of some chief commodity or necessary occurs, what is the\nremedy? The commodity of which there is an excess (or if none is in\nexcess, then that which can best be spared) is exported in exchange\nfor an additional supply of the deficient commodity. And, indeed, the\nwhole of our foreign trade, alike in ordinary and extraordinary times,\nconsists in this process. But when it happens either that the commodity\nwhich we can best spare is not wanted abroad; or (as recently) that a\nchief foreign customer is temporarily disabled from buying; or that the\ncommodity which we can best spare is gold; then gold itself is exported\nin exchange for the thing which we most want. Whatever form the\ntransaction takes, it is nothing but bringing the supplies of various\ncommodities into harmony with the demands for them. The fact that gold\nis exported, is simply a proof that the need for gold is less than\nthe need for other things. Under such circumstances an efflux of gold\nwill continue, and _ought_ to continue, until other things have become\nrelatively so abundant, and gold relatively so scarce, that the demand\nfor gold is equal to other demands. And he who would prevent this\nprocess, is about as wise as the miser who, finding his house without\nfood, chooses to starve rather than draw upon his purse.\n\nThe second question\u2014\u201cShall the Bank have permission to let its reserve\nof gold diminish so greatly as to risk the convertibility of its\nnotes?\u201d is not more profound than the first. It may fitly be answered\nby the more general question\u2014\u201cShall the merchant, the manufacturer,\nor the shopkeeper, be allowed so to invest his capital as to risk the\nfulfilment of his engagements?\u201d If the answer to the first be \u201cNo,\u201d it\nmust be \u201cNo\u201d to the second. If to the {344} second it be \u201cYes,\u201d it\nmust be \u201cYes\u201d to the first. Any one who proposed that the State should\noversee the transactions of every trader, so as to insure his ability\nto cash all demands as they fell due, might with consistency argue\nthat bankers should be under like control. But while no one has the\nfolly to contend for the one, nearly all contend for the other. One\nwould think that the banker acquired, in virtue of his occupation, some\nabnormal desire to ruin himself\u2014that while traders in other things are\nrestrained by a wholesome dread of bankruptcy, traders in capital have\na longing to appear in the _Gazette_, which law alone can prevent them\nfrom gratifying! Surely the moral checks which act on other men will\nact on bankers. And if these moral checks do not suffice to produce\nperfect security, we have ample proof that no cunning legislative\nchecks will supply their place. The current notion that bankers\ncan, and will, if allowed, issue notes to any extent, is one of the\nabsurdest illusions\u2014an illusion, however, which would never have arisen\nbut for the vicious over-issues induced by law. The truth is that,\nin the first place, a banker _cannot_ increase his issue of notes at\nwill. It has been proved by the unanimous testimony of all bankers who\nhave been examined before successive parliamentary committees, that\n\u201cthe amount of their issues is exclusively regulated by the extent of\nlocal dealings and expenditure in their respective districts;\u201d and that\nany notes issued in excess of the demand are \u201cimmediately returned\nto them.\u201d And the truth is, in the second place, that a banker _will\nnot_, on the average of cases, issue more notes than in his judgment it\nis safe to issue; seeing that if his promises-to-pay in circulation,\nare much in excess of his available means of paying them, he runs a\ngreat risk of having to stop payment\u2014a result of which he has no less\na horror than other men. If facts are needed in proof of this, they\nare furnished by the history of both the Bank of England and the Bank\nof Ireland; which, {345} before they were debauched by the State,\nhabitually regulated their issues according to their stock of bullion,\nand would probably always have been still more careful but for the\nconsciousness that there was the State-credit to fall back upon.\n\nThe third question\u2014\u201cShall the Bank be allowed to issue notes in such\nnumbers as to cause their depreciation?\u201d has, in effect, been answered\nin answering the first two. There can be no depreciation of notes\nso long as they are exchangeable for gold on demand. And so long as\nthe State, in discharge of its duty, insists on the fulfilment of\ncontracts, the alternative of bankruptcy must ever be a restraint\non such over-issue of notes as endangers that exchangeability. The\nbugbear of depreciation is one that would have been unknown but for\nthe sins of governments. In the case of America, where there have been\noccasional depreciations, the sin has been a sin of omission: the\nState has not enforced the fulfilment of contracts\u2014has not forthwith\nbankrupted those who failed to cash their notes; and, if accounts are\ntrue, has allowed those to be mobbed who brought back far-wandering\nnotes for payment.[35] In all other cases the sin has been a sin of\ncommission. The depreciated paper-currency in France, during the\nrevolution, was a State-currency. The depreciated paper-currencies\nof Austria and Russia have been State-currencies. And the only\ndepreciated paper-currency we have known, has been to all intents and\npurposes a State-currency. It was the State which, in 1795\u20136, _forced_\nupon the Bank of England that excessive issue of notes which led to\nthe suspension of cash-payments. It was the State which, in 1802,\n_forbad_ the resumption of cash-payments, when the Bank of England\nwished to resume them. It was the State which, during a quarter of a\ncentury, _maintained_ that suspension of cash-payments from which the\nexcessive multiplication and depreciation of notes resulted. The entire\ncorruption {346} was entailed by State-expenditure, and established\nby State-warrant. Yet now the State affects a virtuous horror of the\ncrime committed at its instigation! Having contrived to shuffle-off\nthe odium on to the shoulders of its tools, the State gravely lectures\nthe banking-community upon its guilt; and with sternest face passes\nmeasures to prevent it from sinning!\n\n [35] This was written in 1858; when \u201cgreenbacks\u201d were unknown.\n\nWe contend, then, that neither to restrain the efflux of gold, nor to\nguard against the over-issue of bank-notes, is legislative interference\nwarranted. If Government will promptly execute the law against all\ndefaulters, the self-interest of bankers and traders will do the\nrest: such evils as would still result from mercantile dishonesties\nand imprudences, being evils which legal regulation may augment but\ncannot prevent. Let the Bank of England, in common with every other\nbank, simply consult its own safety and its own profits; and there\nwill result just as much check as should be put, on the efflux of\ngold or the circulation of paper; and the only check that can be put\non the doings of speculators. Whatever leads to unusual draughts on\nthe resources of banks, immediately causes a rise in the rate of\ndiscount\u2014a rise dictated both by the wish to make increased profits,\nand the wish to avoid a dangerous decrease of resources. This raised\nrate of discount prevents the demand from being so great as it would\nelse have been\u2014alike checks undue expansion of the note-circulation;\nstops speculators from making further engagements; and, if gold is\nbeing exported, diminishes the profit of exportation. Successive rises\nsuccessively increase these effects; until, eventually, none will give\nthe rate of discount asked, save those in peril of stopping payment;\nthe increase of the credit-currency ceases; and the efflux of gold,\nif it is going on, is arrested by the home-demand out-balancing the\nforeign demand. And if, in times of great pressure, and under the\ntemptation of high discounts, banks allow their circulation to expand\nto {347} a somewhat dangerous extent, the course is justified by the\nnecessities. As shown at the outset, the process is one by which banks,\non the deposit of good securities, loan their credit to traders who\nbut for loans would be bankrupt. And that banks should run some risks\nto save hosts of solvent men from inevitable ruin, few will deny.\nMoreover, during a crisis which thus runs its natural course, there\nwill really occur that purification of the mercantile world which many\nthink can be effected only by some Act-of-Parliament ordeal. Under the\ncircumstances described, men who have adequate securities to offer will\nget bank-accommodation; but those who, having traded without capital\nor beyond their means, have not, will be denied it, and will fail.\nUnder a free system the good will be sifted from the bad; whereas the\nexisting restrictions on bank-accommodation, tend to destroy good and\nbad together.\n\nThus it is not true that there need special regulations to prevent\nthe inconvertibility and depreciation of notes. It is not true that,\nbut for legislative supervision, bankers would let gold drain out of\nthe country to an undue extent. It is not true that these \u201ccurrency\ntheorists\u201d have discovered a place at which the body-politic would\nbleed to death but for a State-styptic.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat else we have to say on the general question, may best be joined\nwith some commentaries on provincial and joint-stock banking, to which\nlet us now turn.\n\nGovernment, to preserve the Bank of England-monopoly, having enacted\nthat no partnership exceeding six persons should become bankers;\nand the Bank of England having refused to establish branches in the\nprovinces; it happened, during the latter half of the last century,\nwhen the industrial progress was rapid and banks much needed, that\nnumerous private traders, shopkeepers and others, began to issue\nnotes payable on demand. And when, of the four {348} hundred small\nbanks which had thus grown up in less than fifty years, a great\nnumber gave way under the first pressure\u2014when, on several subsequent\noccasions, like results occurred\u2014when in Ireland, where the Bank of\nIreland-monopoly had been similarly guaranteed, it happened that\nout of fifty private provincial banks, forty became bankrupt\u2014and\nwhen, finally, it grew notorious that in Scotland, where there had\nbeen no law limiting the number of partners, a whole century had\npassed with scarcely a single bank-failure; legislators at once\ndecided to abolish the restriction which had entailed such mischiefs.\nHaving, to use Mr. Mill\u2019s words, \u201cactually made the formation of\nsafe banking-establishments a punishable offence\u201d\u2014having, for one\nhundred and twenty years, maintained a law which first caused\ngreat inconvenience and then extensive ruin, time after time\nrepeated\u2014Government, in 1826, conceded the liberty of joint-stock\nbanking: a liberty which the good easy public, not distinguishing\nbetween a right done and a wrong undone, regarded as a great boon!\n\nBut the liberty was not without conditions. Having previously, in\nanxiety for its _prot\u00e9g\u00e9_, the Bank of England, been reckless of\nthe banking-security of the community at large, the State, like a\nrepentant sinner rushing into asceticism, all at once became extremely\nsolicitous on this point; and determined to put guarantees of its own\ndevising, in place of the natural guarantee of mercantile judgment.\nTo intending bank-shareholders it said\u2014\u201cYou shall not unite on\nsuch publicly-understood conditions as you think fit, and get such\nconfidence as will naturally come to you on those conditions.\u201d And to\nthe public it said\u2014\u201cYou shall not put trust in this or that association\nin proportion as, from the character of its members and constitution,\nyou judge it to be worthy of trust.\u201d But to both it said\u2014\u201cYou shall the\none give, and the other receive, my infallible safeguards.\u201d\n\nAnd now what have been the results? Every one knows {349} that these\nsafeguards have proved anything but infallible. Every one knows that\nthese banks with State-constitutions have been especially characterized\nby instability. Every one knows that credulous citizens, with a faith\nin legislation which endless disappointments fail to diminish, have\ntrusted implicitly in these law-devised securities; and, not exercising\ntheir own judgments, have been led into ruinous undertakings. The evils\nof substituting artificial guarantees for natural ones, which the\nclear-sighted long ago discerned, have, by the late catastrophes, been\nmade conspicuous to all.\n\nWhen commencing this article we had intended to dwell on this\npoint. For though the mode of business which brought about these\njoint-stock-bank failures was, for weeks after their occurrence, time\nafter time clearly described; yet nowhere did we see drawn the obvious\ncorollary. Though in three separate City-articles of _The Times_, it\nwas explained that, \u201crelying upon the ultimate liability of large\nbodies of infatuated shareholders, the discount houses supply these\nbanks with unlimited means, looking not to the character of the bills\nsent up, but simply to the security afforded by the Bank endorsement;\u201d\nyet, in none of them was it pointed out that, but for the law of\nunlimited liability, this reckless trading would not have gone on.\nMore recently, however, this truth has been duly recognized, alike in\nParliament and in the Press; and it is therefore needless further to\nelucidate it. We will simply add that as, if there had been no law of\nunlimited liability, the London houses would not have discounted these\nbad bills; and as, in that case, these provincial joint-stock-banks\ncould not have given these enormous credits to insolvent speculators;\nand as, if they had not done this, they would not have been ruined; it\nfollows, inevitably, that these joint-stock-bank failures have been\n_law-produced disasters_.\n\nA measure for further increasing the safety of the provincial public,\nwas that which limited the circulation of provincial bank-notes. At the\nsame time that it established {350} a sliding-scale for the issues of\nthe Bank of England, the Act of 1844 fixed the maximum circulation of\nevery provincial bank-of-issue; and forbad any further banks-of-issue.\nWe have not space to discuss at length the effects of this restriction;\nwhich must have fallen rather hardly on those especially-careful\nbankers who had, during the twelve weeks preceding the 27th April,\n1844, narrowed their issues to meet any incidental contingencies; while\nit gave a perennial license to such as had been incautious during that\nperiod. All which we can notice is, that this rigorous limitation of\nprovincial issues to a low maximum (and a low maximum was purposely\nfixed) effectually prevents those local expansions of bank-note\ncirculation which, as we have shown, _ought_ to take place in periods\nof commercial difficulty. And further, that by transferring all local\ndemands to the Bank of England, as the only place from which extra\naccommodation can be had, the tendency is to concentrate a pressure\nwhich would else be diffused, and so to create panic.\n\nSaying nothing more, however, respecting the impolicy of the measure,\nlet us mark its futility. As a means of preserving the convertibility\nof the provincial bank-note, it is useless unless it acts as some\nsafeguard against bank-failures; and that it does not do this is\ndemonstrable. While it diminishes the likelihood of failures caused by\nover-issue of notes, it increases the likelihood of failures from other\ncauses. For what will be done by a provincial banker whose issues are\nrestricted by the Act of 1844, to a level lower than that to which he\nwould otherwise have let them rise? If he would, but for the law, have\nissued more notes than he now does\u2014if his reserve is greater than,\nin his judgment, is needful for the security of his notes; is it not\nclear that he will simply extend his operations in other directions?\nWill not the excess of his available capital be to him a warrant either\nfor entering into larger speculations himself, or for allowing his\ncustomers to draw on {351} him beyond the limit he would else have\nfixed? If, in the absence of restriction, his rashness would have led\nhim to risk bankruptcy by over-issue, will it not now equally lead\nhim to risk bankruptcy by over-banking? And is not the one kind of\nbankruptcy as fatal to the convertibility of notes as the other?\n\nNay, the case is even worse. There is reason to believe that bankers\nare tempted into greater dangers under this protective system. They can\nand will hypothecate their capital in ways less direct than by notes;\nand may very likely be led, by the unobtrusiveness of the process, to\ncommit themselves more than they would else do. A trader, applying to\nhis banker in times of commercial difficulty, will often be met by the\nreply\u2014\u201cI cannot make you any direct advances, having already loaned\nas much as I can spare; but knowing you to be a safe man I will lend\nyou my name. Here is my acceptance for the sum you require: they will\ndiscount it for you in London.\u201d Now, as loans thus made do not entail\nthe same immediate responsibilities as when made in notes (seeing that\nthey are neither at once payable, nor do they add to the dangers of a\npossible run), a banker is under a temptation to extend his liabilities\nin this way further than he would have done, had not law forced him to\ndiscover a new channel through which to give credit.\n\nAnd does not the evidence that has lately transpired go to show\nthat these roundabout ways of giving credit _do_ take the place\nof the interdicted ways; and that they _are_ more dangerous than\nthe interdicted ways? Is it not notorious that dangerous forms of\npaper-currency have had an unexampled development since the Act of\n1844? Do not the newspapers and the debates give daily proofs of this?\nAnd is not the process of causation obvious?\n\nIndeed it might have been known, _a priori_, that such a result was\nsure to take place. It has been shown {352} conclusively that,\nwhen uninterfered with, the amount of note-circulation at any given\ntime, is determined by the amount of trade going on\u2014the quantity of\npayments that are being made. It has been repeatedly testified before\ncommittees, that when any local banker contracts his issues, he simply\ncauses an equivalent increase in the issues of neighbouring bankers.\nAnd in past times it has been more than once complained, that when\nfrom prudential motives the Bank of England withdrew part of its\nnotes, the provincial bankers immediately multiplied their notes to\na proportionate extent. Well, is it not manifest that this inverse\nvariation, which holds between one class of bank-notes and another,\nalso holds between bank-notes and other forms of paper-currency?\nWill it not happen that just as diminishing the note-circulation of\none bank, merely adds to the note-circulation of other banks; so, an\nartificial restriction on the circulation of bank-notes in general,\nwill simply cause an increased circulation of some substituted kind\nof promise-to-pay? And is not this substituted kind, in virtue of its\nnovelty and irregularity, likely to be a more unsafe kind? See, then,\nthe predicament. Over all the bills of exchange, cheques, etc., which\nconstitute nine-tenths of the paper-currency of the kingdom, the State\nexercises, and can exercise, no control. And the limit it puts on the\nremaining tenth vitiates the other nine-tenths, by causing an abnormal\ngrowth of new forms of credit, which experience proves to be especially\ndangerous.\n\nThus, all which the State does when it exceeds its true duty is to\nhinder, to disturb, to corrupt. As already pointed out, the quantity\nof credit men will give each other, is determined by natural causes,\nmoral and physical\u2014their average characters, their temporary states of\nfeeling, their circumstances. If the Government forbids one mode of\ngiving credit, they will find another, and probably a worse. Be the\ndegree of mutual trust prudent {353} or imprudent, it must take its\ncourse. The attempt to restrict it by law is nothing but a repetition\nof the old story of keeping out the sea with a fork.\n\nAnd now mark that were it not for these worse than futile\nState-safeguards, there might grow up certain natural safeguards, which\nwould really put a check on undue credit and abnormal speculation. Were\nit not for the attempts to insure security by law, it is very possible\nthat, under our high-pressure system of business, banks would compete\nwith each other in respect of the degree of security they offered\u2014would\nendeavour to outdo each other in the obtainment of a legitimate\npublic confidence. Consider the position of a new joint-stock-bank\nwith limited liability, and unchecked by legal regulations. It can\ndo nothing until it has gained the general good opinion. In the way\nof this there stand great difficulties. Its constitution is untried,\nand is sure to be looked upon by the trading world with considerable\ndistrust. The field is already occupied by old banks with established\nconnexions and reputations. Out of a constituency satisfied with the\npresent accommodation, it has to obtain supporters for a system which\nis apparently less safe than the old. How shall it do this? Evidently\nit must find some unusual mode of assuring the community of its\ntrustworthiness. And out of a number of new banks so circumstanced, it\nis not too much to suppose that ultimately one would hit on some mode.\nIt might be, for instance, that such a bank would give to all who held\ndeposits over \u00a31000 the liberty of inspecting its books\u2014of ascertaining\nfrom time to time its liabilities and its investments. Already this\nplan is frequently adopted by private traders, as a means of assuring\nthose who lend money to them; and this extension of it might naturally\ntake place under the pressure of competition. We have put the question\nto a gentleman who has had long and successful experience, as manager\nof a joint-stock-bank, and his reply is, that some such course would\nvery probably be adopted: adding that, {354} under this arrangement, a\ndepositor would practically become a partner with limited liability.\n\nWere a system of this kind to establish itself, it would form a double\ncheck to unhealthy trading. Consciousness that its rashness would\nbecome known to its chief clients, would prevent the bank-management\nfrom being rash; and consciousness that his credit would be damaged\nwhen his large debt to the bank was whispered, would prevent the\nspeculator from contracting so large a debt. Both lender and borrower\nwould be restrained from reckless enterprize. Very little inspection\nwould suffice to effect this end. One or two cautious depositors would\nbe enough; seeing that the mere expectation of immediate disclosure, in\ncase of misconduct, would mostly keep in order all those concerned.\n\nShould it however be contended, as by some it may, that this safeguard\nwould be of no avail\u2014should it be alleged that, having in their own\nhands the means of safety, citizens would not use them, but would still\nput blind faith in directors, and give unlimited trust to respectable\nnames; then we reply that they would deserve whatever bad consequences\nfell on them. If they did not take advantage of the proffered\nguarantee, the penalty be on their own heads. We have no patience\nwith the mawkish philanthropy which would ward-off the punishment of\nstupidity. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of\nfolly, is to fill the world with fools.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA few words in conclusion respecting the attitude of our opponents.\nLeaving joint-stock-bank legislation, on which the eyes of the public\nare happily becoming opened; and returning to the Bank-Charter, with\nits theory of currency-regulation; we have to charge its supporters\nwith gross, if not wilful, misrepresentation. Their established policy\nis to speak of all antagonism as identified with adhesion to the\nvulgarest fallacies. They daily present, as the only alternatives,\ntheir own dogma or some wild doctrine too {355} absurd to be argued.\n\u201cSide with us or choose anarchy,\u201d is the substance of their homilies.\n\nTo speak specifically:\u2014They boldly assert, in the first place, that\nthey are the upholders of \u201cprinciple;\u201d and on all opposition they seek\nto fasten the title of \u201cempiricism.\u201d Now we are at a loss to see what\nthere is \u201cempirical\u201d in the position, that a bank-note-circulation\nwill regulate itself in the same way that the circulation of other\npaper-currency does. It seems to us anything but \u201cempirical,\u201d to say\nthat the natural check of prospective bankruptcy, which restrains the\ntrader from issuing too many promises-to-pay at given dates, will\nsimilarly restrain the banker from issuing too many promises-to-pay on\ndemand. We take him to be the very opposite of an \u201cempiric,\u201d who holds\nthat people\u2019s characters and circumstances determine the quantity of\ncredit-memoranda in circulation; and that the monetary disorders which\ntheir imperfect characters and changing circumstances occasionally\nentail, can be exacerbated, but cannot be prevented, by State-nostrums.\nOn the other hand, we do not see in virtue of what \u201cprinciple\u201d it\nis, that the contract expressed on the face of a bank-note must be\ndealt with differently from any other contract. We cannot understand\nthe \u201cprinciple\u201d which requires the State to control the business of\nbankers, so that they may not make engagements they cannot fulfil, but\nwhich does _not_ require the State to do the like with other traders.\nTo us it is a very incomprehensible \u201cprinciple\u201d which permits the Bank\nof England to issue \u00a314,000,000 on the credit of the State; but which\nis broken if the State-credit is mortgaged beyond this\u2014a \u201cprinciple\u201d\nwhich implies that \u00a314,000,000 of notes may be issued without gold to\nmeet them, but insists on rigorous precautions for the convertibility\nof every pound more. We are curious to learn how it was inferred from\nthis \u201cprinciple\u201d that the average note-circulation of each provincial\nbank, during certain twelve weeks in 1844, was exactly the {356}\nnote-circulation which its capital justified. So far from discerning a\n\u201cprinciple,\u201d it seems to us that both the idea and its applications are\nas empirical as they can well be.\n\nStill more astounding, however, is the assumption of these\n\u201ccurrency-theorists,\u201d that their doctrines are those of Free-trade.\nIn the Legislature, Lord Overstone, and in the press, the _Saturday\nReview_, have, among others, asserted this. To call that a Free-trade\nmeasure, which has the avowed object of restricting certain voluntary\nacts of exchange, appears so manifest a contradiction in terms that\nit is scarcely credible it should be made. The whole system of\ncurrency-legislation is restrictionist from beginning to end: equally\nin spirit and detail. Is that a Free-trade regulation which has all\nalong forbidden banks of issue within sixty-five miles of London?\nIs that Free-trade which enacts that none but such as have now the\nState-warrant, shall henceforth give promises-to-pay on demand? Is that\nFree-trade which at a certain point steps in between the banker and his\ncustomer, and puts a veto on any further exchange of credit-documents?\nWe wonder what would be said by two merchants, the one about to draw\na bill on the other in return for goods sold, who should be stopped\nby a State-officer with the remark that, having examined the buyer\u2019s\nledger, he was of opinion that ready as the seller might be to take\nthe bill, it would be unsafe for him to do so; and that the law, in\npursuance of the principles of Free-trade, negatived the transaction!\nYet for the promise-to-pay in six months, it needs but to substitute a\npromise-to-pay on demand, and the case becomes substantially that of\nbanker and customer.\n\nIt is true that the \u201ccurrency-theorists\u201d have a colourable excuse\nin the fact, that among their opponents are the advocates of\nvarious visionary schemes, and propounders of regulations quite as\nprotectionist in spirit as their own. It is true that there are some\nwho contend for inconvertible \u201clabour-notes;\u201d and others who argue\nthat, in times of {357} commercial pressure, banks should not raise\ntheir rates of discount. But is this any justification for recklessly\nstigmatizing all antagonism as coming from these classes, in the\nface of the fact that the Bank-Act has been protested against by\nthe highest authorities in political economy? Do not the defenders\nof the \u201ccurrency-principle\u201d know that among their opponents are Mr.\nThornton, long known as an able writer on currency-questions; Mr.\nTooke and Mr. Newmarch, famed for their laborious and exhaustive\nresearches respecting currency and prices; Mr. Fullarton, whose\n\u201cRegulation of Currencies\u201d is a standard work; Mr. Macleod, whose\njust-issued book displays the endless injustices and stupidities of our\nmonetary history; Mr. James Wilson, M.P., who, in detailed knowledge\nof commerce, currency, and banking, is probably unrivalled; and Mr.\nJohn Stuart Mill, who both as logician and economist, stands in the\nfirst rank? Do they not know that the alleged distinction between\nbank-notes and other credit-documents, which forms the professed basis\nof the Bank-Act (and for which Sir R. Peel could quote only the one\npoor authority of Lord Liverpool) is denied, not only by the gentlemen\nabove named, but also by Mr. Huskisson, Professor Storch, Dr. Travers\nTwiss, and the distinguished French Professors, M. Joseph Garnier and\nM. Michel Chevalier?[36] Do they not know, in short, that both the\nprofoundest thinkers and the most patient inquirers are against them?\nIf they do not know this, it is time they studied the subject on which\nthey write with such an air of authority. If they do know it, a little\nmore respect for their opponents would not be unbecoming.\n\n [36] See Mr. Tooke\u2019s \u201cBank Charter Act of 1844,\u201d etc.\n\n{358}\n\n\n\n\nPARLIAMENTARY REFORM: THE DANGERS AND THE SAFEGUARDS.\n\n[_First published in_ The Westminster Review _for April 1860_.]\n\n\nThirty years ago, the dread of impending evils agitated not a few\nbreasts throughout England. Instinctive fear of change, justified as\nit seemed by outbursts of popular violence, conjured up visions of the\nanarchy which would follow the passing of a Reform Bill. In scattered\nfarm-houses there was chronic terror, lest those newly endowed with\npolitical power should in some way filch all the profits obtained by\nrearing cattle and growing corn. The occupants of halls and manors\nspoke of ten-pound householders almost as though they formed an army\nof spoilers, threatening to overrun and devastate the property of\nlandholders. Among townspeople there were some who interpreted the\nabolition of old corruptions into the establishment of mob-government;\nwhich they thought equivalent to spoliation. And even in Parliament,\nsuch alarms found occasional utterance: as, for instance, through the\nmouth of Sir Robert Inglis, who hinted that the national debt would not\nimprobably be repudiated if the proposed measure became law.\n\nThere may perhaps be a few who regard the now pending change in the\nrepresentation with similar dread\u2014who think {359} that artizans\nand others of their grade are prepared, when the power is given\nto them, to lay hands on property. We presume, however, that such\nirrational alarmists form but a small percentage of the nation. Not\nonly throughout the Liberal party, but among the Conservatives, there\nexists a much fairer estimate of the popular character than is implied\nby anticipations of so gloomy a kind. Many of the upper and middle\nclasses are conscious of the fact that, if critically compared, the\naverage conduct of the wealthy would not be found to differ very\nwidely in rectitude from that of the poor. Making due allowance for\ndifferences in the kinds and degrees of temptations to which they are\nexposed, the respective grades of society are tolerably uniform in\ntheir morals. That disregard of the rights of property which, among\nthe people at large, shows itself in the direct form of petty thefts,\nshows itself among their richer neighbours in various indirect forms,\nwhich are scarcely less flagitious and often much more detrimental\nto fellow-citizens. Traders, wholesale and retail, commit countless\ndishonesties, ranging from adulteration and short measure up to\nfraudulent bankruptcy\u2014dishonesties of which we sketched out some of\nthe ramifications in a late article on \u201cThe Morals of Trade.\u201d The\ntrickeries of the turf; the bribery of electors; the non-payment of\ntradesmen\u2019s bills; the jobbing in railway-shares; the obtainment of\nexorbitant prices for land from railway-companies; the corruption that\nattends the getting of private bills through Parliament\u2014these, and\nother such illustrations, show that the unconscientiousness of the\nupper class, manifested though it is in different forms, is not less\nthan that of the lower class: bears as great a ratio to the size of the\nclass, and, if traced to its ultimate results, produces evils as great\nif not greater.\n\nAnd if the facts prove that in uprightness of intentions there is\nlittle to choose between one class of the community and another, an\nextension of the franchise cannot rationally {360} be opposed on the\nground that property would be directly endangered. There is no more\nreason to suppose that the mass of artizans and labourers would use\npolitical power with conscious injustice to their richer neighbours,\nthan there is reason to suppose that their richer neighbours now\nconsciously commit legal injustices against artizans and labourers.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat, then, is the danger to be apprehended? If land, and houses,\nand railways, and funds, and property of all other kinds, would be\nheld with no less security than now, why need there be any fears that\nthe franchise would be misused? What are the misuses of it which are\nrationally to be anticipated?\n\nThe ways in which those to be endowed with political power are likely\nto abuse it, may be inferred from the ways in which political power has\nbeen abused by those who have possessed it.\n\nWhat general trait has characterized the rule of the classes hitherto\ndominant? These classes have not habitually sought their own _direct_\nadvantage at the expense of other classes; but their measures have\nnevertheless frequently been such as were _indirectly_ advantageous to\nthemselves. Voluntary self-sacrifice has been the exception. The rule\nhas been so to legislate as to preserve private interests from injury;\nwhether public interests were injured or not. Though, in equity, a\nlandlord has no greater claim on a defaulting tenant than any other\ncreditor; yet landlords, having formed the majority of the legislature,\nhave made laws giving them power to recover rent in anticipation\nof other creditors. Though the duties payable to government on the\ntransfer of property to heirs and legatees, might justly have been\nmade to fall more heavily on the wealthy than on the comparatively\npoor, and on real property rather than on personal property; yet the\nreverse arrangement was enacted and long maintained, and is even\nstill partially in force. Rights of presentation to places in the\nChurch, {361} obtained however completely in violation of the spirit\nof the law, are yet tenaciously defended, with little or no regard\nto the welfare of those for whom the Church ostensibly exists. Were\nit not accounted for by the bias of personal interests, it would be\nimpossible to explain the fact that, on the question of protection\nto agriculture, the landed classes and their dependents were ranged\nagainst the other classes: the same evidence being open to both.\nAnd if there needs a still stronger illustration, we have it in the\nopposition made to the repeal of the Corn-Laws by the established\nclergy. Though, by their office, preachers of justice and mercy\u2014though\nconstantly occupied in condemning selfishness and holding up a supreme\nexample of self-sacrifice; yet so swayed were they by those temporal\ninterests which they thought endangered, that they offered to this\nproposed change an almost uniform resistance. Out of some ten thousand\n_ex officio_ friends of the poor and needy, there was but one (the Rev.\nThomas Spencer), who took an active part in abolishing this tax imposed\non the people\u2019s bread for the maintenance of landlords\u2019 rents.\n\nSuch are a few of the ways in which, in modern times, those who have\nthe power seek their own benefit at the expense of the rest. It is\nin analogous ways that we must expect any section of the community\nwhich may be made predominant by a political change, to sacrifice the\nwelfare of other sections to its own. While we do not see reason to\nthink that the lower classes are intrinsically less conscientious than\nthe upper classes, we do not see reason to think that they are more\nconscientious. Holding, as we do, that in each society and in each\nage, the morality is, on the average, the same throughout all ranks;\nit seems to us clear that if the rich, when they have the opportunity,\nmake laws which unduly favour themselves, the poor, if their power was\nin excess, will do the like in similar ways and to a similar extent.\nWithout knowingly enacting injustice, they will be unconsciously biased\nby personal {362} considerations; and our legislation will err as much\nin a new direction as it has hitherto done in the old.\n\nThis abstract conclusion we shall find confirmed on contemplating the\nfeelings and opinions current among artizans and labourers. What the\nworking classes now wish done, indicates what they would be likely to\ndo, if a reform in the representation made them preponderate. Judging\nfrom their prevailing sentiments, they would doubtless do, or aid in\ndoing, many things which it is desirable to have done. Such a question\nas that of Church-rates would have been settled long ago had the\nfranchise been wider. Any great increase of popular influence, would\ngo far to rectify the present inequitable relation of the established\nreligious sect to the rest of the community. And other remnants of\nclass-legislation would be swept away. But besides ideas likely to\neventuate in changes which we should regard as beneficial, the working\nclasses entertain ideas that could not be realized without gross\ninjustice to other classes and ultimate injury to themselves. There is\namong them a prevailing enmity towards capitalists. The fallacy that\nmachinery acts to their damage, is still widely spread, both among\nrural labourers and the inhabitants of towns. And they show a wish, not\nonly to dictate how long per day men shall work, but to regulate all\nthe relations between employers and employed. Let us briefly consider\nthe evidence of this.\n\nWhen, adding another to the countless errors which it has taught the\npeople, the Legislature, by passing the Ten-Hours-Bill, asserted that\nit is the duty of the State to limit the duration of labour, there\nnaturally arose among the working classes the desire for further\nameliorations to be secured in the same way. First came the formidable\nstrike of the Amalgamated Engineers. The rules of this body aim to\nrestrict the supply of labour in various ways. No member is allowed\nto work more than a fixed number of hours per week; nor for less\nthan a fixed rate of wages. {363} No man is admitted into the trade\nwho has not \u201cearned a right by probationary servitude.\u201d There is a\nstrict registration; which is secured by fines on any one who neglects\nto notify his marriage, removal, or change of service. The council\ndecides, without appeal, on all the affairs, individual and general,\nof the body. How tyrannical are the regulations may be judged from the\nfact, that members are punished for divulging anything concerning the\nsociety\u2019s business; for censuring one another; for vindicating the\nconduct of those fined, etc. And their own unity of action having been\nsecured by these coercive measures, the Amalgamated Engineers made a\nprolonged effort to impose on their employers, sundry restrictions\nwhich they supposed would be beneficial to themselves. More recently,\nwe have seen similar objects worked for by similar means during the\nstrike of the Operative Builders. In one of their early manifestoes,\nthis body of men contended that they had \u201can equal right to share with\nother workers, that large amount of public sympathy which is now being\nso widely extended in the direction of shortening the hours of labour:\u201d\nthus showing at once their delusion and its source. Believing, as they\nhad been taught by an Act of Parliament to believe, that the relation\nbetween the quantity of labour given and the wages received, is not\na natural but an artificial one; they demanded that while the wages\nremained the same, the hours should be reduced from ten to nine. They\nrecommended their employers so to make their future contracts, as to\nallow for this diminished day\u2019s work: saying they were \u201cso sanguine as\nto consider the consummation of their desire inevitable:\u201d a polite way\nof hinting that their employers must succumb to the irresistible power\nof their organization. Referring to the threat of the master-builders\nto close their works, they warned them against \u201cthe responsibility\nof causing the public disaster\u201d thus indicated. And when the breach\nfinally took place, the {364} Unionists set in action the approved\nappliances for bringing masters to terms; and would have succeeded had\nit not been that their antagonists, believing that concessions would\nbe ruinous, made a united resistance. During several previous years,\nmaster-builders had been yielding to various extravagant demands, of\nwhich those recently made were a further development. Had they assented\nto the diminished day\u2019s work, and abolished systematic overtime, as\nthey were required to do, there is no reason to suppose the dictation\nwould have ended. Success would have presently led to still more\nexacting requirements; and future years would have witnessed further\nextensions of this mischievous meddling between capital and labour.\n\nPerhaps the completest illustration of the industrial regulations\nwhich find favour with artizans, is supplied by the Printers\u2019 Union.\nWith the exception of those engaged in _The Times_ office, and in\none other large establishment, the proprietors of which successfully\nresisted the combination, the compositors, pressmen, etc., throughout\nthe kingdom, form a society which controls all the relations between\nemployers and employed. There is a fixed price for setting up type\u2014so\nmuch per thousand letters: no master can give less; no compositor being\nallowed by the Union to work for less. There are established rates for\npress-work; and established numbers less than which you cannot have\nprinted without paying for work that is not done. The scale rises by\nwhat are called \u201ctokens\u201d of 250; and if but 50 copies are required,\nthe charge is the same as for printing 250; or if 300 are wanted,\npayment must be made for 500. Besides regulating prices and modes of\ncharging to their own advantage, in these and other ways, the members\nof the Union restrict competition by limiting the number of apprentices\nbrought into the business. So well organized is this combination that\nthe masters are obliged to succumb. An infraction of the rules in any\n{365} printing-office leads to a strike of the men; and as this is\nsupported by the Union at large, the employer has to yield.\n\nThat in other trades artizans would, if they could, establish\nrestrictive systems equally complete with this, we take to\nbe sufficiently proved by their often-repeated attempts. The\nTin-plate-Workers\u2019 strike, the Coventry-Weavers\u2019 strikes, the\nEngineers\u2019 strike, the Shoemakers\u2019 strike, the Builders\u2019 strike,\nall show a most decided leaning towards a despotic regulation of\ntrade-prices, hours, and arrangements\u2014towards an abolition of free\ntrade between employers and employed. Should the men engaged in our\nvarious industries succeed in their aims, each industry would be so\nshackled as seriously to raise the cost of production. The chief\npenalty would thus fall on the working classes themselves. Each\nproducer, while protected in the exercise of his own occupation, would\non every commodity he bought have to pay an extra price, consequent\non the protection of other producers. In short, there would be\nestablished, under a new form, the old mischievous system of mutual\ntaxation. And a final result would be such a diminished ability to\ncompete with other nations as to destroy our foreign trade.\n\nAgainst results like these it behoves us to guard. It becomes a grave\nquestion how far we may safely give political power to those who\nentertain views so erroneous respecting fundamental social relations;\nand who so pertinaciously struggle to enforce these erroneous views.\nMen who render up their private liberties to the despotic rulers of\ntrades-unions, seem scarcely independent enough rightly to exercise\npolitical liberties. Those who so ill understand the nature of freedom,\nas to think that any man or body of men has a right to prevent employer\nand employed from making any contract they please, would almost\nappear to be incapacitated for the guardianship of their own freedom\nand that of their fellow-citizens. When their notions of rectitude\nare so confused, that they think it a duty to obey the arbitrary\n{366} commands of their union-authorities, and to abandon the right\nof individually disposing of their labour on their own terms\u2014when,\nin conformity with this inverted sense of duty, they even risk the\nstarvation of their families\u2014when they call that an \u201codious document\u201d\nwhich simply demands that master and man shall be free to make their\nown bargains\u2014when their sense of justice is so obtuse that they are\nready to bully, to deprive of work, to starve, and even to kill,\nmembers of their own class who rebel against dictation, and assert\ntheir rights to sell their labour at such rates and to such persons\nas they think fit\u2014when in short they prove themselves ready to become\nalike slaves and tyrants, we may well pause before giving them the\nfranchise.\n\nThe objects which artizans have long sought to achieve by their private\norganizations, they would, had they adequate political power, seek\nto achieve by public enactments. If, on points like those instanced,\ntheir convictions are so strong and their determination so great, that\nthey will time after time submit to extreme privations in the effort\nto carry them; it is a reasonable expectation that these convictions,\npushed with this determination, would soon be expressed in law, if\nthose who held them had predominant power. With working men, questions\nconcerning the regulation of labour are of the highest interest.\nCandidates for Parliament would be more likely to obtain their\nsuffrages by pandering to their prejudices on such questions, than in\nany other way. Should it be said that no evil need be feared unless\nthe artizan-class numerically preponderated in the constituencies;\nit may be rejoined that not unfrequently, where two chief political\nparties are nearly balanced, some other party, though much smaller,\ndetermines the election. When we bear in mind that the trades-unions\nthroughout the kingdom number 600,000 members, and command a fund of\n\u00a3300,000\u2014when we remember that these trades-unions are in the habit of\naiding each other, and have even been incorporated into one national\nassociation\u2014when we also remember that {367} their organization\nis very complete, and their power over their members mercilessly\nexercised; it seems likely that at a general election their combined\naction would decide the result in many towns: even though the artizans\nin each case formed but a moderate portion of the constituency. How\ninfluential small but combined bodies are, the Irish Members of\nour House of Commons prove to us; and still more clearly the Irish\nemigrants in America. Certainly these trade-combinations are not less\nperfectly organized; nor are the motives of their members less strong.\nJudge then how efficient their political action would be.\n\nIt is true that in county-constituencies and rural towns, the artizan\nclass have no power; and that in the antagonism of agriculturists\nthere would be a restraint on their projects. But, on the other hand,\nthe artizans would, on these questions, have the sympathy of many not\nbelonging to their own body. Numerous small shopkeepers and others who\nare in point of means about on their level, would go with them in their\nefforts to regulate the relations of capital and labour. Among the\nmiddle classes, too, there are not a few kindly-disposed men who are\nso ignorant of political economy as to think the artizans justified in\ntheir aims. Even among the landed class they might find supporters. We\nhave but to recollect the antipathy shown by landowners in Parliament\nto the manufacturing interest, during the ten-hours\u2019 agitation, to see\nthat it is quite possible for country squires to join the working men\nin imposing restrictions unfavourable to employers. True, the angry\nfeeling which then prompted them has in some measure died away. It is\nto be hoped, too, that they have gained wisdom. But still, remembering\nthe past, we must take this contingency into account.\n\nHere, then, is one of the dangers to which an extension of the\nfranchise opens the door. While the fear that the rights of property\nmay be directly interfered with, is absurd, it is a very rational fear\nthat the rights of property may be indirectly interfered with\u2014that, by\ncramping laws, {368} the capitalist may be prevented from using his\nmoney as he finds best, and the workman from selling his labour as he\npleases. We are not prepared to say what widening of the representation\nwould bring about such results. We profess neither to estimate what\namount of artizan-power a \u00a36 or a \u00a35 borough-franchise would give; nor\nto determine whether the opposing powers would suffice to keep it in\ncheck. Our purpose here is simply to indicate this establishment of\ninjurious industrial regulations, as one of the dangers to be kept in\nview.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTurn we now to another danger, distinct from the foregoing though\nnear akin to it. Next after the evils of that over-legislation which\nrestricts the exchange of capital and labour, come the evils of that\nover-legislation which provides for the community, by State-agency,\nbenefits which capital and labour should be left spontaneously to\nprovide. And it naturally, though unfortunately, happens, that those\nwho lean to the one kind of over-legislation, lean also to the other\nkind. Men leading laborious lives, relieved by little in the shape of\nenjoyment, give willing ears to the doctrine that the State should\nprovide them with various positive advantages and gratifications. The\nmuch-enduring poor cannot be expected to deal very critically with\nthose who promise them gratis pleasures. As a drowning man catches at\na straw, so will one whose existence is burdensome catch at anything,\nno matter how unsubstantial, which holds out the slightest hope of a\nlittle happiness. We must not, therefore, blame the working-classes for\nbeing ready converts to socialistic schemes, or to a belief in \u201cthe\nsovereign power of political machinery.\u201d\n\nNot that the working-classes alone fall into these delusions.\nUnfortunately they are countenanced, and have been in part misled, by\nthose above them. In Parliament and out of Parliament, well-meaning men\namong the upper and middle ranks, have been active apostles of these\nfalse {369} doctrines. There has ever been, and continues to be, much\nlaw-making based on the assumption, that it is the duty of the State,\nnot simply to insure each citizen fair play in the battle of life, but\nto help him in fighting the battle of life: having previously taken\nmoney from his, or some one else\u2019s, pocket to pay the cost of doing\nthis. And we cannot glance over the papers without seeing how active\nare the agitations carried on out of doors in furtherance of this\npolicy; and how they threaten to become daily more active. The doings\nof the Chadwick-school furnish one set of illustrations. From those\nof the Shaftesbury-school other illustrations may be gathered. And in\nthe transactions of the body, absurdly self-entitled \u201cThe National\nAssociation for the Promotion of Social Science,\u201d we find still more\nnumerous developments of this mischievous error.\n\nWhen we say that the working-classes, and more especially the\nartizan-classes, have strong leanings towards these Utopianisms which\nthey have unhappily been encouraged to entertain by many who should\nhave known better, we do not speak at random. We are not drawing an _a\npriori_ inference as to the doctrines likely to find favour with men\nin their position. Nor are we guided merely by evidence to be gathered\nfrom newspapers. We have a basis of definite fact in the proceedings\nof reformed municipal governments. These bodies have from year to year\nextended their functions; and so heavy has in some cases become the\nconsequent local taxation, as to have caused a reaction against the\npolitical party which was responsible. Town-councils almost exclusively\nWhig, have of late been made comparatively Conservative, by the efforts\nof those richer classes who suffer most from municipal extravagance.\nWith whom, then, has this extravagance been popular? With the poorer\nmembers of the constituencies. Candidates for town-councillorships\nhave found no better means of obtaining the suffrages of the mass,\nthan the advocacy of this or the other local undertaking. To {370}\nbuild baths and wash-houses at the expense of the town, has proved a\npopular proposal. The support of public gardens out of funds raised\nby local rates, has been applauded by the majority. So, too, with\nthe establishment of free libraries, which has, of course, met with\nencouragement from working-men, and from those who wish to find favour\nwith them. Should some one, taking a hint from the cheap concerts now\ncommon in our manufacturing towns, propose to supply music at the\npublic cost, we doubt not he would be hailed as a friend of the people.\nAnd similarly with countless socialistic schemes, of which, when once\ncommenced, there is no end.\n\nSuch being the demonstrated tendencies of municipal governments, with\ntheir extended bases of representation, is it not a fair inference\nthat a Central Government having a base of representation much wider\nthan the present, would manifest like tendencies? We shall see the\nmore reason for fearing this, when we remember that those who approve\nof multiplied State-agencies, would generally ally themselves with\nthose who seek for the legislative regulation of labour. The doctrines\nare near akin; and they are, to a considerable extent, held by the\nsame persons. If united the two bodies would have a formidable power;\nand, appealed to, as they would often be, by candidates expressing\nagreement on both these points, they might, even though a minority,\nget unduly represented in the legislature. Such, at least, seems to us\na further danger. Led by philanthropists having sympathies stronger\nthan their intellects, the working-classes are very likely to employ\ntheir influence in increasing over-legislation: not only by agitating\nfor industrial regulations, but in various other ways. What extension\nof franchise would make this danger a serious one, we do not pretend\nto say. Here, as before, we would simply indicate a probable source of\nmischief.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd now what are the safeguards? Not such as we {371} believe will\nbe adopted. To meet evils like those which threaten to follow the\nimpending political change, the common plan is to devise special\nchecks\u2014minor limitations and qualifications. Not to dry up the evil at\nits source but to dam it out, is, in analogous cases, the usual aim.\nWe have no faith in such methods. The only efficient safeguard lies\nin a change of convictions and motives. And, to work a change of this\nkind, there is no certain way but that of letting men directly feel\nthe penalties which mistaken legislation brings on them. \u201cHow is this\nto be done?\u201d the reader will doubtless ask. Simply by letting causes\nand effects stand in their natural relations. Simply by taking away\nthose vicious arrangements which now mostly prevent men from seeing the\nreactions that follow legislative actions.\n\nAt present the extension of public administrations is popular, mainly\nbecause there has not been established in the minds of the people,\nany distinct connexion between the benefits to be gained and the\nexpenses to be paid. Of the conveniences or gratifications secured to\nthem by some new body of officials with a fund at its disposal, they\nhave immediate experience; but of the way in which the costs fall\non the nation, and ultimately on themselves, they have no immediate\nexperience. Our fiscal arrangements dissociate the ideas of increased\npublic expenditure and increased burdens on all who labour; and thus\nencourage the superstition that law can give gratis benefits. This is\nclearly the chief cause of that municipal extravagance to which we have\nabove adverted. The working men of our towns possess public power,\nwhile most of them do not directly bear public burdens. On small houses\nthe taxes for borough-purposes are usually paid by the landlords; and\nof late years, for the sake of convenience and economy, there has grown\nup a system of compounding with landlords of small houses even for the\npoor-rates chargeable to their tenants. Under this {372} arrangement,\nat first voluntary but now compulsory, a certain discount off the\ntotal rates due from a number of houses is allowed to the owner, in\nconsideration of his paying the rates, and thus saving the authorities\ntrouble and loss in collection. And he is supposed to raise his rents\nby the full amount of the rates charged. Thus, most municipal electors,\nnot paying local taxes in a separate form, are not constantly reminded\nof the connexion between public expenditure and personal costs; and\nhence it happens that any outlay made for local purposes, no matter\nhow extravagant and unreasonable, which brings to them some kind of\nadvantage, is regarded as pure gain. If the corporation resolves,\nquite unnecessarily, to rebuild a town-hall, the resolution is of\ncourse approved by the majority. \u201cIt is good for trade and it costs us\nnothing,\u201d is the argument which passes vaguely through their minds. If\nsome one proposes to buy an adjoining estate and turn it into a public\npark, the working classes naturally give their support to the proposal;\nfor ornamental grounds cannot but be an advantage, and though the rates\nmay be increased that will be no affair of theirs. Thus necessarily\narises a tendency to multiply public agencies and increase public\noutlay. It becomes an established policy with popularity-hunters to\nadvocate new works to be executed by the town. Those who disapprove\nthis course are in fear that their seats may be jeopardized at the next\nelection, should they make a vigorous opposition. And thus do these\nlocal administrations inevitably lean towards abnormal developments.\n\nNo one can, we think, doubt that were the rates levied directly on\nall electors, a check would be given to this municipal communism.\nIf each small occupier found that every new work undertaken by the\nauthorities cost him so many pence extra in the pound, he would begin\nto consider with himself whether the advantage gained was equivalent\nto the price paid; and would often reach a {373} negative conclusion.\nIt would become a question with him whether, instead of letting the\nlocal government provide him with certain remote advantages in return\nfor certain moneys, he might not himself purchase with such moneys\nimmediate advantages of greater worth; and, generally, he would\ndecide that he could do this. Without saying to what extent such a\nrestraint would act, we may safely say that it would be beneficial.\nEvery one must admit that each inhabitant of a town ought constantly\nto be reminded of the relation between the work performed for him by\nthe corporation and the sum he pays for it. No one can deny that the\nhabitual experience of this relation would tend to keep the action of\nlocal governments within proper bounds.\n\nSimilarly with the Central Government. Here the effects wrought by\npublic agencies are still more dissociated from the costs they entail\non each citizen. The bulk of the taxes being raised in so unobtrusive\na way, and affecting the masses in modes so difficult to trace, it is\nscarcely possible for the masses to realize the fact that the sums paid\nby Government for supporting schools, for facilitating emigration,\nfor inspecting mines, factories, railways, ships, etc., have been in\ngreat part taken from their own pockets. The more intelligent of them\nunderstand this as an abstract truth; but it is not a truth present to\ntheir minds in such a definite shape as to influence their actions.\nQuite otherwise, however, would it be if taxation were direct; and\nthe expense of every new State-agency were felt by each citizen as an\nadditional demand made on him by the tax-gatherer. Then would there\nbe a clear, constantly-recurring experience of the truth, that for\neverything which the State gives with one hand it takes away something\nwith the other; and then would it be less easy to propagate absurd\ndelusions about the powers and duties of Governments. No one can\nquestion this conclusion who calls to mind the reason currently given\nfor maintaining {374} indirect taxation; namely, that the required\nrevenue could not otherwise be raised. Statesmen see that if instead of\ntaking from the citizen here a little and there a little, in ways that\nhe does not know or constantly forgets, the whole amount were demanded\nin a lump sum, it would scarcely be possible to get it paid. Grumbling\nand resistance would rise probably to disaffection. Coercion would\nin hosts of cases be needed to obtain this large total tax; which,\nindeed, even with this aid, could not be obtained from the majority\nof the people, whose improvident habits prevent the accumulation of\nconsiderable sums. And so the revenue would fall immensely short of\nthat expenditure which is supposed necessary. This being assented to,\nit must perforce be admitted that under a system of direct taxation,\nfurther extension of public administrations, entailing further costs,\nwould meet with general opposition. Instead of multiplying the\nfunctions of the State, the tendency would obviously be to reduce their\nnumber.\n\nHere, then, is one of the safeguards. The incidence of taxation\nmust be made more direct in proportion as the franchise is\nextended. Our changes ought not to be in the direction of the\nCompound-Householders-Act of 1851, which makes it no longer needful for\na Parliamentary elector to have paid poor-rates before giving a vote;\nbut they ought to be in the opposite direction. The exercise of power\nover the national revenue, should be indissolubly associated with the\n_conscious_ payment of contributions to that revenue. Direct taxation\ninstead of being limited, as many wish, must be extended to lower and\nwider classes, as fast as these classes are endowed with political\npower.\n\nProbably this proposal will be regarded with small favour by statesmen.\nIt is not in the nature of things for men to approve a system which\ntends to restrict their powers. We know, too, that any great extension\nof direct taxation will be held at present impossible; and we are not\nprepared {375} to assert the contrary. This, however, is no reason\nagainst reducing the indirect taxation and augmenting the direct\ntaxation as far as circumstances allow. And if when the last had\nbeen increased and the first decreased to the greatest extent now\npracticable, it were made an established principle that any additional\nrevenue must be raised by direct taxes, there would be an efficient\ncheck to one of the evils likely to follow from further political\nenfranchisement.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe other evil which we have pointed out as rationally to be feared,\ncannot be thus met, however. Though an ever-recurring experience of\nthe relation between State-action and its cost, would hinder the\ngrowth of those State-agencies which undertake to supply citizens with\npositive conveniences and gratifications; it would be no restraint on\nthat negative and inexpensive over-legislation which trespasses on\nindividual freedom\u2014it would not prevent mischievous meddling with the\nrelations between labour and capital. Against this danger the only\nsafeguards appear to be, the spread of sounder views among the working\nclasses, and the moral advance which such sounder views imply.\n\n\u201cThat is to say, the people must be educated,\u201d responds the reader.\nYes, education is the thing wanted; but not the education for which\nmost men agitate. Ordinary school-training is not a preparation for the\nright exercise of political power. Conclusive proof of this is given by\nthe fact that the artizans, from whose mistaken ideas the most danger\nis to be feared, are the best informed of the working classes. Far\nfrom promising to be a safeguard, the spread of such education as is\ncommonly given appears more likely to increase the danger. Raising the\nworking classes in general to the artizan-level of culture, threatens\nto augment, rather than to diminish, their power of working political\nevil. The current faith in Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic, as fitting\nmen for citizenship, seems to us quite {376} unwarranted; as are,\nindeed, most other anticipations of the benefits to be derived from\nlearning lessons. There is no connexion between the ability to parse\na sentence, and a clear understanding of the causes which determine\nthe rate of wages. The multiplication-table affords no aid in seeing\nthrough the fallacy that the destruction of property is good for\ntrade. Long practice may have produced extremely good penmanship\nwithout having given the least power to understand the paradox that\nmachinery eventually increases the number of persons employed in the\ntrades into which it is introduced. Nor is it proved that smatterings\nof mensuration, astronomy, or geography, fit men for estimating the\ncharacters and motives of Parliamentary candidates. Indeed we have only\nthus to bring together the antecedents and the anticipated consequents,\nto see how untenable is the belief in a relation between them. When we\nwish a girl to become a good musician, we seat her before the piano:\nwe do not put drawing implements into her hands, and expect music to\ncome along with skill in the use of pencils and colour-brushes. Sending\na boy to pore over law-books would be thought an extremely irrational\nway of preparing him for civil engineering. And if in these and all\nother cases, we do not expect fitness for any function except through\ninstruction and exercise in that function; why do we expect fitness\nfor citizenship to be produced by a discipline which has no relation\nto the duties of the citizen? Probably it will be replied that by\nmaking the working man a good reader, we give him access to sources of\ninformation from which he may learn how to use his electoral power; and\nthat other studies sharpen his faculties and make him a better judge\nof political questions. This is true; and the eventual tendency is\nunquestionably good. But what if for a long time to come he reads only\nto obtain confirmation of his errors? What if there exists a literature\nappealing to his prejudices, and supplying him with fallacious\narguments for the mistaken beliefs which he naturally takes {377} up?\nWhat if he rejects all teaching that aims to disabuse him of cherished\ndelusions? Must we not say that the culture which thus merely helps the\nworkman to establish himself in error, rather unfits than fits him for\ncitizenship? And do not the trades\u2019-unions furnish evidence of this?\n\nHow little that which people commonly call education prepares them\nfor the use of political power, may be judged from the incompetency\nof those who have received the highest education the country affords.\nGlance back at the blunders of our legislation, and then remember that\nthe men who committed them had mostly taken University-degrees; and\nyou must admit that the profoundest ignorance of Social Science may\naccompany intimate acquaintance with all which our cultivated classes\nregard as valuable knowledge. Do but take a young member of Parliament,\nfresh from Oxford or Cambridge, and ask him what he thinks Law should\ndo, and why? or what it should not do, and why? and it will become\nmanifest that neither his familiarity with Aristotle nor his readings\nin Thucydides, have prepared him to answer the very first question a\nlegislator ought to solve. A single illustration will suffice to show\nhow different an education from that usually given, is required by\nlegislators, and consequently by those who elect them: we mean the\nillustration which the Free-trade agitation supplies. By kings, peers,\nand members of Parliament, mostly brought up at universities, trade had\nbeen hampered by protections, prohibitions, and bounties. For centuries\nhad been maintained these legislative appliances which a very moderate\ninsight shows to be detrimental. Yet, of all the highly-educated\nthroughout the nation during these centuries, scarcely a man saw how\nmischievous such appliances were. Not from one who devoted himself to\nthe most approved studies, came the work which set politicians right\non these points; but from one who left college without a degree,\nand prosecuted inquiries which the established education ignored.\nAdam {378} Smith examined for himself the industrial phenomena of\nsocieties; contemplated the productive and distributive activities\ngoing on around him; traced out their complicated mutual dependences;\nand thus reached general principles for political guidance. In recent\ndays, those who have most clearly understood the truths he enunciated,\nand by persevering exposition have converted the nation to their views,\nhave not been graduates of universities. While, contrariwise, those\nwho have passed through the prescribed _curriculum_, have commonly\nbeen the most bitter and obstinate opponents of the changes dictated\nby politico-economical science. In this all-important direction, right\nlegislation was urged by men deficient in the so-called best education,\nand was resisted by the great majority of men who had received this\nso-called best education!\n\nThe truth for which we contend, and which is so strangely overlooked,\nis, indeed, almost a truism. Does not our whole theory of training\nimply that the right preparation for political power is political\ncultivation? Must not that teaching which can alone guide the citizen\nin the fulfilment of his public actions, be a teaching that acquaints\nhim with the effects of his public actions?\n\nThe second chief safeguard to which we must trust is, then, the spread,\nnot of that mere technical and miscellaneous knowledge which men are\nso eagerly propagating, but of political knowledge; or, to speak more\naccurately\u2014knowledge of Social Science. Above all, the essential thing\nis the establishment of a true theory of government\u2014a true conception\nof what legislation is for, and what are its proper limits. This\nquestion which our political discussions habitually ignore, is a\nquestion of greater moment than any other. Inquiries which statesmen\nderide as speculative and unpractical, will one day be found infinitely\nmore practical than those which they wade through Blue Books to master,\nand nightly spend many hours in debating. The considerations that\nevery morning fill a dozen columns {379} of _The Times_, are mere\nfrivolities when compared with the fundamental consideration\u2014What is\nthe proper sphere of government? Before discussing the way in which\nlaw should regulate some particular thing, would it not be wise to\nput the previous question\u2014Whether law ought or ought not to meddle\nwith that thing? and before answering this, to put the more general\nquestions\u2014What law should do? and what it should leave undone? Surely,\nif there are any limits at all to legislation, the settlement of these\nlimits must have effects far more profound than any particular Act of\nParliament can have; and must be by so much the more momentous. Surely,\nif there is danger that the people may misuse political power, it is\nof supreme importance that they should be taught for what purpose\npolitical power ought alone to be used.\n\nDid the upper classes understand their position they would, we think,\nsee that the diffusion of sound views on this matter more nearly\nconcerns their own welfare and that of the nation at large, than\nany other thing whatever. Popular influence will inevitably go on\nincreasing. Should the masses gain a predominant power while their\nideas of social arrangements and legislative action remain as crude\nas at present, there will certainly result disastrous meddlings with\nthe relations of capital and labour, as well as a disastrous extension\nof State-administrations. Immense damage will be inflicted: primarily\non employers; secondarily on the employed; and eventually on the\nnation as a whole. If these evils can be prevented at all, they can be\nprevented only by establishing in the public mind a profound conviction\nthat there are certain definite limits to the functions of the State;\nand that these limits ought on no account to be transgressed. Having\nlearned what these limits are, the upper classes ought to use all means\nof making them clear to the people.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn No. XXIV. of this Review, for October, 1857, we {380} endeavoured\nto show that while representative government is, by its intrinsic\nnature, better than any other for administering justice or insuring\nequitable relations among citizens, it is, by its intrinsic nature,\nworse than any other for all the various additional functions which\ngovernments commonly undertake. To the question\u2014What is representative\ngovernment good for? our reply was\u2014\u201cIt is good, especially good, good\nabove all others, for doing the thing which a government should do.\nIt is bad, especially bad, bad above all others, for doing the things\nwhich a government should not do.\u201d\n\nTo this truth we may here add a correlative one. As fast as a\ngovernment, by becoming representative, grows better fitted for\nmaintaining the rights of citizens, it grows not only unfitted for\nother purposes, but dangerous for other purposes. In gaining adaptation\nfor the essential function of a government, it loses such adaptation\nas it had for other functions; not only because its complexity is a\nhindrance to administrative action, but also because in discharging\nother functions it must be mischievously influenced by class bias. So\nlong as it is confined to the duty of preventing the aggressions of\nindividuals on one another, and protecting the nation at large against\nexternal enemies, the wider its basis the better; for all men are\nsimilarly interested in the security of life, property, and freedom to\nexercise the faculties. But let it undertake to bring home positive\nbenefits to citizens, or to interfere with any of the special relations\nbetween class and class, and there necessarily enters an incentive to\ninjustice. For in no such cases can the immediate interests of all\nclasses be alike. Therefore do we say that as fast as representation is\nextended, the sphere of government must be contracted.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT.\u2014Since the foregoing pages were written, Lord John Russell\nhas introduced his Reform Bill; and in {381} application of the\ngeneral principles we contend for, a few words may fitly be added\nrespecting it.\n\nOf the extended county-franchise most will approve, save those whose\nillegitimate influence is diminished by it. Adding to the rural\nconstituencies a class less directly dependent on large landowners,\ncan scarcely fail to be beneficial. Even should it not at first\nperceptibly affect the choice of representatives, it will still be a\ngood stimulus to political education and to consequent future benefits.\nOf the re-distribution of seats little is to be said, further than\nthat, however far short it may fall of an equitable arrangement, it is\nperhaps as much as can at present be obtained.\n\nWhether the right limit for the borough-franchise has been chosen is,\non the other hand, a question that admits of much discussion. Some\nhesitation will probably be felt by all who duly weigh the evidence on\nboth sides. Believing, as we do, that the guidance of abstract equity,\nhowever much it may need qualification, must never be ignored, we\nshould be glad were it at once practicable more nearly to follow it;\nsince it is certain that only as fast as the injustice of political\nexclusion is brought to an end, will the many political injustices\nwhich grow out of it disappear. Nevertheless, we are convinced that\nthe forms which freedom requires will not of themselves produce\nthe reality of freedom, in the absence of an appropriate national\ncharacter; any more than the most perfect mechanism will do its work\nin the absence of a motive power. There seems reason to think that the\ndegree of liberty a people is capable of in any given age, is a fixed\nquantity; and that any artificial extension of it in one direction\nbrings about an equivalent limitation in some other direction. French\nrepublics show scarcely any more respect for individual rights than\nthe despotisms they supplant; and French electors use their freedom\nto put themselves again in slavery. In America the feeble restraints\nimposed by the {382} State are supplemented by the strong restraints\nof a public opinion which, in many respects, holds the citizens in\ngreater bondage than here. And if there needs a demonstration that\nrepresentative equality is an insufficient safeguard for freedom,\nwe have it in the trades\u2019-unions already referred to; which, purely\ndemocratic as are their organizations, yet exercise over their members\na tyranny almost Neapolitan in its rigour and unscrupulousness. The\ngreatest attainable amount of individual liberty being the true end;\nand the diffusion of political power being regarded mainly as a means\nto this end; the real question when considering further extensions of\nthe franchise, is\u2014whether the average freedom of action of citizens\nwill be increased?\u2014whether men will be severally freer than before to\npursue the objects of life in their own way? Or, in the present case,\nthe question is\u2014whether the good which \u00a37, \u00a36, or \u00a35 householders would\ndo in helping to abolish existing injustices, will be partly or wholly\nneutralized by the evil they may do in establishing other injustices?\nThe desideratum is as large an increase in the electorate as can be\nmade without enabling the people to carry out their delusive schemes of\nover-legislation. Whether the increase proposed is greater or less than\nthis, is the essential point. Let us briefly consider the evidence on\neach side.\n\nAs shown by Lord J. Russell\u2019s figures, the new borough-electors\nwill consist mainly of artizans; and these, as we have seen, are\nin great part banded together by a common wish to regulate the\nrelations of capital and labour. As a class, they are not as Lord J.\nRussell describes them, \u201cfitted to exercise the franchise freely and\nindependently.\u201d On the contrary, there are no men in the community so\nshackled. They are the slaves of the authorities they have themselves\nset up. The dependence of farmers on landlords, or of operatives on\nemployers, is much less servile; for they can carry their capital\nor labour elsewhere. But {383} the penalty for disobedience to\ntrades-union dictates, pursues the rebel throughout the kingdom. Hence\nthe great mass of the new borough-electors must be expected to act\nsimultaneously, on the word of command being issued from a central\ncouncil of united trades. Even while we write we meet with fresh reason\nfor anticipating this result. An address from the Conference of the\nBuilding Trades to the working classes throughout the kingdom, has\njust been published; thanking them for their support; advising the\nmaintenance of the organization; anticipating future success in their\naims; and intimating the propriety of recommencing the nine-hours\u2019\nagitation. We must, then, be prepared to see these industrial questions\nmade leading questions; for artizans have a much keener interest in\nthem than in any others. And we may feel certain that many elections\nwill turn upon them.\n\nHow many? There are some thirty boroughs in which the\nnewly-enfranchised will form an actual majority\u2014will, if they act\ntogether, be able to outvote the existing electors; even supposing\nthe parties into which they are now divided were to unite. In\nhalf-a-dozen other boroughs the newly-enfranchised will form a virtual\nmajority\u2014will preponderate unless the present liberal and conservative\nvoters co-operate with great unanimity, which they will be unlikely\nto do. And the number proposed to be added to the constituency, is\none-half or more in nearly fifty other boroughs: that is, in nearly\nfifty other boroughs, the new party will be able to arbitrate between\nthe two existing parties; and will give its support to whichever of\nthese promises most aid to artizan-schemes. It maybe said that in this\nestimate we assume the whole of the new borough-electors to belong to\nthe artizan-class, which they do not. This is true. But, on the other\nhand, it must be remembered that among the \u00a310 householders there is a\nvery considerable sprinkling of this class, while the freemen chiefly\nconsist of it; and hence the whole artizan body in each constituency\nwill probably {384} be not smaller than we have assumed. If so, it\nfollows that should the trades-union organization be brought to bear\non borough-elections, as it is pretty certain to be, it may prevail in\nsome eighty or ninety places, and sway the votes of representatives in\nfrom 100 to 150 seats\u2014supposing, that is, that it can obtain as many\neligible candidates.\n\nMeanwhile, the county-constituencies in their proposed state, as much\nas in their existing state, not being under trades-union influence,\nmay be expected to stand in antagonism to the artizan-constituencies;\nas may also the small boroughs. It is just possible, indeed, that\nirritated by the ever-growing power of a rich mercantile class,\ncontinually treading closer on their heels, the landowners, carrying\nwith them their dependents, might join the employed in their dictation\nto employers; just as, in past times, the nobles joined the commonalty\nagainst the kings, or the kings joined the commonalty against the\nnobles. But leaving out this remote contingency, we may fairly expect\nthe rural constituencies to oppose the large urban ones on these\nindustrial questions. Thus, then, the point to be decided is, whether\nthe benefits that will result from this extended suffrage\u2014benefits\nwhich we doubt not will be great\u2014may not be secured while the\naccompanying evil tendencies are kept in check. It may be that these\nnew artizan-electors will be powerful for good, while their power to\nwork evil will be in a great degree neutralized. But this we should\nlike to see well discussed.\n\nOn one question, however, we feel no hesitation; namely, the question\nof a ratepaying-qualification. From Lord John Russell\u2019s answer to Mr.\nBright, and more recently from his answer to Mr. Steel, we gather\nthat on this point there is to be no alteration\u2014that \u00a36 householders\nwill stand on the same footing that \u00a310 householders do at present.\nNow by the Compound-Householders-Act of 1851, to which we have\nalready referred, it is provided that tenants of \u00a310 houses whose\nrates are paid by their {385} landlords, shall, after having _once_\ntendered payment of rates to the authorities, be thereafter considered\nas ratepayers, and have votes accordingly. That is to say, the\nratepaying-qualification is made nominal; and that in practice it has\nbecome so, is proved by the fact that under this Act, 4000 electors\nwere suddenly added to the constituency of Manchester.\n\nThe continuance and extension of this arrangement we conceive to be\nwholly vicious. Already we have shown that the incidence of taxation\nought to be made more direct as fast as popular power is increased, and\nthat, as diminishing the elector\u2019s personal experience of the costs of\npublic administration, this abolition of a ratepaying-qualification\nis a retrograde step. But this is by no means the sole ground for\ndisapproval. The ratepaying-qualification is a valuable test\u2014a test\nwhich tends to separate the more worthy of the working classes from the\nless worthy. Nay more, it tends to select for enfranchisement, those\nwho have the moral and intellectual qualities especially required for\njudicious political conduct. For what general mental characteristic\ndoes judicious political conduct presuppose? The power of realizing\nremote consequences. People who are misled by demagogues, are those who\nare impressed with the proximate results set forth to them but are not\nimpressed by the distant results, even when these are explained\u2014regard\nthem as vague, shadowy, theoretical, and are not to be deterred by\nthem from clutching at a promised boon. Conversely, the wise citizen\nis the one who conceives the distant evils so clearly that they are\npractically present to him, and thus outweigh the immediate temptation.\nNow these are just the respective characteristics of the two classes\nof tenants whom a ratepaying-qualification separates:\u2014the one having\ntheir rates paid by their landlords and so losing their votes; the\nother paying their own rates that they may get votes:\u2014the one unable to\nresist present temptations, unable to save money, {386} and therefore\nso inconvenienced by the payment of rates as to be disfranchised rather\nthan pay them; the other resisting present temptations and saving\nmoney, with the view, among other ends, of paying rates and becoming\nelectors. Trace these respective traits to their sources, and it\nbecomes manifest that, on the average, the pecuniarily improvident must\nbe also the politically improvident; and that the politically provident\nmust be far more numerous among those who are pecuniarily provident.\nHence, it is folly to throw aside a regulation under which these\nspontaneously separate themselves\u2014severally disfranchise themselves and\nenfranchise themselves.\n\n{387}\n\n\n\n\n\u201cTHE COLLECTIVE WISDOM.\u201d\n\n[_First published in_ The Reader _for April 15, 1865_.]\n\n\nA test of senatorial capacity is a desideratum. We rarely learn how\nnear the mark or how wide of the mark the calculations of statesmen\nare: the slowness and complexity of social changes, hindering, as\nthey do, the definite comparisons of results with anticipations.\nOccasionally, however, parliamentary decisions admit of being\ndefinitely valued. One which was arrived at a few weeks ago furnished a\nmeasure of legislative judgment too significant to be passed by.\n\nOn the edge of the Cotswolds, just above the valley of the Severn,\noccur certain springs, which, as they happen to be at the end of the\nlongest of the hundred streams which join to form the Thames, have been\ncalled by a poetical fiction \u201cthe sources of the Thames.\u201d Names, even\nwhen poetical fictions, suggest conclusions; and conclusions drawn from\nwords instead of facts are equally apt to influence conduct. Thus it\nhappened that when, recently, there was formed a company for supplying\nCheltenham and some other places from these springs, great opposition\narose. The _Times_ published a paragraph headed \u201cThreatened Absorption\nof the Thames,\u201d stating that the application of {388} this company\nto Parliament had \u201ccaused some little consternation in the city of\nOxford, and will, doubtless, throughout the valley of the Thames;\u201d\nand that \u201csuch a measure, if carried out, will diminish the water\nof that noble river a million of gallons per day.\u201d A million is an\nalarming word\u2014suggests something necessarily vast. Translating words\ninto thoughts, however, would have calmed the fears of the _Times_\nparagraphist. Considering that a million gallons would be contained\nby a room fifty-six feet cube, the nobility of the Thames would not\nbe much endangered by the deduction. The simple fact is, that the\ncurrent of the Thames, above the point at which the tides influence it,\ndischarges in twenty-four hours eight hundred times this amount!\n\nWhen the bill of this proposed water-company was brought before the\nHouse of Commons for second reading, it became manifest that the\nimaginations of our rulers were affected by such expressions as the\n\u201csources of the Thames,\u201d and \u201ca million gallons daily,\u201d in much the\nsame way as the imaginations of the ignorant. Though the quantity of\nwater proposed to be taken bears, to the quantity which runs over\nTeddington weir, about the same ratio that a yard bears to half a\nmile, it was thought by many members that its loss would be a serious\nevil. No method of measurement would be accurate enough to detect the\ndifference between the Thames as it now is, and the Thames _minus_ the\nCerney springs; and yet it was gravely stated in the House that, were\nthe Thames diminished in the proposed way, \u201cthe proportion of sewage to\npure water would be seriously increased.\u201d Taking a minute out of twelve\nhours, would be taking as large a proportion as the Cheltenham people\nwish to take from the Thames. Nevertheless, it was contended that to\nlet Cheltenham have this quantity would be \u201cto rob the towns along the\nbanks of the Thames of their rights,\u201d Though, of the Thames flowing by\neach of these towns, some 999 parts out of 1,000 pass by unused, it was\nheld {389} that a great injustice would be committed were one or two\nof these 999 parts appropriated by the inhabitants of a town who can\nnow obtain daily but four gallons of foul water per head!\n\nBut the apparent inability thus shown to think of causes and effects\nin something like their true quantitative relations, was still more\nconspicuously shown. It was stated by several members that the Thames\nNavigation Commissioners would have opposed the bill if the commission\nhad not been bankrupt; and this hypothetical opposition appeared to\nhave weight. If we may trust the reports, the House of Commons listened\nwith gravity to the assertion of one of its members, that, if the\nCerney springs were diverted, \u201cshoals and flats would be created.\u201d Not\na laugh nor a cry of \u201cOh! oh,\u201d appears to have been produced by the\nprophecy, that the volume and scouring power of the Thames would be\nseriously affected by taking away from it twelve gallons per second!\nThe whole quantity which these springs supply would be delivered by a\ncurrent moving through a pipe one foot in diameter at the rate of less\nthan two miles per hour. Yet, when it was said that the navigability\nof the Thames would be injuriously affected by this deduction, there\nwere no shouts of derision. On the contrary, the House rejected the\nCheltenham Water Bill by a majority of one hundred and eighteen to\neighty-eight. It is true that the data were not presented in the\nabove shape. But the remarkable fact is that, even in the absence of\na specific comparison, it should not have been at once seen that the\nwater of springs which drain but a few square miles at most, can be\nbut an inappreciable part of the water which runs out of the Thames\nbasin, extending over several thousand square miles. In itself, this is\na matter of small moment. It interests us here simply as an example of\nlegislative judgment. The decision is one of those small holes through\nwhich a wide prospect may be seen, and a disheartening prospect it\nis. In a very simple case there {390} is here displayed a scarcely\ncredible inability to see how much effect will follow so much cause;\nand yet the business of the assembly exhibiting this inability is that\nof dealing with causes and effects of an extremely involved kind. All\nthe processes going on in society arise from the concurrences and\nconflicts of human actions, which are determined in their nature and\namounts by the human constitution as it now is\u2014are as much results of\nnatural causation as any other results, and equally imply definite\nquantitative relations between causes and effects. Every legislative\nact presupposes a diagnosis and a prognosis; both of them involving\nestimations of social forces and the work done by them. Before it can\nbe remedied, an evil must be traced to its source in the motives and\nideas of men as they are, living under the social conditions which\nexist\u2014a problem requiring that the actions tending toward the result\nshall be identified, and that there shall be something like a true idea\nof the quantities of their effects as well as the qualities. A further\nestimation has then to be made of the kinds and degrees of influence\nthat will be exerted by the additional factors which the proposed\nlaw will set in motion: what will be the resultants produced by the\nnew forces co\u00f6perating with pre\u00ebxisting forces\u2014a problem still more\ncomplicated than the other.\n\nWe are quite prepared to hear the unhesitating reply, that men\nincapable of forming an approximately true judgment on a matter of\nsimple physical causation may yet be very good law-makers. So obvious\nwill this be thought by most, that a tacit implication to the contrary\nwill seem to them absurd; and that it will seem to them absurd is one\nof the many indications of the profound ignorance that prevails. It\nis true that mere empirical generalizations which men draw from their\ndealings with their fellows suffice to give them some ideas of the\nproximate effects which new enactments will work; and, seeing these,\nthey think they see as far as needful. Discipline in physical {391}\nscience, however, would help to show them the futility of calculating\nconsequences based on such simple data. And if there needs proof that\ncalculations of consequences so based are futile, we have it in the\nenormous labour annually entailed on the Legislature in trying to undo\nthe mischiefs it has previously done.\n\nShould any say that it is useless to dwell on this incompetency, seeing\nthat the House of Commons contains the select of the nation, than whose\njudgments no better are to be had, we reply that there may be drawn\ntwo inferences which have important practical bearings. In the first\nplace, we are shown how completely the boasted intellectual discipline\nof our upper classes fails to give them the power of following out in\nthought, with any correctness, the sequences of even simple phenomena,\nmuch less those of complex phenomena. And, in the second place, we may\ndraw the corollary, that if the sequences of those complex phenomena\nwhich societies display, difficult beyond all others to trace out,\nare so unlikely to be understood by them, they may advantageously be\nrestricted in their interferences with such sequences.\n\nIn one direction, especially, shall we see reason to resist the\nextension of legislative action. There has of late been urged the\nproposal that the class contemptuously described as dividing its\nenergies between business and bethels shall have its education\nregulated by the class which might, with equal justice, be described\nas dividing its energies between club-rooms and game preserves. This\nscheme does not seem to us a hopeful one. Considering that during the\nlast half century our society has been remoulded by ideas that have\ncome from the proposed pupil, and have had to overcome the dogged\nresistance of the proposed teacher, the propriety of the arrangement\nis not obvious. And if the propriety of the arrangement is not\nobvious on the face of it, still less obvious does it become when the\ncompetency of {392} the proposed teacher comes to be measured. British\nintelligence, as distilled through the universities and re-distilled\ninto the House of Commons, is a product admitting of such great\nimprovement in quality, that we should be sorry to see the present\nmethod of manufacture extended and permanently established.\n\n{393}\n\n\n\n\nPOLITICAL FETICHISM.\n\n[_First published in_ The Reader _for June 10, 1865_.]\n\n\nA Hindoo, who, before beginning his day\u2019s work, salaams to a bit of\nplastic clay, out of which, in a few moments, he has extemporized a god\nin his own image, is an object of amazement to the European. We read\nwith surprise bordering on scepticism of worship done by machinery, and\nof prayers which owe their supposed efficacy to the motion given by the\nwind to the papers they are written on. When told how certain of the\nOrientals, if displeased with their wooden deities, take them down and\nbeat them, men laugh and wonder.\n\nWhy should men wonder? Kindred superstitions are exhibited by their\nfellows every day\u2014superstitions that are, indeed, not so gross, but\nare intrinsically of the same nature. There is an idolatry which,\ninstead of carving the object of its worship out of dead matter, takes\nhumanity for its raw material, and expects, by moulding a mass of this\nhumanity into a particular form, to give it powers or properties quite\ndifferent from those it had before it was moulded. In the one case as\nin the other, the raw material is, as much as may be, disguised. There\nare decorative appliances by which the savage helps himself to think\nthat he has something more than wood before him; and the {394} citizen\ngives to the political agencies he has helped to create, such imposing\nexternals and distinctive names expressive of power, as serve to\nstrengthen his belief in the benefits prayed for. Some faint reflection\nof that \u201cdivinity\u201d which \u201cdoth hedge a king\u201d spreads down through every\nstate department to the lowest ranks; so that, in the eyes of the\npeople, even the policeman puts on along with his uniform a certain\nindefinable power. Nay, the mere dead symbols of authority excite\nreverence in spite of better knowledge. A legal form of words seems to\nhave something especially binding in it; and there is a preternatural\nefficiency about a government stamp.\n\nThe parallelism is still more conspicuous between the persistency of\nfaith in the two cases, notwithstanding perpetual disappointments. It\nis difficult to perceive how graven images, that have been thrashed\nfor not responding to their worshipper\u2019s desires, should still be\nreverenced and petitioned; but the difficulty of conceiving this is\ndiminished when we remember how, in their turns, all the idols in\nour political pantheon undergo castigations for failing to do what\nwas expected of them, and are nevertheless daily looked up to in the\ntrustful hope that future prayers will be answered. The stupidity,\nthe slowness, the perversity, the dishonesty of officialism, in one\nor other of its embodiments, are demonstrated afresh in almost every\nnewspaper that issues. Probably half the leading articles written have\nfor texts some absurd official blunder, some exasperating official\ndelay, some astounding official corruption, some gross official\ninjustice, some incredible official extravagance. And yet these\nwhippings, in which balked expectation continually vents itself, are\nimmediately followed by renewed faith: the benefits that have not\ncome are still hoped for, and prayers for others are put up. Along\nwith proof that the old State-machines are in themselves inert, and\nowe such powers as they seem to have to the public opinion which\nsets their parts in motion, there are continually proposed {395}\nnew State-machines of the same type as the old. This inexhaustible\ncredulity is counted on by men of the widest political experience.\nLord Palmerston, who probably knows his public better than any other\nman, lately said, in reply to a charge made in the House\u2014\u201cI am quite\nconvinced that no person belonging to the government, in whatever\ndepartment he may be, high or low, would be guilty of any breach of\nfaith in regard to any matter confided to him.\u201d To assert as much in\nthe face of facts continually disclosed, implies that Lord Palmerston\nknows well that men\u2019s faith in officialism survives all adverse\nevidence.\n\nIn which case are the hopes from State-agency realized? One might\nhave thought that the vital interests at stake would have kept the\nall-essential apparatus for administering justice up to its work; but\nthey do not. On the one hand, here is a man wrongly convicted, and\nafterward proved to be innocent, who is \u201cpardoned\u201d for an offence\nhe did not commit; and has this as consolation for his unmerited\nsuffering. On the other hand, here is a man whose grave delinquencies\na Lord Chancellor overlooks, on partial restitution being made\u2014nay,\nmore, countenances the granting of a pension to him. Proved guilt is\nrewarded, while proved innocence is left without compensation for\npains borne and fortunes blasted! This marvellous antithesis, if not\noften fully paralleled in the doings of officialism as administrator\nof justice, is, in endless cases, paralleled in part. The fact that\nimprisonment is the sentence on a boy for stealing a pennyworth of\nfruit, while thousands of pounds may be transferred from a public\ninto a private purse without any positive punishment being adjudged,\nis an anomaly kept in countenance by numerous other judicial acts.\nTheoretically, the State is a protector of the rights of subjects;\npractically, the State continually plays the part of aggressor. Though\nit is a recognized principle of equity that he who makes a false charge\nshall pay the costs of the {396} defence, yet, until quite recently,\nthe Crown has persisted in refusing to pay the costs of citizens\nagainst whom it has brought false charges. Nay, worse, deliberate\nattempts used to be made to establish charges by corrupt means. Within\nthe memory of those now living, the Crown, in excise-prosecutions,\nbribed juries. When the verdict was for the Crown, the custom was to\ngive double fees; and the practice was not put an end to until the\ncounsel for a defendant announced in open court that the jury should\nhave double fees if their verdict was for his client!\n\nNot alone in the superior parts of our judicial apparatus is this\nill-working of officialism so thrust on men\u2019s notice as to have\nbecome proverbial; not alone in the life-long delays and ruinous\nexpenses which have made Chancery a word of dread; not alone in the\nextravagances of bankruptcy courts, which lead creditors carefully to\nshun them; not alone in that uncertainty which makes men submit to\ngross injustice rather than risk the still grosser injustice which\nthe law will, as likely as not, inflict on them; but down through the\nlower divisions of the judicial apparatus are all kinds of failures\nand absurdities daily displayed. If may be fairly urged in mitigation\nof the sarcasms current respecting the police, that among so many men\ncases of misconduct and inefficiency must be frequent; but we might\nhave expected the orders under which they act to be just and well\nconsidered. Very little inquiry shows that they are not. There is a\nstory current that, in the accounts of an Irish official, a small\ncharge for a telegram which an emergency had called for, was objected\nto at the head office in London, and, after a long correspondence,\nfinally allowed, but with the understanding that in future no such\nitem would be passed, unless the department in London had authorized\nit! We cannot vouch for this story, but we can vouch for one which\ngives credibility to it. A friend who had been robbed by his cook\nwent to the police-office, detailed the case, gave good reasons for\ninferring the direction of her {397} flight, and requested the police\nto telegraph, that she might be intercepted. He was told, however,\nthat they could not do this without authority; and this authority was\nnot to be had without a long delay. The result was that the thief, who\nhad gone to the place supposed, escaped, and has not since been heard\nof. Take another function assumed by the police\u2014the regulation of\ntraffic. Daily, all through London, ten thousand fast-going vehicles,\nwith hard-pressed men of business in them, are stopped by a sprinkle\nof slow-going carts and wagons. Greater speed in these comparatively\nfew carts and wagons, or limitation of them to early and late hours,\nwould immensely diminish the evil. But, instead of dealing with these\nreally great hinderances to traffic, the police deal with that which\nis practically no hindrance. Men with advertisement-boards were lately\nforbidden to walk about, on the groundless plea that they are in the\nway; and incapables, prevented thus from getting a shilling a day,\nwere driven into the ranks of paupers and thieves. Worse cases may be\nobserved. For years past there has been a feud between the police and\nthe orange-girls, who are chased hither and thither because they are\nsaid to be obstructions to foot-passengers. Meanwhile, in some of the\nchief thoroughfares, may constantly be seen men standing with toys,\nwhich they delude children and their parents into buying by pretending\nthat the toys make certain sounds which they themselves make; and when\nthe police, quietly watching this obtainment of money under false\npretences, are asked why they do not interfere, they reply that they\nhave no orders. Admirable contrast! Trade dishonestly, and you may\ncollect a small crowd on the pavement without complaint being made that\nyou interrupt the traffic. Trade honestly, and you shall be driven from\nthe pavement-edge as an impediment\u2014shall be driven to dishonesty!\n\nOne might have thought that the notorious inefficiency of officialism\nas a protector against injustice would have {398} made men sceptical\nof its efficiency in other things. If here, where citizens have such\nintense interests in getting a function well discharged, they have\nfailed through all these centuries in getting it well discharged\u2014if\nthis agency, which is in theory the guardian of each citizen, is\nin so many cases his enemy, that going to law is suggestive of\nimpoverishment and possible ruin; it might have been supposed that\nofficialism would scarcely be expected to work well where the interests\nat stake are less intense. But so strong is political fetichism, that\nneither these experiences, nor the parallel experiences which every\nstate-department affords, diminish men\u2019s faith. For years past there\nhas been thrust before them the fact that, of the funds of Greenwich\nHospital, one-third goes to maintain the sailors, while two-thirds go\nin administration; but this and other such facts do not stop their\nadvocacy of more public administrations. The parable of straining\nat gnats and swallowing camels they see absolutely paralleled by\nofficialism, in the red-tape particularity with which all minute\nregulations are enforced, and the astounding carelessness with which\nthe accounts of a whole department, like the Patent Office, are\nleft utterly uncontrolled; and yet we continue to hear men propose\ngovernment-audits as checks for mercantile companies! No diminution\nof confidence seems to result from disclosure of stupidities which\neven a wild imagination would scarcely have thought possible: instance\nthe method of promotion lately made public, under which a clerk in\none branch of a department takes the higher duties of some deceased\nsuperior clerk, without any rise of salary, while some clerk in another\nbranch of the department gets the rise of salary without any increase\nin his responsibilities!\n\nEndless as are these evils and absurdities, and surviving generation\nafter generation as they do, spite of commissions and reports and\ndebates, there is an annual crop of new schemes for government agencies\nwhich are expected {399} to work just as legislators propose they\nshall work. With a system of army-promotion which insures an organized\nincompetence, but which survives perpetual protests; with a notoriously\nill-constituted admiralty, of which the doings are stock-subjects of\nridicule; with a church that maintains effete formulas, notwithstanding\nalmost universal repudiation of them; there are daily demands for\nmore law-established appliances. With building acts under which\narise houses less stable than those of the last generation; with\ncoal-mine inspection that does not prevent coal-mine explosions; with\nrailway inspection that has for its accompaniment plenty of railway\naccidents\u2014with these and other such failures continually displayed,\nthere still prevails what M. Guizot rightly calls that \u201cgross delusion,\na belief in the sovereign power of political machinery.\u201d\n\nA great service would be done by any man who would analyze the\nlegislation, say of the last half century, and compare the expected\nresults of Acts of Parliament with their proved results. He might make\nit an instructive revelation by simply taking all the preambles, and\nobserving how many of the evils to be rectified were evils produced by\npreceding enactments. His chief difficulty would be that of getting\nwithin any moderate compass the immense number of cases in which the\nbenefits anticipated were not achieved, while unanticipated disasters\nwere caused. And then he might effectively close his digest by showing\nwhat immense advantages have, in instance after instance, followed\nthe entire cessation of legislative action. Not, indeed, that such an\naccumulation of cases, however multitudinous and however conclusive,\nwould have an appreciable effect on the average mind. Political\nfetichism will continue so long as men remain without scientific\ndiscipline\u2014so long as they recognize only proximate causes, and never\nthink of the remoter and more general causes by which their special\nagencies are set in motion. Until the thing which now usurps the name\nof education {400} has been dethroned by a true education, having\nfor its end to teach men the nature of the world they live in, new\npolitical delusions will grow up as fast as old ones are extinguished.\nBut there is a select class existing, and a larger select class\narising, on whom a work of the kind described would have an effect, and\nfor whom it would be well worth while to write it.\n\n{401}\n\n\n\n\nSPECIALIZED ADMINISTRATION.\n\n[_First published in_ The Fortnightly Review _for December 1871_.]\n\n\nIt is contrary to common-sense that fish should be more difficult to\nget at the sea-side than in London; but it is true, nevertheless. No\nless contrary to common-sense seems the truth that though, in the\nWest Highlands, oxen are to be seen everywhere, no beef can be had\nwithout sending two or three hundred miles to Glasgow for it. Rulers\nwho, guided by common-sense, tried to suppress certain opinions\nby forbidding the books containing them, never dreamed that their\ninterdicts would cause the diffusion of these opinions; and rulers who,\nguided by common-sense, forbade excessive rates of interest, never\ndreamed that they were thereby making the terms harder for borrowers\nthan before. When printing replaced copying, any one who had prophesied\nthat the number of persons engaged in the manufacture of books would\nimmensely increase, as a consequence, would have been thought wholly\ndevoid of common-sense. And equally devoid of common-sense would have\nbeen thought any one who, when railways were displacing coaches,\nsaid that the number of horses employed in bringing passengers and\ngoods to and from railways, would be greater than the number directly\ndisplaced by railways. Such cases might {402} be multiplied. Whoso\nremembers that, among quite simple phenomena, causes produce effects\nwhich are sometimes utterly at variance with anticipation, will see how\nfrequently this must happen among complex phenomena. That a balloon\nis made to rise by the same force which makes a stone fall; that\nthe melting of ice may be greatly retarded by wrapping the ice in a\nblanket; that the simplest way of setting potassium on fire is to throw\nit into the water; are truths which those who know only the outside\naspect of things would regard as manifest falsehoods. And, if, when the\nfactors are few and simple, the results may be so absolutely opposed\nto seeming probability, much more will they be often thus opposed when\nthe factors are many and involved. The saying of the French respecting\npolitical events, that \u201cit is always the unexpected which happens\u201d\u2014a\nsaying which they have been abundantly re-illustrating of late\u2014is\none which legislators, and those who urge on schemes of legislation,\nshould have ever in mind. Let us pause a moment to contemplate a\nseemingly-impossible set of results which social forces have wrought\nout.\n\nUp to quite recent days, Language was held to be of supernatural\norigin. That this elaborate apparatus of symbols, so marvellously\nadapted for the conveyance of thought from mind to mind, was a\nmiraculous gift, seemed unquestionable. No possible alternative way\ncould be thought of by which there had come into existence these\nmultitudinous assemblages of words of various orders, genera, and\nspecies, moulded into fitness for articulating with one another,\nand capable of being united from moment to moment into ever-new\ncombinations, which represent with precision each idea as it arises.\nThe supposition that, in the slow progress of things, Language grew\nout of the continuous use of signs\u2014at first mainly mimetic, afterward\npartly mimetic, partly vocal, and at length almost wholly vocal\u2014was an\nhypothesis never even conceived by men in early stages of civilization;\nand when {403} the hypothesis was at length conceived, it was thought\ntoo monstrous an absurdity to be even entertained. Yet this monstrous\nabsurdity proves to be true. Already the evolution of Language has\nbeen traced back far enough to show that all its particular words,\nand all its leading traits of structure, have had a natural genesis;\nand day by day investigation makes it more manifest that its genesis\nhas been natural from the beginning. Not only has it been natural\nfrom the beginning, but it has been spontaneous. No language is a\ncunningly-devised scheme of a ruler or body of legislators. There\nwas no council of savages to invent the parts of speech, and decide\non what principles they should be used. Nay, more. Going on without\nany authority or appointed regulation, this natural process went on\nwithout any man observing that it was going on. Solely under pressure\nof the need for communicating their ideas and feelings\u2014solely in\npursuit of their personal interests\u2014men little by little developed\nspeech in absolute unconsciousness that they were doing any thing more\nthan pursuing their personal interests. Even now the unconsciousness\ncontinues. Take the whole population of the globe, and there is\nprobably not above one in a million who knows that in his daily talk he\nis carrying on the process by which Language has been evolved.\n\nI commence thus by way of giving the key-note to the argument which\nfollows. My general purpose, in dwelling a moment on this illustration,\nhas been that of showing how utterly beyond the conceptions of\ncommon-sense, literally so called, and even beyond the conceptions\nof cultivated common-sense, are the workings-out of sociological\nprocesses\u2014how these workings-out are such that even those who have\ncarried to the uttermost \u201cthe scientific use of the imagination,\u201d would\nnever have anticipated them. And my more special purpose has been\nthat of showing how marvellous are the results indirectly and {404}\nunintentionally achieved by the co\u00f6peration of men who are severally\npursuing their private ends. Let me pass now to the particular topic to\nbe here dealt with.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have greatly regretted to see Prof. Huxley strengthening, by his\ndeservedly high authority, a school of politicians which can scarcely\nbe held to need strengthening: its opponents being so few. I regret it\nthe more because, thus far, men prepared for the study of Sociology by\nprevious studies of Biology and Psychology, have scarcely expressed\nany opinions on the question at issue; and that Prof. Huxley, who by\nboth general and special culture is so eminently fitted to judge,\nshould have come to the conclusions set forth in the last number of the\n_Fortnightly Review_, will be discouraging to the small number who have\nreached opposite conclusions. Greatly regretting however, though I do,\nthis avowed antagonism of Prof. Huxley to a general political doctrine\nwith which I am identified, I do not propose to make any reply to his\narguments at large: being deterred partly by reluctance to dwell on\npoints of difference with one whom I so greatly admire, and partly by\nthe consciousness that what I should say would be mainly a repetition\nof what I have explicitly or implicitly said elsewhere. But with one\npoint raised I feel obliged to deal. Prof. Huxley tacitly puts to me a\nquestion. By so doing he leaves me to choose between two alternatives,\nneither of which is agreeable to me. I must either, by leaving it\nunanswered, accept the implication that it is unanswerable, and the\ndoctrine I hold untenable; or else I must give it an adequate answer.\nLittle as I like it, I see that the latter of these alternatives is\nthat which, on public as well as on personal grounds, I must accept.\n\nHad I been allowed to elaborate more fully the Review-article from\nwhich Prof. Huxley quotes, this question would possibly not have been\nraised. That article closes {405} with the following words:\u2014\u201cWe\nhad hoped to say something respecting the different types of social\norganization, and something also on social metamorphoses; but we\nhave reached our assigned limits.\u201d These further developments of the\nconception\u2014developments to be hereafter set forth in the _Principles of\nSociology_\u2014I must here sketch in outline before my answer can be made\nintelligible. In sketching them, I must say much that would be needless\nwere my answer addressed to Prof. Huxley only. Bare allusions to\ngeneral phenomena of organization, with which he is immeasurably more\nfamiliar than I am, would suffice. But, as the sufficiency of my answer\nhas to be judged by the general reader, the general reader must be\nsupplied with the requisite data: my presentation of them being under\ncorrection from Prof. Huxley if it is inaccurate.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe primary differentiation in organic structures, manifested alike\nin the history of each organism and in the history of the organic\nworld as a whole, is the differentiation between outer and inner\nparts\u2014the parts which hold direct converse with the environment and\nthe parts which do not hold direct converse with the environment. We\nsee this alike in those smallest and lowest forms improperly, though\nsuggestively, sometimes called unicellular, and also in the next higher\ndivision of creatures which, with considerable reason, are regarded as\naggregations of the lower. In these creatures the body is divisible\ninto endoderm and ectoderm, differing very little in their characters,\nbut serving the one to form the digestive sac, and the other to form\nthe outer wall of the body. As Prof. Huxley describes them in his\n_Oceanic Hydrozoa_, these layers represent respectively the organs of\nnutrition and the organs of external relation\u2014generally, though not\nuniversally; for there are exceptions, especially among parasites. In\nthe embryos of higher types, these two layers severally become double\nby the splitting of a layer formed between {406} them; and from the\nouter double layer is developed the body-wall with its limbs, nervous\nsystem, senses, muscles, etc.; while from the inner double layer there\narise the alimentary canal and its appendages, together with the heart\nand lungs. Though in such higher types these two systems of organs,\nwhich respectively absorb nutriment and expend nutriment, become so\nfar connected by ramifying blood-vessels and nerves that this division\ncannot be sharply made, still the broad contrast remains. At the very\noutset, then, there arises this separation, which implies at once a\nco\u00f6peration and an antagonism\u2014a co-operation, because, while the outer\norgans secure for the inner organs the crude food, the inner organs\nelaborate and supply to the outer organs the prepared materials by\nwhich they are enable to do their work; and an antagonism, because\neach set of organs, living and growing at the cost of these prepared\nmaterials, cannot appropriate any portion of the total supply without\ndiminishing by so much the supply available for the other. This general\nco\u00f6peration and general antagonism becomes complicated with special\nco\u00f6perations and special antagonisms, as fast as these two great\nsystems of organs develop. The originally simple alimentary canal,\ndifferentiating into many parts, becomes a congeries of structures\nwhich, by co\u00f6peration, fulfil better their general function, but\nbetween which there nevertheless arise antagonisms; since each has to\nmake good its waste and to get matter for growth, at the cost of the\ngeneral supply of nutriment available for them all. Similarly, as fast\nas the outer system develops into special senses and limbs, there arise\namong these, also, secondary co\u00f6perations and secondary antagonisms. By\ntheir variously-combined actions, food is obtained more effectually;\nand yet the activity of each set of muscles, or each directive nervous\nstructure, entails a draft upon the stock of prepared nutriment which\nthe outer organs receive, and is by so much at the cost of the rest.\nThus the method of {407} organization, both in general and in detail,\nis a simultaneous combination and opposition. All the organs unite in\nsubserving the interests of the organism they form; and yet they have\nall their special interests, and compete with one another for blood.\n\nA form of government, or control, or co\u00f6rdination, develops as fast\nas these systems of organs develop. Eventually this becomes double.\nA general distinction arises between the two controlling systems\nbelonging to the two great systems of organs. Whether the inner\ncontrolling system is or is not originally derived from the outer,\nmatters not to the argument\u2014when developed it is in great measure\nindependent.[37] If we contemplate their respective sets of functions,\nwe shall perceive the origin of this distinction. That the outer organs\nmay co\u00f6perate effectively for the purposes of catching prey, escaping\ndanger, etc., it is needful that they should be under a government\ncapable of directing their combined actions, now in this way and\nnow in that, according as outer circumstances vary. From instant to\ninstant there must be quick adjustments to occasions that are more or\nless new; and hence there requires a complex and centralized nervous\napparatus, to which all these organs are promptly and completely\nobedient. The government needful for the {408} inner system of organs\nis a different and much simpler one. When the food obtained by the\nouter organs has been put into the stomach, the co\u00f6peration required\nof the viscera, though it varies somewhat as the quantity or kind of\nfood varies, has nevertheless a general uniformity; and it is required\nto go on in much the same way whatever the outer circumstances may\nbe. In each case the food has to be reduced to a pulp, supplied with\nvarious solvent secretions, propelled onward, and its nutritive part\ntaken up by absorbent surfaces. That these processes may be effective,\nthe organs which carry them on must be supplied with fit blood; and to\nthis end the heart and the lungs have to act with greater vigor. This\nvisceral co\u00f6peration, carried on with this comparative uniformity, is\nregulated by a nervous system which is to a large extent independent\nof that higher and more complex nervous system controlling the\nexternal organs. The act of swallowing is, indeed, mainly effected by\nthe higher nervous system; but, being swallowed, the food affects by\nits presence the local nerves, through them the local ganglia, and\nindirectly, through nervous connexions with other ganglia, excites the\nrest of the viscera into co\u00f6perative activity. It is true that the\nfunctions of the sympathetic or ganglionic nervous system, or \u201cnervous\nsystem of organic life,\u201d as it is otherwise called, are imperfectly\nunderstood. But, since we know positively that some of its plexuses,\nas the cardiac, are centres of local stimulation and co\u00f6rdination,\nwhich can act independently, though they are influenced by higher\ncentres, it is fairly to be inferred that the other and still larger\nplexuses, distributed among the viscera, are also such local and\nlargely independent centres; especially as the nerves they send into\nthe viscera, to join the many subordinate ganglia distributed through\nthem, greatly exceed in quantity the cerebro-spinal fibres accompanying\nthem. Indeed, to suppose otherwise is to leave unanswered the\nquestion\u2014What are their functions? as well as the {409} question\u2014How\nare these unconscious visceral co\u00f6rdinations effected? There remains\nonly to observe the kind of co-operation which exists between the two\nnervous systems. This is both a general and a special co\u00f6peration.\nThe general co\u00f6peration is that by which either system of organs is\nenabled to stimulate the other to action. The alimentary canal yields\nthrough certain nervous connexions the sensation of hunger to the\nhigher nervous system; and so prompts efforts for procuring food.\nConversely, the activity of the nervo-muscular system, or, at least,\nits normal activity, sends inward to the cardiac and other plexuses\na gush of stimulus which excites the viscera to action. The special\nco\u00f6peration is one by which it would seem that each system puts an\nindirect restraint on the other. Fibres from the sympathetic accompany\nevery artery throughout the organs of external relation, and exercise\non the artery a constrictive action; and the converse is done by\ncertain of the cerebro-spinal fibres which ramify with the sympathetic\nthroughout the viscera: through the vagus and other nerves, an\ninhibitory influence is exercised on the heart, intestines, pancreas,\netc. Leaving doubtful details, however, the fact which concerns us here\nis sufficiently manifest. There are, for these two systems of organs,\ntwo nervous systems, in great measure independent; and, if it is true\nthat the higher system influences the lower, it is no less true that\nthe lower very powerfully influences the higher. The restrictive action\nof the sympathetic upon the circulation, throughout the nervo-muscular\nsystem, is unquestionable; and it is possibly through this that,\nwhen the viscera have much work to do, the nervo-muscular system is\nincapacitated in so marked a manner.[38]\n\n [37] Here, and throughout the discussion, I refer to these controlling\n systems only as they exist in the _Vertebrata_, because their\n relations are far better known in this great division of the animal\n kingdom\u2014not because like relations do not exist elsewhere. Indeed,\n in the great sub-kingdom _Annulosa_, these controlling systems have\n relations that are extremely significant to us here. For while an\n inferior annulose animal has only a single set of nervous structures,\n a superior annulose animal (as a moth) has a set of nervous structures\n presiding over the viscera, as well as a more conspicuous set\n presiding over the organs of external relation. And this contrast is\n analogous to one of the contrasts between undeveloped and developed\n societies; for, while among the uncivilized and incipiently civilized\n there is but a single set of directive agencies, there are among the\n fully civilized, as we shall presently see, two sets of directive\n agencies, for the outer and inner structures respectively.\n\n [38] To meet the probable objection that the experiments of Bernard,\n Ludwig, and others, show that in the case of certain glands the\n nerves of the cerebro-spinal system are those which set up the\n secreting process, I would remark that in these cases, and in many\n others where the relative functions of the cerebro-spinal nerves\n and the sympathetic nerves have been studied, the organs have been\n those in which _sensation_ is either the stimulus to activity or its\n accompaniment; and that from these cases no conclusion can be drawn\n applying to the cases of those viscera which normally perform their\n functions without sensation. Perhaps it may even be that the functions\n of those sympathetic fibres which accompany the arteries of the outer\n organs are simply ancillary to those of the central parts of the\n sympathetic system, which stimulate and regulate the viscera\u2014ancillary\n in this sense, that they check the diffusion of blood in external\n organs when it is wanted in internal organs: cerebro-spinal inhibition\n (except in its action on the heart) working the opposite way. And\n possibly this is the instrumentality for carrying on that competition\n for nutriment which, as we saw, arises at the very outset between\n these two great systems of organs.\n\nThe one further fact here concerning us is the contrast {410}\npresented in different kinds of animals, between the degrees of\ndevelopment of these two great sets of structures that carry on\nrespectively the outer functions and the inner functions. There are\nactive creatures in which the locomotive organs, the organs of sense,\ntogether with the nervous apparatus which combines their actions, bear\na large ratio to the organs of alimentation and their appendages; while\nthere are inactive creatures in which these organs of external relation\nbear a very small ratio to the organs of alimentation. And a remarkable\nfact, here especially instructive to us, is that very frequently there\noccurs a metamorphosis, which has for its leading trait a great change\nin the ratio of these two systems\u2014a metamorphosis which accompanies a\ngreat change in the mode of life. The most familiar metamorphosis is\nvariously illustrated among insects. During the early or larval stage\nof a butterfly, the organs of alimentation are largely developed,\nwhile the organs of external relation are but little developed; and\nthen, during a period of quiescence, the organs of external relation\nundergo an immense development, making possible the creature\u2019s active\nand varied adjustments to the surrounding world, while the alimentary\nsystem becomes relatively small. On the other hand, among the lower\ninvertebrate animals there is a very common metamorphosis of an\nopposite kind. When young, the creature, with scarcely any alimentary\nsystem, but supplied {411} with limbs and sense organs, swims about\nactively. Presently it settles in a _habitat_ where food is to be\nobtained without moving about, loses in great part its organs of\nexternal relation, develops its visceral system, and, as it grows,\nassumes a nature utterly unlike that which it originally had\u2014a nature\nadapted almost exclusively to alimentation and the propagation of the\nspecies.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet us turn now to the social organism, and the analogies of structure\nand function which may be traced in it. Of course these analogies\nbetween the phenomena presented in a physically coherent aggregate\nforming an individual, and the phenomena presented in a physically\nincoherent aggregate of individuals distributed over a wide area,\ncannot be analogies of a visible or sensible kind; but can only be\nanalogies between the systems, or methods, of organization. Such\nanalogies as exist result from the one unquestionable community\nbetween the two organizations: _there is in both a mutual dependence\nof parts_. This is the origin of all organization; and determines what\nsimilarities there are between an individual organism and a social\norganism. Of course the similarities thus determined are accompanied\nby transcendent differences, determined, as above said, by the\nunlikenesses of the aggregates. One cardinal difference is that, while\nin the individual organism there is but one centre of consciousness\ncapable of pleasure or pain, there are, in the social organism, as many\nsuch centres as there are individuals, and the aggregate of them has no\nconsciousness of pleasure or pain\u2014a difference which entirely changes\nthe ends to be pursued. Bearing in mind this qualification, let us now\nglance at the parallelisms indicated.\n\nA society, like an individual, has a set of structures fitting it to\nact upon its environment\u2014appliances for attack and defence, armies,\nnavies, fortified and garrisoned places. At the same time, a society\nhas an industrial organization {412} which carries on all those\nprocesses that make possible the national life. Though these two sets\nof organs for external activity and internal activity do not bear to\none another just the same relation which the outer and inner organs\nof an animal do (since the industrial structures in a society supply\nthemselves with raw materials, instead of being supplied by the\nexternal organs), yet they bear a relation otherwise similar. There is\nat once a co\u00f6peration and an antagonism. By the help of the defensive\nsystem the industrial system is enabled to carry on its functions\nwithout injury from foreign enemies; and by the help of the industrial\nsystem, which supplies it with food and materials, the defensive\nsystem is enabled to maintain this security. At the same time the two\nsystems are opposed in so far that they both depend for their existence\nupon the common stock of produce. Further, in the social organism, as\nin the individual organism, this primary co\u00f6peration and antagonism\nsubdivides into secondary co\u00f6perations and antagonisms. If we look at\nthe industrial organization, we see that its agricultural part and its\nmanufacturing part aid one another by the exchange of their products,\nand are yet otherwise opposed to one another; since each takes of the\nother\u2019s products the most it can get in return for its own products.\nSimilarly throughout the manufacturing system itself. Of the total\nreturns secured by Manchester for its goods, Liverpool obtains as much\nas possible for the raw material, and Manchester gives as little as\npossible\u2014the two at the same time co\u00f6perating in secreting for the\nrest of the community the woven fabrics it requires, and in jointly\nobtaining from the rest of the community the largest payment in other\ncommodities. And thus it is in all kinds of direct and indirect ways\nthroughout the industrial structures. Men prompted by their own needs\nas well as those of their children, and bodies of such men more or\nless aggregated, are quick to find every unsatisfied need of their\nfellow-men, and to {413} satisfy it in return for the satisfaction of\ntheir own needs; and the working of this process is inevitably such\nthat the strongest need, ready to pay the most for satisfaction, is\nthat which draws most workers to satisfy it, so that there is thus a\nperpetual balancing of the needs and of the appliances which subserve\nthem.\n\nThis brings us to the regulative structures under which these two\nsystems of co\u00f6perating parts work. As in the individual organism, so\nin the social organism, the outer parts are under a rigorous central\ncontrol. For adjustment to the varying and incalculable changes in the\nenvironment, the external organs, offensive and defensive, must be\ncapable of prompt combination; and that their actions may be quickly\ncombined to meet each exigency as it arises, they must be completely\nsubordinated to a supreme executive power: armies and navies must be\ndespotically controlled. Quite otherwise is it with the regulative\napparatus required for the industrial system. This, which carries on\nthe nutrition of a society, as the visceral system carries on the\nnutrition of an individual, has a regulative apparatus in great measure\ndistinct from that which regulates the external organs. It is not by\nany \u201corder in council\u201d that farmers are determined to grow so much\nwheat and so much barley, or to divide their land in due proportion\nbetween arable and pasture. There requires no telegram from the Home\nOffice to alter the production of woollens in Leeds, so that it may\nbe properly adjusted to the stocks on hand and the forthcoming crop\nof wool. Staffordshire produces its due quantity of pottery, and\nSheffield sends out cutlery with rapidity adjusted to the consumption,\nwithout any legislative stimulus or restraint. The spurs and checks\nto production which manufacturers and manufacturing centres receive,\nhave quite another origin. Partly by direct orders from distributors\nand partly by the indirect indications furnished by the market reports\nthroughout the kingdom, they are prompted to {414} secrete actively\nor to diminish their rates of secretion. The regulative apparatus by\nwhich these industrial organs are made to co\u00f6perate harmoniously, acts\nsomewhat as the sympathetic does in a vertebrate animal. There is a\nsystem of communications among the great producing and distributing\ncentres, which excites or retards as the circumstances vary. From\nhour to hour messages pass between all the chief provincial towns,\nas well as between each of them and London; from hour to hour prices\nare adjusted, supplies are ordered hither or thither, and capital is\ndrafted from place to place, according as there is greater or less need\nfor it. All this goes on without any ministerial overseeing\u2014without\nany dictation from those executive centres which combine the actions\nof the outer organs. There is, however, one all-essential influence\nwhich these higher centres exercise over the industrial activities\u2014a\nrestraining influence which prevents aggression, direct and indirect.\nThe condition under which only these producing and distributing\nprocesses can go on healthfully, is that, wherever there is work\nand waste, there shall be a proportionate supply of materials for\nrepair. And securing this is nothing less than securing fulfilment of\ncontracts. Just in the same way that a bodily organ which performs\nfunction, but is not adequately paid in blood, must dwindle, and\nthe organism as a whole eventually suffer; so an industrial centre\nwhich has made and sent out its special commodity, but does not get\nadequately paid in other commodities, must decay. And when we ask what\nis requisite to prevent this local innutrition and decay, we find\nthe requisite to be that agreements shall be carried out; that goods\nshall be paid for at the stipulated prices; that justice shall be\nadministered.\n\nOne further leading parallelism must be described\u2014that between the\nmetamorphoses which occur in the two cases. These metamorphoses are\nanalogous in so far that {415} they are changes in the ratios of the\ninner and outer systems of organs; and also in so far as they take\nplace under analogous conditions. At the one extreme we have that\nsmall and simple type of society which a wandering horde of savages\npresents. This is a type almost wholly predatory in its organization.\nIt consists of little else than a co\u00f6perative structure for carrying\non warfare\u2014the industrial part is almost absent, being represented\nonly by the women. When the wandering tribe becomes a settled tribe,\nan industrial organization begins to show itself\u2014especially where, by\nconquest, there has been obtained a slave-class that may be forced\nto labour. The predatory structure, however, still for a long time\npredominates. Omitting the slaves and the women, the whole body\npolitic consists of parts organized for offence and defence, and\nis efficient in proportion as the control of them is centralized.\nCommunities of this kind, continuing to subjugate their neighbours,\nand developing an organization of some complexity, nevertheless retain\na mainly-predatory type, with just such industrial structures as are\nneedful for supporting the offensive and defensive structures. Of this\nSparta furnished a good example. The characteristics of such a social\ntype are these\u2014that each member of the ruling race is a soldier; that\nwar is the business of life; that every one is subject to a rigorous\ndiscipline fitting him for this business; that centralized authority\nregulates all the social activities, down to the details of each man\u2019s\ndaily conduct; that the welfare of the State is every thing, and that\nthe individual lives for public benefit. So long as the environing\nsocieties are such as necessitate and keep in exercise the militant\norganization, these traits continue; but when, mainly by conquest\nand the formation of large aggregates, the militant activity becomes\nless constant, and war ceases to be the occupation of every free man,\nthe industrial structures begin to predominate. Without tracing the\ntransition, it will suffice to take, as a sample {416} of the pacific\nor industrial type, the Northern States of America before the late\nwar. Here military organization had almost disappeared; the infrequent\nlocal assemblings of militia had turned into occasions for jollity, and\nevery thing martial had fallen into contempt. The traits of the pacific\nor industrial type are these\u2014that the central authority is relatively\nfeeble; that it interferes scarcely at all with the private actions of\nindividuals; and that the State, instead of being that for the benefit\nof which individuals exist, has become that which exists for the\nbenefit of individuals.\n\nIt remains to add that this metamorphosis, which takes place in\nsocieties along with a higher civilization, very rapidly retrogrades if\nthe surrounding conditions become unfavorable to it. During the late\nwar in America, Mr. Seward\u2019s boast\u2014\u201cI touch this bell, and any man in\nthe remotest State is a prisoner of the Government\u201d (a boast which was\nnot an empty one, and which was by many of the Republican party greatly\napplauded)\u2014shows us how rapidly, along with militant activities, there\ntends to be resumed the needful type of centralized structure; and\nhow there quickly grow up the corresponding sentiments and ideas.\nOur own history since 1815 has shown a double change of this kind.\nDuring the thirty years\u2019 peace, the militant organization dwindled,\nthe military sentiment greatly decreased, the industrial organization\nrapidly developed, the assertion of the individuality of the citizen\nbecame more decided, and many restrictive and despotic regulations were\ngot rid of. Conversely, since the revival of militant activities and\nstructures on the Continent, our own offensive and defensive structures\nhave been re-developing; and the tendency toward increase of that\ncentralized control which accompanies such structures has become marked.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd now, closing this somewhat elaborate introduction, {417} I am\nprepared to deal with the question put to me. Prof. Huxley, after\nquoting some passages from that essay on the \u201cSocial Organism\u201d which I\nhave supplemented in the foregoing paragraphs; and after expressing a\nqualified concurrence which I greatly value as coming from so highly\nfitted a judge, proceeds, with characteristic acumen, to comment on\nwhat seems an incongruity between certain analogies set forth in that\nessay, and the doctrine I hold respecting the duty of the State.\nReferring to a passage in which I have described the function of\nthe individual brain as \u201cthat of _averaging_ the interests of life,\nphysical, intellectual, moral, social,\u201d and have compared it to the\nfunction of Parliament as \u201cthat of _averaging_ the interests of the\nvarious classes in a community,\u201d adding that \u201ca good Parliament is one\nin which the parties answering to these respective interests are so\nbalanced that their united legislation concedes to each class as much\nas consists with the claims of the rest;\u201d Prof. Huxley proceeds to say:\u2015\n\n \u201cAll this appears to be very just. But if the resemblances between the\n body physiological and the body politic are any indication, not only\n of what the latter is, and how it has become what it is, but what it\n ought to be, and what it is tending to become, I cannot but think that\n the real force of the analogy is totally opposed to the negative view\n of State function.\n\n \u201cSuppose that, in accordance with this view, each muscle were to\n maintain that the nervous system had no right to interfere with its\n contraction, except to prevent it from hindering the contraction of\n another muscle; or each gland, that it had a right to secrete, so long\n as its secretion interfered with no other; suppose every separate cell\n left free to follow its own \u201cinterests,\u201d and _laissez-faire_ Lord of\n all, what would become of the body physiological?\u201d\n\nOn this question the remark I have first to make is, that if I held the\ndoctrine of M. Proudhon, who deliberately named himself an \u201canarchist,\u201d\nand if along with this doctrine I held the above-indicated theory of\nsocial structures and functions, the inconsistency implied by the\nquestion put would be clear, and the question would be unanswerable.\nBut since I entertain no such view as that of Proudhon\u2014since I hold\nthat within its proper limits {418} governmental action is not\nsimply legitimate but all-important\u2014I do not see how I am concerned\nwith a question which tacitly supposes that I deny the legitimacy\nand the importance. Not only do I contend that the restraining power\nof the State over individuals, and bodies or classes of individuals,\nis requisite, but I have contended that it should be exercised much\nmore effectually, and carried out much further, than at present.[39]\nAnd as the maintenance of this control implies the maintenance of a\ncontrolling apparatus, I do not see that I am placed in any difficulty\nwhen I am asked what would happen were the controlling apparatus\nforbidden to interfere. Further, on this general aspect of the\nquestion I have to say that, by comparing the deliberative assembly of\na nation to the deliberative nervous centre of a vertebrate animal,\nas respectively averaging the interests of the society and of the\nindividual, and as both doing this through processes of representation,\nI do not mean to _identify_ the two sets of interests; for these in\na society (or at least a peaceful society) refer mainly to interior\nactions, while in an individual creature they refer mainly to exterior\nactions. The \u201cinterests\u201d to which I refer, as being averaged by a\nrepresentative governing body, are the conflicting interests between\nclass and class, as well as between man and man\u2014conflicting interests\nthe balancing of which is nothing but the preventing of aggression and\nthe administration of justice.\n\n [39] See _Social Statics_ chap. xxi., \u201cThe Duty of the State.\u201d See also\n essay on \u201cOver-Legislation.\u201d\n\nI pass now from this general aspect of the question, which does not\nconcern me, to a more special aspect which does concern me. Dividing\nthe actions of governing structures, whether in bodies individual or\nbodies politic, into the _positively regulative_ and the _negatively\nregulative_, or those which stimulate and direct, as distinguished\nfrom those which simply restrain, I may say that if there is raised\nthe question\u2014What will happen when the controlling {419} apparatus\ndoes not act? there are quite different replies according as one or\nother system of organs is referred to. If, in the individual body,\nthe muscles were severally independent of the deliberative and\nexecutive centres, utter impotence would result: in the absence of\nmuscular co\u00f6rdination, there would be no possibility of standing,\nmuch less of acting on surrounding things, and the body would be a\nprey to the first enemy. Properly to combine the actions of these\nouter organs, the great nervous centres must exercise functions that\nare both positively regulative and negatively regulative\u2014must both\ncommand action and arrest action. Similarly with the outer organs of a\npolitical body. Unless the offensive and defensive structures can be\ndespotically commanded by a central authority, there cannot be those\nprompt combinations and adjustments required for meeting the variable\nactions of external enemies. But if, instead of asking what would\nhappen supposing the outer organs in either case were without control\nfrom the great governing centres, we ask what would happen were the\ninner organs (the industrial and commercial structures in the one case,\nand the alimentary and distributive in the other) without such control,\nthe answer is quite different. Omitting the respiratory and some\nminor ancillary parts of the individual organism, to which the social\norganism has nothing analogous; and limiting ourselves to absorptive,\nelaborative, and distributive structures, which are found in both; it\nmay, I think, be successfully contended that in neither the one case\nnor the other do they require the positively regulative control of the\ngreat governing centres, but only the negatively regulative. Let us\nglance at the facts.[40]\n\n [40] Lest there should be any misunderstanding of the terms\n _positively regulative_ and _negatively regulative_, let me briefly\n illustrate them. If a man has land, and I either cultivate it for\n him, partially or wholly, or dictate any or all of his modes of\n cultivation, my action is positively regulative; but if, leaving him\n absolutely unhelped and unregulated in his farming, I simply prevent\n him from taking his neighbour\u2019s crops, or from making approach-roads\n over his neighbour\u2019s land, or from depositing rubbish upon it,\n my action is negatively regulative. There is a tolerably sharp\n distinction between the act of securing a citizen\u2019s ends for him or\n interfering with his mode of securing them, and the act of checking\n him when he interferes with another citizen in the pursuit of his\n ends.\n\nDigestion and circulation go on very well in lunatics {420} and idiots,\nthough the higher nervous centres are either deranged or partly absent.\nThe vital functions proceed properly during sleep, though less actively\nthan when the brain is at work. In infancy, while the cerebro-spinal\nsystem is almost incapable, and cannot even perform such simple\nactions as those of commanding the sphincters, the visceral functions\nare active and regular. Nor in an adult does that arrest of cerebral\naction shown by insensibility, or that extensive paralysis of the\nspinal system which renders all the limbs immovable, prevent these\nfunctions from being carried on for a considerable time; though they\nnecessarily begin to flag in the absence of the demand which an active\nsystem of outer organs makes upon them. These internal organs are,\nindeed, so little under the positively directive control of the great\nnervous centres, that their independence is often very inconvenient. No\nmandate sent into the interior stops an attack of diarrh\u0153a; nor, when\nan indigestible meal excites the circulation at night, and prevents\nsleep, will the bidding of the brain cause the heart to pulsate more\nquietly. It is doubtless true that these vital processes are modified\nin important ways, both by general stimulation and by inhibition,\nfrom the cerebro-spinal system; but that they are mainly independent\ncannot, I think, be questioned. The facts that peristaltic motion of\nthe intestines can go on when their nervous connexions are cut, and\nthat the heart (in cold-blooded vertebrates, at least) continues to\npulsate for some time after being detached from the body, make it\nmanifest that the spontaneous activities of these vital organs subserve\nthe wants of the body at large without direction from its higher\ngoverning centres. And this is made even {421} more manifest if it\nbe a fact, as alleged by Schmulewitsch experimenting under Ludwig\u2019s\ndirection, that, under duly-adjusted conditions, the secretion of bile\nmay be kept up for some time when blood is passed through the excised\nliver of a newly-killed rabbit. There is an answer, not, I think,\nunsatisfactory, even to the crucial part of the question\u2014\u201cSuppose every\nseparate cell left free to follow its own interests, and _laissez\nfaire_ Lord of all, what would become of the body physiological?\u201d\nLimiting the application of this question in the way above shown to\nthe organs and parts of organs which carry on vital actions, it seems\nto me that much evidence may be given for the belief that, when they\nfollow their respective \u201cinterests\u201d (limited here to growing and\nmultiplying), the general welfare will be tolerably well secured. It\nwas proved by Hunter\u2019s experiments on a kite and a sea-gull, that a\npart of the alimentary canal which has to triturate harder food than\nthat which the creature naturally eats, acquires a thicker and harder\nlining. When a stricture of the intestine impedes the passage of its\ncontents, the muscular walls of the intestine above, thicken and propel\nthe contents with greater force. When there is somewhere in the course\nof the circulation a serious resistance to the passage of blood,\nthere habitually occurs hypertrophy of the heart, or thickening of\nits muscular walls; giving it greater power to propel the blood. And\nsimilarly, when the duct through which it discharges its contents is\nobstructed, the gall-bladder thickens and strengthens. These changes go\non without any direction from the brain\u2014without any consciousness that\nthey are going on. They are effected by the growth, or multiplication,\nor adaptation, of the local units, be they cells or fibres, which\nresults from the greater action or modified action thrown upon them.\nThe only pre-requisite to this spontaneous adaptive change is, that\nthese local units shall be supplied with extra blood in proportion as\nthey perform extra function\u2014a pre-requisite answering to that secured\n{422} by the administration of justice in a society; namely, that more\nwork shall bring more pay. If, however, direct proof be called for\nthat a system of organs may, by carrying on their several independent\nactivities uncontrolled, secure the welfare of the aggregate they\nform, we have it in that extensive class of creatures which do not\npossess any nervous systems at all; and which nevertheless show, some\nof them, considerable degrees of activity. The Oceanic Hydrozoa supply\ngood examples. Notwithstanding \u201cthe multiplicity and complexity of the\norgans which some of them possess,\u201d these creatures have no nervous\ncentres\u2014no regulative apparatus by which the actions of their organs\nare co\u00f6rdinated. One of their higher kinds is composed of different\nparts distinguished as c\u0153nosarc, polypites, tentacles, hydrocysts,\nnectocalyces, genocalyces, etc., and each of these different parts is\ncomposed of many partially-independent units\u2014thread-cells, ciliated\ncells, contractile fibres, etc.; so that the whole organism is a group\nof heterogeneous groups, each one of which is itself a more or less\nheterogeneous group. And, in the absence of a nervous system, the\narrangement must necessarily be such that these different units, and\ndifferent groups of units, severally pursuing their individual lives\nwithout positive direction from the rest, nevertheless do, by virtue of\ntheir constitutions, and the relative positions into which they have\ngrown, co\u00f6perate for the maintenance of one another and the entire\naggregate. And if this can be so with a set of organs that are not\nconnected by nerves, much more can it be so with a set of organs which,\nlike the viscera of a higher animal, have a special set of nervous\ncommunications for exciting one another to co\u00f6peration.\n\nLet us turn now to the parallel classes of phenomena which the social\norganism presents. In it, as in the individual organism, we find that\nwhile the system of external organs must be rigorously subordinated\nto a great governing centre which positively regulates it, the system\n{423} of internal organs needs no such positive regulation. The\nproduction and interchange by which the national life is maintained,\ngo on as well while Parliament is not sitting as while it is sitting.\nWhen the members of the Ministry are following grouse or stalking\ndeer, Liverpool imports, Manchester manufactures, London distributes,\njust as usual. All that is needful for the normal performance of these\ninternal social functions is, that the restraining or inhibitory\nstructures shall continue in action: these activities of individuals,\ncorporate bodies, and classes, must be carried on in such ways as not\nto transgress certain conditions, necessitated by the simultaneous\ncarrying on of other activities. So long as order is maintained, and\nthe fulfilment of contracts is everywhere enforced\u2014so long as there\nis secured to each citizen, and each combination of citizens, the\nfull return agreed upon for work done or commodities produced; and so\nlong as each may enjoy what he obtains by labour, without trenching\non his neighbour\u2019s like ability to enjoy; these functions will go on\nhealthfully\u2014more healthfully, indeed, than when regulated in any other\nway. Fully to recognize this fact, it is needful only to look at the\norigins and actions of the leading industrial structures. We will take\ntwo of them, the most remote from one another in their natures.\n\nThe first shall be those by which food is produced and distributed.\nIn the fourth of his _Introductory Lectures on Political Economy_,\nArchbishop Whately remarks that:\u2015\n\n \u201cMany of the most important objects are accomplished by the joint\n agency of persons who never think of them, nor have any idea of acting\n in concert; and that, with a certainty, completeness, and regularity,\n which probably the most diligent benevolence, under the guidance of\n the greatest human wisdom, could never have attained.\u201d\n\nTo enforce this truth he goes on to say:\u2014\u201cLet any one propose to\nhimself the problem of supplying with daily provisions of all\nkinds such a city as our metropolis, containing above a million of\ninhabitants.\u201d And then he points out the many immense difficulties of\nthe task {424} caused by inconstancy in the arrival of supplies; by\nthe perishable nature of many of the commodities; by the fluctuating\nnumber of consumers; by the heterogeneity of their demands; by\nvariations in the stocks, immediate and remote, and the need for\nadjusting the rate of consumption; and by the complexity in the\nprocess of distribution required to bring due quantities of these many\ncommodities to the homes of all citizens. And, having dwelt on these\nmany difficulties, he finishes his picture by saying:\u2015\n\n \u201cYet this object is accomplished far better than it could be by any\n effort of human wisdom, through the agency of men who think each of\n nothing beyond his own immediate interest\u2014who, with that object in\n view, perform their respective parts with cheerful zeal\u2014and combine\n unconsciously to employ the wisest means for effecting an object, the\n vastness of which it would bewilder them even to contemplate.\u201d\n\nBut though the far-spreading and complex organization by which foods\nof all kinds are produced, prepared, and distributed throughout the\nentire kingdom, is a natural growth and not a State-manufacture; though\nthe State does not determine where and in what quantities cereals and\ncattle and sheep shall be reared; though it does not arrange their\nrespective prices so as to make supplies last until fresh supplies can\ncome; though it has done nothing toward causing that great improvement\nof quality which has taken place in food since early times; though it\nhas not the credit of that elaborate apparatus by which bread, and\nmeat, and milk, come round to our doors with a daily pulse that is as\nregular as the pulse of the heart; yet the State has not been wholly\npassive. It has from time to time done a great deal of mischief.\nWhen Edward I. forbade all towns to harbour forestallers, and when\nEdward VI. made it penal to buy grain for the purpose of selling\nit again, they were preventing the process by which consumption is\nadjusted to supply: they were doing all that could be done to insure\nalternations of abundance and starvation. Similarly with the many\nlegislative attempts {425} since made to regulate one branch or other\nof the food-industry, down to the corn-law sliding-scale of odious\nmemory. For the marvellous efficiency of this organization we are\nindebted to private enterprise; while the derangements of it we owe\nto the positively-regulative action of the Government. Meanwhile, its\nnegatively-regulative action, required to keep this organization in\norder, Government has not duly performed. A quick and costless remedy\nfor breach of contract, when a trader sells, as the commodity asked\nfor, what proves to be wholly or in part some other commodity, is still\nwanting.\n\nOur second case shall be the organization which so immensely\nfacilitates commerce by transfers of claims and credits. Banks were\nnot inventions of rulers or their counsellors. They grew up by small\nstages out of the transactions of traders with one another. Men who\nfor security deposited money with goldsmiths, and took receipts;\ngoldsmiths who began to lend out at interest the moneys left with\nthem, and then to offer interest at lower rates to those who would\ndeposit money; were the founders of them. And when, as presently\nhappened, the receipt-notes became transferable by indorsement, banking\ncommenced. From that stage upward the development, notwithstanding many\nhinderances, has gone on naturally. Banks have sprung up under the\nsame stimulus which has produced all other kinds of trading bodies.\nThe multiplied forms of credit have been gradually differentiated\nfrom the original form; and while the banking system has spread and\nbecome complex, it has also become consolidated into a whole by a\nspontaneous process. The clearing-house, which is a place for carrying\non the banking between bankers, arose unobtrusively out of an effort\nto economize time and money. And when, in 1862, Sir John Lubbock\u2014not\nin his legislative capacity but in his capacity as banker\u2014succeeded\nin extending the privileges of the clearing-house to country banks,\nthe unification was made {426} perfect; so that now the transactions\nof any trader in the kingdom with any other may be completed by the\nwriting off and balancing of claims in bankers\u2019 books. This natural\nevolution, be it observed, has reached with us a higher phase than\nhas been reached where the positively-regulative control of the State\nis more decided. They have no clearing-house in France; and in France\nthe method of making payments by checks, so dominant among ourselves,\nis very little employed and in an imperfect way. I do not mean to\nimply that in England the State has been a mere spectator of this\ndevelopment. Unfortunately, it has from the beginning had relations\nwith banks and bankers: not much, however, to their advantage, or\nthat of the public. The first kind of deposit-bank was in some sense\na State-bank: merchants left funds for security at the Mint in the\nTower. But when Charles I. appropriated their property without consent,\nand gave it back to them only under pressure, after a long delay, he\ndestroyed their confidence. Similarly, when Charles II., in furtherance\nof State-business, came to have habitual transactions with the richer\nof the private bankers; and when, having got nearly a million and a\nhalf of their money in the Exchequer, he stole it, ruined a multitude\nof merchants, distressed ten thousand depositors, and made some\nlunatics and suicides, he gave a considerable shock to the banking\nsystem as it then existed. Though the results of State-relations with\nbanks in later times have not been so disastrous in this direct way,\nyet they have been indirectly disastrous\u2014perhaps even in a greater\ndegree. In return for a loan, the State gave the Bank of England\nspecial privileges; and for the increase and continuance of this\nloan the bribe was the maintenance of these privileges\u2014privileges\nwhich immensely hindered the development of banks. The State did\nworse. It led the Bank of England to the verge of bankruptcy by a\nforced issue of notes, and then authorized it to break its promises\n{427} to pay. Nay, worse still, it prevented the Bank of England\nfrom fulfilling its promises to pay when it wished to fulfil them.\nThe evils that have arisen from the positively-regulative action of\nthe State on banks are too multitudinous to be here enumerated. They\nmay be found in the writings of Tooke, Newmarch, Fullarton, Macleod,\nWilson, J. S. Mill, and others. All we have here to note is, that\nwhile the enterprise of citizens in the pursuit of private ends has\ndeveloped this great trading-process, which so immensely facilitates\nall other trading-processes, Governments have over and over again\ndisturbed it to an almost fatal extent; and that, while they have done\nenormous mischief of one kind by their positively-regulative action,\nthey have done enormous mischief of another kind by failing in their\nnegatively-regulative action. They have not done the one thing they\nhad to do: they have not uniformly insisted on fulfilment of contract\nbetween the banker and the customer who takes his promise to pay on\ndemand.\n\nBetween these two cases of the trade in food and the trade in money,\nmight be put the cases of other trades: all of them carried on by\norganizations similarly evolved, and similarly more or less deranged\nfrom time to time by State-meddling. Passing over these, however, let\nus turn from the positive method of elucidation to the comparative\nmethod. When it is questioned whether the spontaneous co\u00f6peration\nof men in pursuit of personal benefits will adequately work out the\ngeneral good, we may get guidance for judgment by comparing the results\nachieved in countries where spontaneous co\u00f6peration has been most\nactive and least regulated, with the results achieved in countries\nwhere spontaneous co\u00f6peration has been less trusted and State-action\nmore trusted. Two cases, furnished by the two leading nations on the\nContinent, will suffice.\n\nIn France, the \u00c9cole des Ponts et Chauss\u00e9es was founded in 1747 for\neducating civil engineers; and in 1795 was {428} founded the \u00c9cole\nPolytechnique, serving, among other purposes, to give a general\nscientific training to those who were afterward to be more specially\ntrained for civil engineering. Averaging the two dates, we may say that\nfor a century France has had a State-established and State-maintained\nappliance for producing skilled men of this class\u2014a double gland,\nwe may call it, to secrete engineering faculty for public use. In\nEngland, until quite recently, we have had no institution for preparing\ncivil engineers. Not by intention, but unconsciously, we left the\nfurnishing of engineering faculty to take place under the law of supply\nand demand\u2014a law which at present seems to be no more recognized as\napplying to education, than it was recognized as applying to commerce\nin the days of bounties and restrictions. This, however, by the way. We\nhave here simply to note that Brindley, Smeaton, Rennie, Telford, and\nthe rest, down to George Stephenson, acquired their knowledge, and got\ntheir experience, without State-aid or supervision. What have been the\ncomparative results in the two nations? Space does not allow a detailed\ncomparison: the later results must suffice. Railways originated in\nEngland, not in France. Railways spread through England faster than\nthrough France. Many railways in France were laid out and officered by\nEnglish engineers. The earlier French railways were made by English\ncontractors; and English locomotives served the French makers as\nmodels. The first French work written on locomotive engines, published\nabout 1840 (at least I had a copy at that date), was by the Comte de\nPambour, who had studied in England, and who gave in his work nothing\nwhatever but drawings and descriptions of the engines of English makers.\n\nThe second illustration is supplied to us by the model nation, now so\ncommonly held up to us for imitation. Let us contrast London and Berlin\nin respect of an all-essential appliance for the comfort and health of\ncitizens. When, {429} at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the\nsprings and local conduits, supplemented by water-carriers, failed to\nsupply the Londoners; and when the water-famine, for a long time borne,\nhad failed to make the Corporation do more than propose schemes, and\nhad not spurred the central government to do any thing; Hugh Myddleton,\na merchant citizen, took in hand himself the work of bringing the New\nRiver to Islington. When he had half completed the work, the king came\nto his help\u2014not, indeed, in his capacity of ruler, but in the capacity\nof speculator, investing his money with a view to profit: his share\nbeing disposed of by his successor after the formation of the New\nRiver Company, which finished the distributing system. Subsequently,\nthe formation of other water-companies, utilizing other sources, has\ngiven London a water-supply that has grown with its growth. What,\nmeanwhile, happened at Berlin? Did there in 1613, when Hugh Myddleton\ncompleted his work, grow up there a like efficient system? Not at all.\nThe seventeenth century passed, the eighteenth century passed, the\nmiddle of the nineteenth century was reached, and still Berlin had no\nwater-supply like that of London. What happened then? Did the paternal\ngovernment at length do what had been so long left undone? No. Did\nthe citizens at length unite to secure the desideratum? No. It was\nfinally achieved by the citizens of another nation, more accustomed to\nco\u00f6perate in gaining their own profits by ministering to public needs.\nIn 1845 an English company was formed for giving Berlin an adequate\nwater-supply; and the work was executed by English contractors\u2014Messrs.\nFox and Crampton.\n\nShould it be said that great works of ancient nations, in the shape\nof aqueducts, roads, etc., might be instanced in proof that State\nagency secures such ends, or should it be said that a comparison\nbetween the early growth of inland navigation on the Continent, and\nits later growth here, {430} would be to our disadvantage, I reply\nthat, little as they at first seem so, these facts are congruous with\nthe general doctrine. While the militant social type is dominant, and\nthe industrial organization but little developed, there is but one\nco\u00f6rdinating agency for regulating both sets of activities; just as we\nsaw happens with the lower types of individual organisms. It is only\nwhen a considerable advance has been made in that metamorphosis which\ndevelops the industrial structures at the expense of the militant\nstructures, and which brings along with it a substantially-independent\nco\u00f6rdinating agency for the industrial structures\u2014it is only then that\nthe efficiency of these spontaneous co\u00f6perations for all purposes of\ninternal social life becomes greater than the efficiency of the central\ngoverning agency.\n\nPossibly it will be said that though, for subserving material needs,\nthe actions of individuals, stimulated by necessity and made quick\nby competition, are demonstrably adequate, they are not adequate for\nsubserving other needs. I do not see, however, that the facts justify\nthis position. We have but to glance around to find in abundance\nsimilarly-generated appliances for satisfying our higher desires, as\nwell as our lower desires. The fact that the Fine Arts have not thriven\nhere as much as in some Continental countries, is ascribable to natural\ncharacter, to absorption of our energies in other activities, and to\nthe repressive influence of chronic asceticism, rather than to the\nabsence of fostering agencies: these the interests of individuals have\nprovided in abundance. Literature, in which we are second to none,\nowes, with us, nothing to State-aid. The poetry which will live is\npoetry which has been written without official prompting; and though\nwe have habitually had a prize-poet, paid to write loyal verses, it\nmay be said, without disparaging the present one, that a glance over\nthe entire list does not show any benefit derived by poetry from\nState-patronage. Nor are other {431} forms of literature any more\nindebted to State-patronage. It was because there was a public liking\nfor fiction that fiction began to be produced; and the continued public\nliking causes a continued production, including, along with much that\nis worthless, much that could not have been made better by any academic\nor other supervision. And the like holds of biographies, histories,\nscientific books, etc. Or, as a still more striking case of an agency\nthat has grown up to meet a non-material want, take the newspaper\npress. What has been the genesis of this marvellous appliance, which\neach day gives us an abstract of the world\u2019s life the day before? Under\nwhat promptings have there been got together its staffs of editors,\nsub-editors, article-writers, reviewers; its reporters of parliamentary\ndebates, of public meetings, of law cases and police cases; its critics\nof music, theatricals, paintings, etc.; its correspondents in all\nparts of the world? Who devised and brought to perfection this system\nwhich at six o\u2019clock in the morning gives the people of Edinburgh a\nreport of the debates that ended at two or three o\u2019clock in the House\nof Commons, and at the same time tells them of events that occurred\nthe day before in America? It is not a Government invention. It is\nnot a Government suggestion. It has not been in anyway improved or\ndeveloped by legislation. On the contrary, it has grown up in spite of\nmany hinderances from the Government and burdens which the Government\nhas imposed on it. For a long time the reporting of parliamentary\ndebates was resisted; for generations censorships and prosecutions\nkept newspapers down, and for several subsequent generations the\nlaws in force negatived a cheap press, and the educational benefits\naccompanying it. From the war-correspondent, whose letters give to\nthe very nations that are fighting their only trustworthy accounts of\nwhat is being done, down to the newsboy who brings round the third\nedition with the latest telegrams, the whole organization is a product\nof spontaneous {432} co\u00f6peration among private individuals, aiming to\nbenefit themselves by ministering to the intellectual needs of their\nfellows\u2014aiming also, not a few of them, to benefit their fellows by\ngiving them clearer ideas and a higher standard of right. Nay, more\nthan this is true. While the press is not indebted to the Government,\nthe Government is enormously indebted to the press; without which,\nindeed, it would stumble daily in the performance of its functions.\nThis agency which the State once did its best to put down, and has\nall along impeded, now gives to the ministers news in anticipation of\ntheir dispatches, gives to members of Parliament a guiding knowledge of\npublic opinion, enables them to speak from the House of Commons benches\nto their constituents, and gives to both legislative chambers a full\nrecord of their proceedings.\n\nI do not see, therefore, how there can be any doubt respecting the\nsufficiency of agencies thus originating. The truth that in this\ncondition of mutual dependence brought about by social life, there\ninevitably grow up arrangements such that each secures his own ends\nby ministering to the ends of others, seems to have been for a long\ntime one of those open secrets which remain secret because they are so\nopen; and even now the conspicuousness of this truth seems to cause\nan imperfect consciousness of its full meaning. The evidence shows,\nhowever, that even were there no other form of spontaneous co\u00f6peration\namong men than that dictated by self-interest, it might be rationally\nheld that this, under the negatively-regulative control of a central\npower, would work out, in proper order, the appliances for satisfying\nall needs, and carrying on healthfully all the essential social\nfunctions.\n\nBut there is a further kind of spontaneous co\u00f6peration, arising,\nlike the other, independently of State-action, which takes a large\nshare in satisfying certain classes of needs. Familiar though it\nis, this kind of spontaneous co\u00f6peration is habitually ignored in\nsociological discussions. Alike {433} from newspaper articles and\nparliamentary debates, it might be inferred that, beyond the force\ndue to men\u2019s selfish activities, there is no other social force than\nthe governmental force. There seems to be a deliberate omission of\nthe fact that, in addition to their selfish interests, men have\nsympathetic interests, which, acting individually and co\u00f6peratively,\nwork out results scarcely less remarkable than those which the selfish\ninterests work out. It is true that, during the earlier phases of\nsocial evolution, while yet the type is mainly militant, agencies\nthus produced do not exist: among the Spartans, I suppose, there were\nfew, if any, philanthropic agencies. But as there arise forms of\nsociety leading toward the pacific type\u2014forms in which the industrial\norganization develops itself, and men\u2019s activities become of a kind\nthat do not perpetually sear their sympathies; these structures which\ntheir sympathies generate become many and important. To the egoistic\ninterests, and the co\u00f6perations prompted by them, there come to be\nadded the altruistic interests and their co\u00f6perations; and what the\none set fails to do, the other does. That, in his presentation of the\ndoctrine he opposes, Prof. Huxley did not set down the effects of\nfellow-feeling as supplementing the effects of self-regarding feelings,\nsurprises me the more, because he displays fellow-feeling himself in\nso marked a degree, and shows in his career how potent a social agency\nit becomes. Let us glance rapidly over the results wrought out among\nourselves by individual and combined \u201caltruism\u201d\u2014to employ M. Comte\u2019s\nuseful word.\n\nThough they show a trace of this feeling, I will not dwell upon the\nnumerous institutions by which men are enabled to average the chances\nthroughout life by insurance societies, which provide against the evils\nentailed by premature deaths, accidents, fires, wrecks, etc.; for these\nare mainly mercantile and egoistic in their origin. Nor will I do more\nthan name those multitudinous Friendly Societies that have arisen\nspontaneously among the {434} working-classes to give mutual aid in\ntime of sickness, and which the Commission now sitting is showing to be\nimmensely beneficial, notwithstanding their defects; for these also,\nthough containing a larger element of sympathy, are prompted chiefly\nby anticipations of personal benefits. Leaving these, let us turn to\nthe organizations in which altruism is more decided: taking first that\nby which religious ministrations are carried on. Throughout Scotland\nand England, cut away all that part of it which is not established by\nlaw\u2014in Scotland, the Episcopal Church, the Free Church, the United\nPresbyterians, and other Dissenting bodies; in England, the Wesleyans,\nIndependents, and the various minor sects. Cut off, too, from the\nEstablished Church itself, all that part added in recent times by\nvoluntary zeal, made conspicuous enough by the new steeples that have\nbeen rising on all sides; and then also take out, from the remainder\nof the Established Church, that energy which has during these three\ngenerations been infused into it by competition with the Dissenters: so\nreducing it to the degraded, inert state in which John Wesley found it.\nDo this, and it becomes manifest that more than half the organisation,\nand immensely more than half its function, is extra-governmental.\nLook round, again, at the multitudinous institutions for mitigating\nmen\u2019s ills\u2014the hospitals, dispensaries, alms-houses, and the like\u2014the\nvarious benevolent and mendicity societies, etc., of which London alone\ncontains between six and seven hundred. From our vast St. Thomas\u2019s,\nexceeding the palace of the Legislature itself in bulk, down to Dorcas\nsocieties and village clothing-clubs, we have charitable agencies,\nmany in kind and countless in number, which supplement, perhaps too\nlargely, the legally-established one; and which, whatever evil they\nmay have done along with the good, have done far less evil than the\nPoor-Law organization did before it was reformed in 1834. Akin to\nthese are still more striking examples of power in {435} agencies\nthus originating, such as that furnished by the Anti-slavery Society,\nwhich carried the emancipation of the slaves, notwithstanding the\nclass-opposition so predominant in the Legislature. And if we look for\nmore recent like instances, we have them in the organization which\npromptly and efficiently dealt with the cotton-famine in Lancashire,\nand in that which last year ministered to the wounded and distressed\nin France. Once more, consider our educational system as it existed\ntill within these few years. Such part of it as did not consist of\nprivate schools, carried on for personal profit, consisted of schools\nor colleges set up or maintained by men for the benefit of their\nfellows, and the posterity of their fellows. Omitting the few founded\nor partially founded by kings, the numerous endowed schools scattered\nthroughout the kingdom, originated from altruistic feelings (so far,\nat least, as they were not due to egoistic desires for good places in\nthe other world). And then, after these appliances for teaching the\npoor had been almost entirely appropriated by the rich, whence came\nthe remedy? Another altruistic organization grew up for educating the\npoor, struggled against the opposition of the Church and the governing\nclasses, eventually forced these to enter into competition and produce\nlike altruistic organizations, until by school systems, local and\ngeneral, ecclesiastical, dissenting, and secular, the mass of the\npeople had been brought from a state of almost entire ignorance to one\nin which nearly all of them possessed the rudiments of knowledge. But\nfor these spontaneously-developed agencies, ignorance would have been\nuniversal. Not only such knowledge as the poor now possess\u2014not only\nthe knowledge of the trading-classes\u2014not only the knowledge of those\nwho write books and leading articles; but the knowledge of those who\ncarry on the business of the country as ministers and legislators,\nhas been derived from these extra-governmental agencies, egoistic or\naltruistic. Yet now, strangely enough, the {436} cultured intelligence\nof the country has taken to spurning its parent; and that to which\nit owes both its existence and the consciousness of its own value is\npooh-poohed as though it had done, and could do, nothing of importance!\nOne other fact let me add. While such teaching organizations, and their\nresults in the shape of enlightenment, are due to these spontaneous\nagencies, to such agencies also are due the great improvements in the\nquality of the culture now happily beginning to take place. The spread\nof scientific knowledge, and of the scientific spirit, has not been\nbrought about by laws and officials. Our scientific societies have\narisen from the spontaneous co\u00f6peration of those interested in the\naccumulation and diffusion of the kinds of truth they respectively deal\nwith. Though the British Association has from time to time obtained\ncertain small subsidies, their results in the way of advancing science\nhave borne but an extremely small ratio to the results achieved\nwithout any such aid. If there needs a conclusive illustration of\nthe power of agencies thus arising, we have it in the history and\nachievements of the Royal Institution. From this, which is a product\nof altruistic co\u00f6peration, and which has had for its successive\nprofessors Young, Davy, Faraday, and Tyndall, there has come a series\nof brilliant discoveries which cannot be paralleled by a series from\nany State-nurtured institution.\n\nI hold, then, that forced, as men in society are, to seek satisfaction\nof their own wants by satisfying the wants of others; and led as they\nalso are by sentiments which social life has fostered, to satisfy\nmany wants of others irrespective of their own; they are moved by two\nsets of forces which, working together, will amply suffice to carry\non all needful activities; and I think the facts fully justify this\nbelief. It is true that, _a priori_, one would not have supposed that\nby their unconscious co\u00f6perations men could have wrought out such\nresults, any more than one would have supposed, _a priori_, that by\ntheir unconscious co\u00f6peration they could {437} have evolved Language.\nBut reasoning _a posteriori_, which it is best to do when we have the\nfacts before us, it becomes manifest that they can do this; that they\nhave done it in very astonishing ways; and perhaps may do it hereafter\nin ways still more astonishing. Scarcely any scientific generalization\nhas, I think, a broader inductive basis than we have for the belief\nthat these egoistic and altruistic feelings are powers which, taken\ntogether, amply suffice to originate and carry on all the activities\nwhich constitute healthy national life: the only pre-requisite being,\nthat they shall be under the negatively-regulative control of a\ncentral power\u2014that the entire aggregate of individuals, acting through\nthe legislature and executive as its agents, shall put upon each\nindividual, and group of individuals, the restraints needful to prevent\naggression, direct and indirect.\n\nAnd here I might go on to supplement the argument by showing that\nthe immense majority of the evils which government aid is invoked to\nremedy, are evils which arise immediately or remotely because it does\nnot perform properly its negatively-regulative function. From the\nwaste of, probably, \u00a3100,000,000 of national capital in unproductive\nrailways, for which the Legislature is responsible by permitting the\noriginal proprietary contracts to be broken,[41] down to the railway\naccidents and loss of life caused by unpunctuality, which would never\nhave grown to its present height were there an easy remedy for breach\nof contract between company and passenger; nearly all the vices of\nrailway management have arisen from the non-administration of justice.\nAnd everywhere else we shall find that, were the restraining action of\nthe State prompt, effective, and costless to those aggrieved, the pleas\nput in for positive regulation would nearly all disappear.\n\n [41] See Essay on \u201cRailway Morals and Railway Policy.\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI am thus brought naturally to remark on the title given {438} to this\ntheory of State-functions. That \u201cAdministrative Nihilism\u201d adequately\ndescribes the view set forth by Von Humboldt, may be: I have not read\nhis work. But I cannot see how it adequately describes the doctrine I\nhave been defending; nor do I see how this can be properly expressed by\nthe more positive title, \u201cpolice-government.\u201d The conception suggested\nby police-government does not include the conception of an organization\nfor external protection. So long as each nation is given to burglary,\nI quite admit each other nation must keep guards, under the forms\nof army or navy, or both, to prevent burglars from breaking in. And\nthe title police-government does not, in its ordinary acceptation,\ncomprehend these offensive and defensive appliances needful for\ndealing with foreign enemies. At the other extreme, too, it falls\nshort of the full meaning to be expressed. While it duly conveys the\nidea of an organization required for checking and punishing criminal\naggression, it does not convey any idea of the no less important\norganization required for dealing with civil aggression\u2014an organization\nquite essential for properly discharging the negatively-regulative\nfunction. Though latent police-force may be considered as giving\ntheir efficiency to legal decisions on all questions brought into\n_nisi prius_ courts, yet, since here police-force rarely comes into\nvisible play, police-government does not suggest this very extensive\npart of the administration of justice. Far from contending for a\n_laissez-faire_ policy in the sense which the phrase commonly suggests,\nI have contended for a more active control of the kind distinguishable\nas negatively regulative. One of the reasons I have urged for\nexcluding State-action from other spheres, is, that it may become\nmore efficient within its proper sphere. And I have argued that the\nwretched performance of its duties within its proper sphere continues,\nbecause its time is chiefly spent over imaginary duties.[42] The facts\nthat often, in bankruptcy {439} cases, three-fourths and more of\nthe assets go in costs; that creditors are led by the expectation of\ngreat delay and a miserable dividend to accept almost any composition\noffered; and that so the bankruptcy-law offers a premium to roguery;\nare facts which would long since have ceased to be facts, had citizens\nbeen mainly occupied in getting an efficient judicial system. If the\ndue performance by the State of its all-essential function had been\nthe question on which elections were fought, we should not see, as we\nnow do, that a shivering cottager who steals palings for firewood,\nor a hungry tramp who robs an orchard, gets punishment in more than\nthe old Hebrew measure, while great financial frauds which ruin their\nthousands bring no punishments. Were the negatively-regulative function\nof the State in internal affairs dominant in the thoughts of men,\nwithin the Legislature and without, there would be tolerated no such\ntreatment as that suffered lately by Messrs. Walker, of Cornhill;\nwho, having been robbed of \u00a36,000 worth of property and having spent\n\u00a3950 in rewards for apprehending thieves and prosecuting them, cannot\nget back the proceeds of their property found on the thieves\u2014who bear\nthe costs of administering justice, while the Corporation of London\nmakes \u00a3940 profit out of their loss. It is in large measure because\nI hold that these crying abuses and inefficiencies, which everywhere\ncharacterize the administration of justice, need more than any other\nevils to be remedied; and because I hold that remedy of them can go on\nonly as fast as the internal function of the State is more and more\nrestricted to the administration of justice; that I take the view which\nI have been re-explaining. _It is a law illustrated by organizations\nof every kind, that, in proportion as there is to be efficiency, there\nmust be specialization, both of structure and function\u2014specialization\nwhich, of necessity, implies accompanying limitation._ And, as I have\nelsewhere argued, the development of representative government is the\ndevelopment of a type of {440} government fitted above all others for\nthis negatively-regulative control, and, above all others, ill fitted\nfor positively-regulative control.[43] This doctrine, that while the\nnegatively-regulative control should be extended and made better,\nthe positively-regulative control should be diminished, and that the\none change implies the other, may properly be called the doctrine of\nSpecialized Administration\u2014if it is to be named from its administrative\naspect. I regret that my presentation of this doctrine has been such as\nto lead to misinterpretation. Either it is that I have not adequately\nexplained it, which, if true, surprises me, or else it is that the\nspace occupied in seeking to show what are not the duties of the State\nis so much greater than the space occupied in defining its duties, that\nthese last make but little impression. In any case, that Prof. Huxley\nshould have construed my view in the way he has done, shows me that it\nneeds fuller exposition; since, had he put upon it the construction I\nintended, he would not, I think, have included it under the title he\nhas used, nor would he have seen it needful to raise the question I\nhave endeavoured to answer.\n\n [42] See Essay on \u201cOver-Legislation.\u201d\n\n [43] See Essay on \u201cRepresentative Government\u2014What is it good for?\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT.\u2014Since the above article was written, a fact of some\nsignificance in relation to the question of State-management has\ncome under my notice. There is one department, at any rate, in which\nthe State succeeds well\u2014the Post-Office. And this department is\nsometimes instanced as showing the superiority of public over private\nadministration.\n\nI am not about to call in question the general satisfactoriness of\nour postal arrangements; nor shall I contend that this branch of\nState-organization, now well-established, could be replaced with\nadvantage. Possibly the type of our social structure has become, in\nthis respect, so far fixed that a radical change would be injurious.\nIn dealing {441} with those who make much of this success, I have\ncontented myself with showing that the developments which have made\nthe Post-Office efficient, have not originated with the Government,\nbut have been thrust upon it from without. I have in evidence cited\nthe facts that the mail-coach system was established by a private\nindividual, Mr. Palmer, and lived down official opposition; that the\nreform originated by Mr. Rowland Hill had to be made against the\nwills of _employ\u00e9s_; and, further, I have pointed out that, even as\nit is, a large part of the work is done by private enterprise\u2014that\nthe Government gets railway-companies to do for it most of the inland\ncarriage, and steam-boat companies the outland carriage: contenting\nitself with doing the local collection and distribution.\n\nRespecting the general question whether, in the absence of our existing\npostal system, private enterprise would have developed one as good or\nbetter, I have been able to say only that analogies like that furnished\nby our newspaper-system, with its efficient news-vending organization,\nwarrant us in believing that it would. Recently, however, I have been\nshown both that private enterprise is capable of this, and that, but\nfor a legal interdict, it would have done long ago what the State has\nbut lately done. Here is the proof:\u2015\n\n \u201cTo facilitate correspondence between one part of London and another\n was not originally one of the objects of the Post-Office. But,\n in the reign of Charles II., an enterprising citizen of London,\n William Dockwray, set up, at great expense, a penny post, which\n delivered letters and parcels six or eight times a-day in the busy\n and crowded streets near the Exchange, and four times a-day in the\n outskirts of the capital. .\u00a0.\u00a0. As soon as it became clear that the\n speculation would be lucrative, the Duke of York complained of it as\n an infraction of his monopoly, and the courts of law decided in his\n favour.\u201d\u2014_Macaulay_, _History of England_, 1866, i., 302\u20133.\n\nThus it appears that two centuries since, private enterprise initiated\na local postal system, similar, in respect both of cheapness and\nfrequency of distribution, to that lately-established one boasted of\nas a State-success. Judging by what has happened in other cases with\nprivate {442} enterprises which had small beginnings, we may infer\nthat the system thus commenced, would have developed throughout the\nkingdom as fast as the needs pressed and the possibilities allowed. So\nfar from being indebted to the State, we have reason to believe that,\nbut for State-repression, we should have obtained a postal organization\nlike our present one generations ago!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECOND POSTSCRIPT.\u2014When the foregoing essay was republished in the\nthird series of my _Essays, Scientific, Political, and Speculative_,\nI included, in the preface to the volume, some comments upon Prof.\nHuxley\u2019s reply. In the absence of this preface, now no longer\nappropriate, there seems no other fit place for these comments than\nthis. I therefore here append them.\n\n\u201cOn the brief rejoinder to my arguments which Prof. Huxley makes in the\npreface to his _Critiques and Addresses_, I may here say a few words.\nThe reasons he gives for still thinking that the name \u2018Administrative\nNihilism\u2019 fitly indicates the system which I have described as\n\u2018negatively regulative,\u2019 are, I think, adequately met by asking whether\n\u2018Ethical Nihilism\u2019 would fitly describe the remnant of the decalogue,\nwere all its positive injunctions omitted. If the eight commandments\nwhich, substantially or literally, come under the form \u2018thou shalt\nnot,\u2019 constitute by themselves a set of rules which can scarcely\nbe called nihilistic; I do not see how an administrative system\nlimited to the enforcement of such rules can be called nihilistic:\nespecially if to the punishment of murder, adultery, stealing, and\nfalse-witness, it adds the punishment of assault, breach of contract,\nand all minor aggressions, down to the annoyance of neighbours by\nnuisances. Respecting the second and essential question, whether\nlimitation of the internal functions of government to those which are\nnegatively regulative, is consistent with that theory of the social\norganism and its controlling {443} agencies held by me, I may say that\nthe insufficiency of my reply has not, I think, been shown. I was\ntacitly asked how the analogy I have drawn between those governmental\nstructures by which the parts of the body politic have their actions\nregulated and those nervous structures which regulate the organic\nactions of the individual living body, is to be reconciled with my\nbelief that social activities will in the main adjust themselves. My\nanswer was this. I recognized as essential the positively-regulative\nfunctions of the State in respect to the offensive and defensive\nappliances needful for national self-preservation, during the predatory\nphase of social evolution; and I not only admitted the importance of\nits negatively-regulative functions in respect to the internal social\nactivities, but insisted that these should be carried out much more\nefficiently than now. Assuming always, however, that the internal\nsocial activities continue subject to that restraining action of the\nState which consists in preventing aggressions, direct and indirect,\nI contended that the co\u00f6rdination of these internal social activities\nis effected by other structures of a different kind. I aimed to show\nthat my two beliefs are not inconsistent, by pointing out that in\nthe individual organism, also, those vital activities which parallel\nthe activities constituting national life, are regulated by a\nsubstantially-independent nervous system. Prof. Huxley does, indeed,\nremind me that recent researches show increasingly the influence of\nthe cerebro-spinal nervous system over the processes of organic life;\nagainst which, however, has to be set the growing evidence of the power\nexercised by the visceral nervous system over the cerebro-spinal. But,\nrecognizing the influence he names (which, indeed, corresponds to that\ngovernmental influence I regard as necessary); I think the consistency\nof my positions is maintainable so long as it is manifest that the\nviscera, under the control of their {444} own nervous system, can carry\non the vital actions when the control of the cerebro-spinal system is\nsubstantially arrested by sleep, or by an\u00e6sthetics, or by other causes\nof insensibility; and while it is shown that a considerable degree of\nco\u00f6rdination may exist among the organs of a creature which has no\nnervous system at all.\u201d\n\n{445}\n\n\n\n\nFROM FREEDOM TO BONDAGE.\n\n[_First published as the Introduction to a volume entitled_ A Plea\nfor Liberty, &c.: _a series of anti-socialistic essays, issued at the\nbeginning of 1891_.]\n\n\nOf the many ways in which common-sense inferences about social affairs\nare flatly contradicted by events (as when measures taken to suppress a\nbook cause increased circulation of it, or as when attempts to prevent\nusurious rates of interest make the terms harder for the borrower, or\nas when there is greater difficulty in getting things at the places of\nproduction than elsewhere) one of the most curious is the way in which\nthe more things improve the louder become the exclamations about their\nbadness.\n\nIn days when the people were without any political power, their\nsubjection was rarely complained of; but after free institutions had\nso far advanced in England that our political arrangements were envied\nby continental peoples, the denunciations of aristocratic rule grew\ngradually stronger, until there came a great widening of the franchise,\nsoon followed by complaints that things were going wrong for want of\nstill further widening. If we trace up the treatment of women from the\ndays of savagedom, when they bore all the burdens and after the men\nhad eaten received such food as remained, up through the middle ages\nwhen they served the men at their meals, to {446} our own day when\nthroughout our social arrangements the claims of women are always put\nfirst, we see that along with the worst treatment there went the least\napparent consciousness that the treatment was bad; while now that\nthey are better treated than ever before, the proclaiming of their\ngrievances daily strengthens: the loudest outcries coming from \u201cthe\nparadise of women,\u201d America. A century ago, when scarcely a man could\nbe found who was not occasionally intoxicated, and when inability to\ntake one or two bottles of wine brought contempt, no agitation arose\nagainst the vice of drunkenness; but now that, in the course of fifty\nyears, the voluntary efforts of temperance societies, joined with\nmore general causes, have produced comparative sobriety, there are\nvociferous demands for laws to prevent the ruinous effects of the\nliquor traffic. Similarly again with education. A few generations\nback, ability to read and write was practically limited to the upper\nand middle classes, and the suggestion that the rudiments of culture\nshould be given to labourers was never made, or, if made, ridiculed;\nbut when, in the days of our grandfathers, the Sunday-school system,\ninitiated by a few philanthropists, began to spread and was followed by\nthe establishment of day-schools, with the result that among the masses\nthose who could read and write were no longer the exceptions, and the\ndemand for cheap literature rapidly increased, there began the cry that\nthe people were perishing for lack of knowledge, and that the State\nmust not simply educate them but must force education upon them.\n\nAnd so is it, too, with the general state of the population in respect\nof food, clothing, shelter, and the appliances of life. Leaving out\nof the comparison early barbaric states, there has been a conspicuous\nprogress from the time when most rustics lived on barley bread, rye\nbread, and oatmeal, down to our own time when the consumption of white\nwheaten bread is universal\u2014from the days when coarse jackets reaching\nto the knees left the legs bare, down to the present {447} day when\nlabouring people, like their employers, have the whole body covered,\nby two or more layers of clothing\u2014from the old era of single-roomed\nhuts without chimneys, or from the 15th century when even an ordinary\ngentleman\u2019s house was commonly without wainscot or plaster on its\nwalls, down to the present century when every cottage has more rooms\nthan one and the houses of artizans usually have several, while all\nhave fire-places, chimneys, and glazed windows, accompanied mostly by\npaper-hangings and painted doors; there has been, I say, a conspicuous\nprogress in the condition of the people. And this progress has been\nstill more marked within our own time. Any one who can look back 60\nyears, when the amount of pauperism was far greater than now and\nbeggars abundant, is struck by the comparative size and finish of the\nnew houses occupied by operatives\u2014by the better dress of workmen, who\nwear broad-cloth on Sundays, and that of servant girls, who vie with\ntheir mistresses\u2014by the higher standard of living which leads to a\ngreat demand for the best qualities of food by working people: all\nresults of the double change to higher wages and cheaper commodities,\nand a distribution of taxes which has relieved the lower classes at\nthe expense of the upper classes. He is struck, too, by the contrast\nbetween the small space which popular welfare then occupied in public\nattention, and the large space it now occupies, with the result that\noutside and inside Parliament, plans to benefit the millions form the\nleading topics, and everyone having means is expected to join in some\nphilanthropic effort. Yet while elevation, mental and physical, of\nthe masses is going on far more rapidly than ever before\u2014while the\nlowering of the death-rate proves that the average life is less trying,\nthere swells louder and louder the cry that the evils are so great\nthat nothing short of a social revolution can cure them. In presence\nof obvious improvements, joined with that increase of longevity which\neven alone yields conclusive proof of general amelioration, it is {448}\nproclaimed, with increasing vehemence, that things are so bad that\nsociety must be pulled to pieces and re-organized on another plan. In\nthis case, then, as in the previous cases instanced, in proportion as\nthe evil decreases the denunciation of it increases; and as fast as\nnatural causes are shown to be powerful there grows up the belief that\nthey are powerless.\n\nNot that the evils to be remedied are small. Let no one suppose\nthat, by emphasizing the above paradox, I wish to make light of\nthe sufferings which most men have to bear. The fates of the great\nmajority have ever been, and doubtless still are, so sad that it is\npainful to think of them. Unquestionably the existing type of social\norganization is one which none who care for their kind can contemplate\nwith satisfaction; and unquestionably men\u2019s activities accompanying\nthis type are far from being admirable. The strong divisions of rank\nand the immense inequalities of means, are at variance with that ideal\nof human relations on which the sympathetic imagination likes to dwell;\nand the average conduct, under the pressure and excitement of social\nlife as at present carried on, is in sundry respects repulsive. Though\nthe many who revile competition strangely ignore the enormous benefits\nresulting from it\u2014though they forget that most of the appliances\nand products distinguishing civilization from savagery, and making\npossible the maintenance of a large population on a small area, have\nbeen developed by the struggle for existence\u2014though they disregard the\nfact that while every man, as producer, suffers from the under-bidding\nof competitors, yet, as consumer, he is immensely advantaged by the\ncheapening of all he has to buy\u2014though they persist in dwelling on the\nevils of competition and saying nothing of its benefits; yet it is\nnot to be denied that the evils are great, and form a large set-off\nfrom the benefits. The system under which we at present live fosters\ndishonesty and lying. It prompts adulterations of countless kinds;\nit is answerable for the {449} cheap imitations which eventually\nin many cases thrust the genuine articles out of the market; it\nleads to the use of short weights and false measures; it introduces\nbribery, which vitiates most trading relations, from those of the\nmanufacturer and buyer down to those of the shopkeeper and servant; it\nencourages deception to such an extent that an assistant who cannot\ntell a falsehood with a good face is blamed; and often it gives the\nconscientious trader the choice between adopting the malpractices of\nhis competitors, or greatly injuring his creditors by bankruptcy.\nMoreover, the extensive frauds, common throughout the commercial world\nand daily exposed in law-courts and newspapers, are largely due to the\npressure under which competition places the higher industrial classes;\nand are otherwise due to that lavish expenditure which, as implying\nsuccess in the commercial struggle, brings honour. With these minor\nevils must be joined the major one, that the distribution achieved by\nthe system, gives to those who regulate and superintend, a share of the\ntotal produce which bears too large a ratio to the share it gives to\nthe actual workers. Let it not be thought, then, that in saying what I\nhave said above, I under-estimate those vices of our competitive system\nwhich, 30 years ago, I described and denounced.[44] But it is not a\nquestion of absolute evils; it is a question of relative evils\u2014whether\nthe evils at present suffered are or are not less than the evils which\nwould be suffered under another system\u2014whether efforts for mitigation\nalong the lines thus far followed are not more likely to succeed than\nefforts along utterly different lines.\n\nThis is the question here to be considered. I must be excused for first\nof all setting forth sundry truths which are, to some at any rate,\ntolerably familiar, before proceeding to draw inferences which are not\nso familiar.\n\n [44] See essay on \u201cThe Morals of Trade.\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSpeaking broadly, every man works that he may avoid {450} suffering.\nHere, remembrance of the pangs of hunger prompts him; and there, he is\nprompted by the sight of the slave-driver\u2019s lash. His immediate dread\nmay be the punishment which physical circumstances will inflict, or\nmay be punishment inflicted by human agency. He must have a master;\nbut the master may be Nature or may be a fellow man. When he is under\nthe impersonal coercion of Nature, we say that he is free; and when\nhe is under the personal coercion of some one above him, we call\nhim, according to the degree of his dependence, a slave, a serf, or\na vassal. Of course I omit the small minority who inherit means: an\nincidental, and not a necessary, social element. I speak only of the\nvast majority, both cultured and uncultured, who maintain themselves by\nlabour, bodily or mental, and must either exert themselves of their own\nunconstrained wills, prompted only by thoughts of naturally-resulting\nevils or benefits, or must exert themselves with constrained wills,\nprompted by thoughts of evils and benefits artificially resulting.\n\nMen may work together in a society under either of these two forms of\ncontrol: forms which, though in many cases mingled, are essentially\ncontrasted. Using the word co\u00f6peration in its wide sense, and not in\nthat restricted sense now commonly given to it, we may say that social\nlife must be carried on by either voluntary co\u00f6peration or compulsory\nco\u00f6peration; or, to use Sir Henry Maine\u2019s words, the system must be\nthat of _contract_ or that of _status_\u2014that in which the individual is\nleft to do the best he can by his spontaneous efforts and get success\nor failure according to his efficiency, and that in which he has his\nappointed place, works under coercive rule, and has his apportioned\nshare of food, clothing, and shelter.\n\nThe system of voluntary co\u00f6peration is that by which, in civilized\nsocieties, industry is now everywhere carried on. Under a simple form\nwe have it on every farm, where the labourers, paid by the farmer\nhimself and taking orders {451} directly from him, are free to stay\nor go as they please. And of its more complex form an example is\nyielded by every manufacturing concern, in which, under partners, come\nmanagers and clerks, and under these, time-keepers and over-lookers,\nand under these operatives of different grades. In each of these cases\nthere is an obvious working together, or co\u00f6peration, of employer and\nemployed, to obtain in the one case a crop and in the other case a\nmanufactured stock. And then, at the same time, there is a far more\nextensive, though unconscious, co\u00f6peration with other workers of all\ngrades throughout the society. For while these particular employers\nand employed are severally occupied with their special kinds of work,\nother employers and employed are making other things needed for the\ncarrying on of their lives as well as the lives of all others. This\nvoluntary co\u00f6peration, from its simplest to its most complex forms, has\nthe common trait that those concerned work together by consent. There\nis no one to force terms or to force acceptance. It is perfectly true\nthat in many cases an employer may give, or an _employ\u00e9_ may accept,\nwith reluctance: circumstances he says compel him. But what are the\ncircumstances? In the one case there are goods ordered, or a contract\nentered into, which he cannot supply or execute without yielding; and\nin the other case he submits to a wage less than he likes because\notherwise he will have no money wherewith to procure food and warmth.\nThe general formula is not\u2014\u201cDo this, or I will make you;\u201d but it is\u2014\u201cDo\nthis, or leave your place and take the consequences.\u201d\n\nOn the other hand compulsory co\u00f6peration is exemplified by an army\u2014not\nso much by our own army, the service in which is under agreement for a\nspecified period, but in a continental army, raised by conscription.\nHere, in time of peace, the daily duties\u2014cleaning, parade, drill,\nsentry work, and the rest\u2014and in time of war the various actions of\nthe camp and the battle-field, are done under command, {452} without\nroom for any exercise of choice. Up from the private soldier through\nthe non-commissioned officers and the half-dozen or more grades of\ncommissioned officers, the universal law is absolute obedience from\nthe grade below to the grade above. The sphere of individual will\nis such only as is allowed by the will of the superior. Breaches\nof subordination are, according to their gravity, dealt with by\ndeprivation of leave, extra drill, imprisonment, flogging, and, in the\nlast resort, shooting. Instead of the understanding that there must\nbe obedience in respect of specified duties under pain of dismissal;\nthe understanding now is\u2014\u201cObey in everything ordered under penalty of\ninflicted suffering and perhaps death.\u201d\n\nThis form of co\u00f6peration, still exemplified in an army, has in days\ngone by been the form of co\u00f6peration throughout the civil population.\nEverywhere, and at all times, chronic war generates a militant type\nof structure, not in the body of soldiers only but throughout the\ncommunity at large. Practically, while the conflict between societies\nis actively going on, and fighting is regarded as the only manly\noccupation, the society is the quiescent army and the army the\nmobilized society: that part which does not take part in battle,\ncomposed of slaves, serfs, women, &c., constituting the commissariat.\nNaturally, therefore, throughout the mass of inferior individuals\nconstituting the commissariat, there is maintained a system of\ndiscipline identical in nature if less elaborate. The fighting body\nbeing, under such conditions, the ruling body, and the rest of the\ncommunity being incapable of resistance, those who control the fighting\nbody will, of course, impose their control upon the non-fighting\nbody; and the _r\u00e9gime_ of coercion will be applied to it with such\nmodifications only as the different circumstances involve. Prisoners\nof war become slaves. Those who were free cultivators before the\nconquest of their country, become serfs attached to the soil. Petty\nchiefs become subject to superior chiefs; these smaller lords {453}\nbecome vassals to over-lords; and so on up to the highest: the social\nranks and powers being of like essential nature with the ranks and\npowers throughout the military organization. And while for the slaves\ncompulsory co\u00f6peration is the unqualified system, a co\u00f6peration which\nis in part compulsory is the system that pervades all grades above.\nEach man\u2019s oath of fealty to his suzerain takes the form\u2014\u201cI am your\nman.\u201d\n\nThroughout Europe, and especially in our own country, this system of\ncompulsory co\u00f6peration gradually relaxed in rigour, while the system\nof voluntary co\u00f6peration step by step replaced it. As fast as war\nceased to be the business of life, the social structure produced by\nwar and appropriate to it, slowly became qualified by the social\nstructure produced by industrial life and appropriate to it. In\nproportion as a decreasing part of the community was devoted to\noffensive and defensive activities, an increasing part became devoted\nto production and distribution. Growing more numerous, more powerful,\nand taking refuge in towns where it was less under the power of the\nmilitant class, this industrial population carried on its life under\nthe system of voluntary co\u00f6peration. Though municipal governments and\nguild-regulations, partially pervaded by ideas and usages derived\nfrom the militant type of society, were in some degree coercive;\nyet production and distribution were in the main carried on under\nagreement\u2014alike between buyers and sellers, and between masters and\nworkmen. As fast as these social relations and forms of activity became\ndominant in urban populations, they influenced the whole community:\ncompulsory co\u00f6peration lapsed more and more, through money commutation\nfor services, military and civil; while divisions of rank became less\nrigid and class-power diminished. Until at length, restraints exercised\nby incorporated trades having fallen into desuetude, as well as the\nrule of rank over rank, voluntary co\u00f6peration became the universal\nprinciple. {454} Purchase and sale became the law for all kinds of\nservices as well as for all kinds of commodities.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe restlessness generated by pressure against the conditions of\nexistence, perpetually prompts the desire to try a new position.\nEveryone knows how long-continued rest in one attitude becomes\nwearisome\u2014everyone has found how even the best easy chair, at first\nrejoiced in, becomes after many hours intolerable; and change to a\nhard seat, previously occupied and rejected, seems for a time to be a\ngreat relief. It is the same with incorporated humanity. Having by long\nstruggles emancipated itself from the hard discipline of the ancient\n_r\u00e9gime_, and having discovered that the new _r\u00e9gime_ into which it has\ngrown, though relatively easy, is not without stresses and pains, its\nimpatience with these prompts the wish to try another system: which\nother system is, in principle if not in appearance, the same as that\nwhich during past generations was escaped from with much rejoicing.\n\nFor as fast as the _r\u00e9gime_ of contract is discarded the _r\u00e9gime_ of\nstatus is of necessity adopted. As fast as voluntary co\u00f6peration is\nabandoned compulsory co\u00f6peration must be substituted. Some kind of\norganization labour must have; and if it is not that which arises by\nagreement under free competition, it must be that which is imposed by\nauthority. Unlike in appearance and names as it may be to the old order\nof slaves and serfs, working under masters, who were coerced by barons,\nwho were themselves vassals of dukes or kings, the new order wished\nfor, constituted by workers under foremen of small groups, overlooked\nby superintendents, who are subject to higher local managers, who\nare controlled by superiors of districts, themselves under a central\ngovernment, must be essentially the same in principle. In the one\ncase, as in the other, there must be established grades, and enforced\nsubordination of each grade to the grades above. This is a truth which\nthe communist or the socialist does not dwell upon. Angry {455} with\nthe existing system under which each of us takes care of himself, while\nall of us see that each has fair play, he thinks how much better it\nwould be for all of us to take care of each of us; and he refrains from\nthinking of the machinery by which this is to be done. Inevitably, if\neach is to be cared for by all, then the embodied all must get the\nmeans\u2014the necessaries of life. What it gives to each must be taken from\nthe accumulated contributions; and it must therefore require from each\nhis proportion\u2014must tell him how much he has to give to the general\nstock in the shape of production, that he may have so much in the shape\nof sustentation. Hence, before he can be provided for, he must put\nhimself under orders, and obey those who say what he shall do, and at\nwhat hours, and where; and who give him his share of food, clothing,\nand shelter. If competition is excluded, and with it buying and\nselling, there can be no voluntary exchange of so much labour for so\nmuch produce; but there must be apportionment of the one to the other\nby appointed officers. This apportionment must be enforced. Without\nalternative the work must be done, and without alternative the benefit,\nwhatever it may be, must be accepted. For the worker may not leave\nhis place at will and offer himself elsewhere. Under such a system he\ncannot be accepted elsewhere, save by order of the authorities. And\nit is manifest that a standing order would forbid employment in one\nplace of an insubordinate member from another place: the system could\nnot be worked if the workers were severally allowed to go or come as\nthey pleased. With corporals and sergeants under them, the captains\nof industry must carry out the orders of their colonels, and these\nof their generals, up to the council of the commander-in-chief; and\nobedience must be required throughout the industrial army as throughout\na fighting army. \u201cDo your prescribed duties, and take your apportioned\nrations,\u201d must be the rule of the one as of the other.\n\n\u201cWell, be it so;\u201d replies the socialist. \u201cThe workers {456} will\nappoint their own officers, and these will always be subject to\ncriticisms of the mass they regulate. Being thus in fear of public\nopinion, they will be sure to act judiciously and fairly; or when they\ndo not, will be deposed by the popular vote, local or general. Where\nwill be the grievance of being under superiors, when the superiors\nthemselves are under democratic control?\u201d And in this attractive vision\nthe socialist has full belief.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIron and brass are simpler things than flesh and blood, and dead wood\nthan living nerve; and a machine constructed of the one works in more\ndefinite ways than an organism constructed of the other,\u2014especially\nwhen the machine is worked by the inorganic forces of steam or water,\nwhile the organism is worked by the forces of living nerve-centres.\nManifestly, then, the ways in which the machine will work are much\nmore readily calculable than the ways in which the organism will work.\nYet in how few cases does the inventor foresee rightly the actions of\nhis new apparatus! Read the patent-list, and it will be found that not\nmore than one device in fifty turns out to be of any service. Plausible\nas his scheme seemed to the inventor, one or other hitch prevents the\nintended operation, and brings out a widely different result from that\nwhich he wished.\n\nWhat, then, shall we say of these schemes which have to do not with\ndead matters and forces, but with complex living organisms working\nin ways less readily foreseen, and which involve the co\u00f6peration\nof multitudes of such organisms? Even the units out of which this\nre-arranged body politic is to be formed are often incomprehensible.\nEveryone is from time to time surprised by others\u2019 behaviour, and even\nby the deeds of relatives who are best known to him. Seeing, then, how\nuncertainly anyone can foresee the actions of an individual, how can\nhe with any certainty foresee the operation of a social structure?\nHe proceeds on the assumption that all concerned will judge rightly\nand act {457} fairly\u2014will think as they ought to think, and act\nas they ought to act; and he assumes this regardless of the daily\nexperiences which show him that men do neither the one nor the other,\nand forgetting that the complaints he makes against the existing\nsystem show his belief to be that men have neither the wisdom nor the\nrectitude which his plan requires them to have.\n\nPaper constitutions raise smiles on the faces of those who have\nobserved their results; and paper social systems similarly affect those\nwho have contemplated the available evidence. How little the men who\nwrought the French revolution and were chiefly concerned in setting up\nthe new governmental apparatus, dreamt that one of the early actions of\nthis apparatus would be to behead them all! How little the men who drew\nup the American Declaration of Independence and framed the republic,\nanticipated that after some generations the legislature would lapse\ninto the hands of wire-pullers; that its doings would turn upon the\ncontests of office-seekers; that political action would be everywhere\nvitiated by the intrusion of a foreign element holding the balance\nbetween parties; that electors, instead of judging for themselves,\nwould habitually be led to the polls in thousands by their \u201cbosses;\u201d\nand that respectable men would be driven out of public life by the\ninsults and slanders of professional politicians. Nor were there better\nprevisions in those who gave constitutions to the various other states\nof the New World, in which unnumbered revolutions have shown with\nwonderful persistence the contrasts between the expected results of\npolitical systems and the achieved results. It has been no less thus\nwith proposed systems of social re-organization, so far as they have\nbeen tried. Save where celibacy has been insisted on, their history has\nbeen everywhere one of disaster; ending with the history of Cabet\u2019s\nIcarian colony lately given by one of its members, Madame Fleury\nRobinson, in _The Open Court_\u2014a history of splittings, re-splittings\nand re-re-splittings, accompanied by {458} numerous individual\nsecessions and final dissolution. And for the failure of such social\nschemes, as for the failure of the political schemes, there has been\none general cause.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMetamorphosis is the universal law, exemplified throughout the Heavens\nand on the Earth: especially throughout the organic world; and above\nall in the animal division of it. No creature, save the simplest and\nmost minute, commences its existence in a form like that which it\neventually assumes; and in most cases the unlikeness is great\u2014so great\nthat kinship between the first and the last forms would be incredible\nwere it not daily demonstrated in every poultry-yard and every garden.\nMore than this is true. The changes of form are often several: each\nof them being an apparently complete transformation\u2014egg, larva, pupa,\nimago, for example. And this universal metamorphosis, displayed alike\nin the development of a planet and of every seed which germinates on\nits surface, holds also of societies, whether taken as wholes or in\ntheir separate institutions. No one of them ends as it begins; and the\ndifference between its original structure and its ultimate structure\nis such that, at the outset, change of the one into the other would\nhave seemed incredible. In the rudest tribe the chief, obeyed as leader\nin war, loses his distinctive position when the fighting is over; and\neven where continued warfare has produced permanent chieftainship,\nthe chief, building his own hut, getting his own food, making his own\nimplements, differs from others only by his predominant influence.\nThere is no sign that in course of time, by conquests and unions of\ntribes, and consolidations of clusters so formed with other such\nclusters, until a nation has been produced, there will originate from\nthe primitive chief, one who, as czar or emperor, surrounded with pomp\nand ceremony, has despotic power over scores of millions, exercised\nthrough hundreds of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands\nof officials. When the early Christian missionaries, having humble\n{459} externals and passing self-denying lives, spread over pagan\nEurope, preaching forgiveness of injuries and the returning of good\nfor evil, no one dreamt that in course of time their representatives\nwould form a vast hierarchy, possessing everywhere a large part of\nthe land, distinguished by the haughtiness of its members grade above\ngrade, ruled by military bishops who led their retainers to battle,\nand headed by a pope exercising supreme power over kings. So, too,\nhas it been with that very industrial system which many are now so\neager to replace. In its original form there was no prophecy of the\nfactory-system or kindred organizations of workers. Differing from\nthem only as being the head of his house, the master worked along with\nhis apprentices and a journeyman or two, sharing with them his table\nand accommodation, and himself selling their joint produce. Only with\nindustrial growth did there come employment of a larger number of\nassistants, and a relinquishment, on the part of the master, of all\nother business than that of superintendence. And only in the course\nof recent times did there evolve the organizations under which the\nlabours of hundreds and thousands of men receiving wages, are regulated\nby various orders of paid officials under a single or multiple head.\nThese originally small, semi-socialistic, groups of producers, like the\ncompound families or house-communities of early ages, slowly dissolved\nbecause they could not hold their ground: the larger establishments,\nwith better sub-division of labour, succeeded because they ministered\nto the wants of society more effectually. But we need not go back\nthrough the centuries to trace transformations sufficiently great and\nunexpected. On the day when \u00a330,000 a year in aid of education was\nvoted as an experiment, the name of idiot would have been given to an\nopponent who prophesied that in 50 years the sum spent through imperial\ntaxes and local rates would amount to \u00a310,000,000 or who said that\nthe aid to education would be followed by aids to feeding and {460}\nclothing, or who said that parents and children, alike deprived of all\noption, would, even if starving, be compelled by fine or imprisonment\nto conform, and receive that which, with papal assumption, the State\ncalls education. No one, I say, would have dreamt that out of so\ninnocent-looking a germ would have so quickly evolved this tyrannical\nsystem, tamely submitted to by people who fancy themselves free.\n\nThus in social arrangements, as in all other things, change is\ninevitable. It is foolish to suppose that new institutions set up, will\nlong retain the character given them by those who set them up. Rapidly\nor slowly they will be transformed into institutions unlike those\nintended\u2014so unlike as even to be unrecognizable by their devisers.\nAnd what, in the case before us, will be the metamorphosis? The\nanswer pointed to by instances above given, and warranted by various\nanalogies, is manifest.\n\nA cardinal trait in all advancing organization is the development of\nthe regulative apparatus. If the parts of a whole are to act together,\nthere must be appliances by which their actions are directed; and in\nproportion as the whole is large and complex, and has many requirements\nto be met by many agencies, the directive apparatus must be extensive,\nelaborate, and powerful. That it is thus with individual organisms\nneeds no saying; and that it must be thus with social organisms is\nobvious. Beyond the regulative apparatus such as in our own society is\nrequired for carrying on national defence and maintaining public order\nand personal safety, there must, under the _r\u00e9gime_ of socialism, be\na regulative apparatus everywhere controlling all kinds of production\nand distribution, and everywhere apportioning the shares of products\nof each kind required for each locality, each working establishment,\neach individual. Under our existing voluntary co\u00f6peration, with its\nfree contracts and its competition, production and distribution need\nno official oversight. Demand and {461} supply, and the desire of\neach man to gain a living by supplying the needs of his fellows,\nspontaneously evolve that wonderful system whereby a great city has\nits food daily brought round to all doors or stored at adjacent shops;\nhas clothing for its citizens everywhere at hand in multitudinous\nvarieties; has its houses and furniture and fuel ready made or stocked\nin each locality; and has mental pabulum from halfpenny papers\nhourly hawked round, to weekly shoals of novels, and less abundant\nbooks of instruction, furnished without stint for small payments.\nAnd throughout the kingdom, production as well as distribution is\nsimilarly carried on with the smallest amount of superintendence which\nproves efficient; while the quantities of the numerous commodities\nrequired daily in each locality are adjusted without any other agency\nthan the pursuit of profit. Suppose now that this industrial _r\u00e9gime_\nof willinghood, acting spontaneously, is replaced by a _r\u00e9gime_ of\nindustrial obedience, enforced by public officials. Imagine the vast\nadministration required for that distribution of all commodities to\nall people in every city, town and village, which is now effected by\ntraders! Imagine, again, the still more vast administration required\nfor doing all that farmers, manufacturers, and merchants do; having not\nonly its various orders of local superintendents, but its sub-centres\nand chief centres needed for apportioning the quantities of each\nthing everywhere needed, and the adjustment of them to the requisite\ntimes. Then add the staffs wanted for working mines, railways, roads,\ncanals; the staffs required for conducting the importing and exporting\nbusinesses and the administration of mercantile shipping; the staffs\nrequired for supplying towns not only with water and gas but with\nlocomotion by tramways, omnibuses, and other vehicles, and for the\ndistribution of power, electric and other. Join with these the existing\npostal, telegraphic, and telephonic administrations; and finally those\nof the police and army, by which the dictates {462} of this immense\nconsolidated regulative system are to be everywhere enforced. Imagine\nall this and then ask what will be the position of the actual workers!\nAlready on the continent, where governmental organizations are more\nelaborate and coercive than here, there are chronic complaints of\nthe tyranny of bureaucracies\u2014the _hauteur_ and brutality of their\nmembers. What will these become when not only the more public actions\nof citizens are controlled, but there is added this far more extensive\ncontrol of all their respective daily duties? What will happen when the\nvarious divisions of this vast army of officials, united by interests\ncommon to officialism\u2014the interests of the regulators _versus_ those\nof the regulated\u2014have at their command whatever force is needful to\nsuppress insubordination and act as \u201csaviours of society\u201d? Where will\nbe the actual diggers and miners and smelters and weavers, when those\nwho order and superintend, everywhere arranged class above class, have\ncome, after some generations, to inter-marry with those of kindred\ngrades, under feelings such as are operative in existing classes;\nand when there have been so produced a series of castes rising in\nsuperiority; and when all these, having everything in their own power,\nhave arranged modes of living for their own advantage: eventually\nforming a new aristocracy far more elaborate and better organized than\nthe old? How will the individual worker fare if he is dissatisfied with\nhis treatment\u2014thinks that he has not an adequate share of the products,\nor has more to do than can rightly be demanded, or wishes to undertake\na function for which he feels himself fitted but which is not thought\nproper for him by his superiors, or desires to make an independent\ncareer for himself? This dissatisfied unit in the immense machine will\nbe told he must submit or go. The mildest penalty for disobedience will\nbe industrial excommunication. And if an international organization of\nlabour is formed as proposed, exclusion in one country {463} will mean\nexclusion in all others\u2014industrial excommunication will mean starvation.\n\nThat things must take this course is a conclusion reached not by\ndeduction only, nor only by induction from those experiences of the\npast instanced above, nor only from consideration of the analogies\nfurnished by organisms of all orders; but it is reached also by\nobservation of cases daily under our eyes. The truth that the\nregulative structure always tends to increase in power, is illustrated\nby every established body of men. The history of each learned society,\nor society for other purpose, shows how the staff, permanent or\npartially permanent, sways the proceedings and determines the actions\nof the society with but little resistance, even when most members of\nthe society disapprove: the repugnance to anything like a revolutionary\nstep being ordinarily an efficient deterrent. So is it with joint-stock\ncompanies\u2014those owning railways for example. The plans of a board of\ndirectors are usually authorized with little or no discussion; and if\nthere is any considerable opposition, this is forthwith crushed by an\noverwhelming number of proxies sent by those who always support the\nexisting administration. Only when the misconduct is extreme does the\nresistance of shareholders suffice to displace the ruling body. Nor\nis it otherwise with societies formed of working men and having the\ninterests of labour especially at heart\u2014the trades-unions. In these,\ntoo, the regulative agency becomes all powerful. Their members, even\nwhen they dissent from the policy pursued, habitually yield to the\nauthorities they have set up. As they cannot secede without making\nenemies of their fellow workmen, and often losing all chance of\nemployment, they succumb. We are shown, too, by the late congress,\nthat already, in the general organization of trades-unions so recently\nformed, there are complaints of \u201cwire-pullers\u201d and \u201cbosses\u201d and\n\u201cpermanent officials.\u201d If, then, this supremacy of the regulators is\nseen in bodies of quite modern origin, formed of men who {464} have,\nin many of the cases instanced, unhindered powers of asserting their\nindependence, what will the supremacy of the regulators become in\nlong-established bodies, in bodies which have become vast and highly\norganized, and in bodies which, instead of controlling only a small\npart of the unit\u2019s life, control the whole of his life?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAgain there will come the rejoinder\u2014\u201cWe shall guard against all that.\nEverybody will be educated; and all, with their eyes constantly open to\nthe abuse of power, will be quick to prevent it.\u201d The worth of these\nexpectations would be small even could we not identify the causes which\nwill bring disappointment; for in human affairs the most promising\nschemes go wrong in ways which no one anticipated. But in this case\nthe going wrong will be necessitated by causes which are conspicuous.\nThe working of institutions is determined by men\u2019s characters; and\nthe existing defects in their characters will inevitably bring about\nthe results above indicated. There is no adequate endowment of those\nsentiments required to prevent the growth of a despotic bureaucracy.\n\nWere it needful to dwell on indirect evidence, much might be made\nof that furnished by the behaviour of the so-called Liberal party\u2014a\nparty which, relinquishing the original conception of a leader as a\nmouthpiece for a known and accepted policy, thinks itself bound to\naccept a policy which its leader springs upon it without consent or\nwarning\u2014a party so utterly without the feeling and idea implied by\nliberalism, as not to resent this trampling on the right of private\njudgment, which constitutes the root of liberalism\u2014nay, a party\nwhich vilifies as renegade liberals, those of its members who refuse\nto surrender their independence! But without occupying space with\nindirect proofs that the mass of men have not the natures required to\ncheck the development of tyrannical officialism, it will suffice to\ncontemplate the direct proofs furnished by those classes among whom\n{465} the socialistic idea most predominates, and who think themselves\nmost interested in propagating it\u2014the operative classes. These would\nconstitute the great body of the socialistic organization, and their\ncharacters would determine its nature. What, then, are their characters\nas displayed in such organizations as they have already formed?\n\nInstead of the selfishness of the employing classes and the selfishness\nof competition, we are to have the unselfishness of a mutually-aiding\nsystem. How far is this unselfishness now shown in the behaviour of\nworking men to one another? What shall we say to the rules limiting\nthe numbers of new hands admitted into each trade, or to the rules\nwhich hinder ascent from inferior classes of workers to superior\nclasses? One does not see in such regulations any of that altruism by\nwhich socialism is to be pervaded. Contrariwise, one sees a pursuit of\nprivate interests no less keen than among traders. Hence, unless we\nsuppose that men\u2019s natures will be suddenly exalted, we must conclude\nthat the pursuit of private interests will sway the doings of all the\ncomponent classes in a socialistic society.\n\nWith passive disregard of others\u2019 claims goes active encroachment on\nthem. \u201cBe one of us or we will cut off your means of living,\u201d is the\nusual threat of each trades-union to outsiders of the same trade. While\ntheir members insist on their own freedom to combine and fix the rates\nat which they will work (as they are perfectly justified in doing),\nthe freedom of those who disagree with them is not only denied but the\nassertion of it is treated as a crime. Individuals who maintain their\nrights to make their own contracts are vilified as \u201cblacklegs\u201d and\n\u201ctraitors,\u201d and meet with violence which would be merciless were there\nno legal penalties and no police. Along with this trampling on the\nliberties of men of their own class, there goes peremptory dictation to\nthe employing class: not prescribed terms and working arrangements only\nshall be conformed {466} to, but none save those belonging to their\nbody shall be employed\u2014nay, in some cases, there shall be a strike if\nthe employer carries on transactions with trading bodies that give work\nto non-union men. Here, then, we are variously shown by trades-unions,\nor at any rate by the newer trades-unions, a determination to impose\ntheir regulations without regard to the rights of those who are to be\ncoerced. So complete is the inversion of ideas and sentiments that\nmaintenance of these rights is regarded as vicious and trespass upon\nthem as virtuous.[45]\n\nAlong with this aggressiveness in one direction there goes\nsubmissiveness in another direction. The coercion of outsiders by\nunionists is paralleled only by their subjection to their leaders.\nThat they may conquer in the struggle they surrender their individual\nliberties and individual judgments, and show no resentment however\ndictatorial may be the rule exercised over them. Everywhere we see such\nsubordination that bodies of workmen unanimously leave their work or\nreturn to it as their authorities order them. Nor do they resist when\ntaxed all round to support strikers whose acts they may or may not\napprove, but instead, ill-treat recalcitrant members of their body who\ndo not subscribe. {467}\n\n [45] Marvellous are the conclusions men reach when once they desert\n the simple principle, that each man should be allowed to pursue the\n objects of life, restrained only by the limits which the similar\n pursuits of their objects by other men impose. A generation ago we\n heard loud assertions of \u2018the right to labour,\u2019 that is, the right\n to have labour provided; and there are still not a few who think the\n community bound to find work for each person. Compare this with the\n doctrine current in France at the time when the monarchical power\n culminated; namely, that \u2018the right of working is a royal right\n which the prince can sell and the subjects must buy.\u2019 This contrast\n is startling enough; but a contrast still more startling is being\n provided for us. We now see a resuscitation of the despotic doctrine,\n differing only by the substitution of Trades-Unions for kings. For now\n that Trades-Unions are becoming universal, and each artisan has to\n pay prescribed monies to one or another of them, with the alternative\n of being a non-unionist to whom work is denied by force, it has come\n to this, that the right to labour is a Trade-Union right, which the\n Trade-Union can sell and the individual worker must buy!\n\nThe traits thus shown must be operative in any new social organization,\nand the question to be asked is\u2014What will result from their operation\nwhen they are relieved from all restraints? At present the separate\nbodies of men displaying them are in the midst of a society partially\npassive, partially antagonistic; are subject to the criticisms and\nreprobations of an independent press; and are under the control of law,\nenforced by police. If in these circumstances these bodies habitually\ntake courses which override individual freedom, what will happen when,\ninstead of being only scattered parts of the community, governed\nby their separate sets of regulators, they constitute the whole\ncommunity, governed by a consolidated system of such regulators; when\nfunctionaries of all orders, including those who officer the press,\nform parts of the regulative organization; and when the law is both\nenacted and administered by this regulative organization? The fanatical\nadherents of a social theory are capable of taking any measures, no\nmatter how extreme, for carrying out their views: holding, like the\nmerciless priesthoods of past times, that the end justifies the means.\nAnd when a general socialistic organization has been established,\nthe vast, ramified, and consolidated body of those who direct its\nactivities, using without check whatever coercion seems to them needful\nin the interests of the system (which will practically become their\nown interests) will have no hesitation in imposing their rigorous rule\nover the entire lives of the actual workers; until, eventually, there\nis developed an official oligarchy, with its various grades, exercising\na tyranny more gigantic and more terrible than any which the world has\nseen.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet me again repudiate an erroneous inference. Any one who supposes\nthat the foregoing argument implies contentment with things as\nthey are, makes a profound mistake. The present social state is\ntransitional, as past social states have been transitional. There will,\nI hope {468} and believe, come a future social state differing as much\nfrom the present as the present differs from the past with its mailed\nbarons and defenceless serfs. In _Social Statics_, as well as in _The\nStudy of Sociology_ and in _Political Institutions_, is clearly shown\nthe desire for an organization more conducive to the happiness of men\nat large than that which exists. My opposition to socialism results\nfrom the belief that it would stop the progress to such a higher state\nand bring back a lower state. Nothing but the slow modification of\nhuman nature by the discipline of social life, can produce permanently\nadvantageous changes.\n\nA fundamental error pervading the thinking of nearly all parties,\npolitical and social, is that evils admit of immediate and radical\nremedies. \u201cIf you will but do this, the mischief will be prevented.\u201d\n\u201cAdopt my plan and the suffering will disappear.\u201d \u201cThe corruption\nwill unquestionably be cured by enforcing this measure.\u201d Everywhere\none meets with beliefs, expressed or implied, of these kinds. They\nare all ill-founded. It is possible to remove causes which intensify\nthe evils; it is possible to change the evils from one form into\nanother; and it is possible, and very common, to exacerbate the evils\nby the efforts made to prevent them; but anything like immediate cure\nis impossible. In the course of thousands of years mankind have, by\nmultiplication, been forced out of that original savage state in which\nsmall numbers supported themselves on wild food, into the civilized\nstate in which the food required for supporting great numbers can be\ngot only by continuous labour. The nature required for this last mode\nof life is widely different from the nature required for the first; and\nlong-continued pains have to be passed through in re-moulding the one\ninto the other. Misery has necessarily to be borne by a constitution\nout of harmony with its conditions; and a constitution inherited\nfrom primitive men is out of harmony with the conditions imposed on\nexisting men. Hence it is impossible to establish forthwith a {469}\nsatisfactory social state. No such nature as that which has filled\nEurope with millions of armed men, here eager for conquest and there\nfor revenge\u2014no such nature as that which prompts the nations called\nChristian to vie with one another in filibustering expeditions all over\nthe world, regardless of the claims of aborigines, while their tens of\nthousands of priests of the religion of love look on approvingly\u2014no\nsuch nature as that which, in dealing with weaker races, goes beyond\nthe primitive rule of life for life, and for one life takes many\nlives\u2014no such nature, I say, can, by any device, be framed into a\nharmonious community. The root of all well-ordered social action is a\nsentiment of justice, which at once insists on personal freedom and is\nsolicitous for the like freedom of others; and there at present exists\nbut a very inadequate amount of this sentiment.\n\nHence the need for further long continuance of a social discipline\nwhich requires each man to carry on his activities with due regard to\nthe like claims of others to carry on their activities; and which,\nwhile it insists that he shall have all the benefits his conduct\nnaturally brings, insists also that he shall not saddle on others\nthe evils his conduct naturally brings: unless they freely undertake\nto bear them. And hence the belief that endeavours to elude this\ndiscipline, will not only fail, but will bring worse evils than those\nto be escaped.\n\nIt is not, then, chiefly in the interests of the employing classes that\nsocialism is to be resisted, but much more in the interests of the\nemployed classes. In one way or other production must be regulated; and\nthe regulators, in the nature of things, must always be a small class\nas compared with the actual producers. Under voluntary co\u00f6peration\nas at present carried on, the regulators, pursuing their personal\ninterests, take as large a share of the produce as they can get;\nbut, as we are daily shown by trades-union successes, are restrained\nin the selfish pursuit {470} of their ends. Under that compulsory\nco\u00f6peration which socialism would necessitate, the regulators, pursuing\ntheir personal interests with no less selfishness, could not be met by\nthe combined resistance of free workers; and their power, unchecked\nas now by refusals to work save on prescribed terms, would grow and\nramify and consolidate till it became irresistible. The ultimate\nresult, as I have before pointed out, must be a society like that of\nancient Peru, dreadful to contemplate, in which the mass of the people,\nelaborately regimented in groups of 10, 50, 100, 500, and 1000, ruled\nby officers of corresponding grades, and tied to their districts, were\nsuperintended in their private lives as well as in their industries,\nand toiled hopelessly for the support of the governmental organization.\n\n{471}\n\n\n\n\nTHE AMERICANS:\n\nA CONVERSATION AND A SPEECH, WITH AN ADDITION.\n\n\n[_Originally published in America and afterwards published in\nEngland in_ The Contemporary Review _for January 1883, preceded by\nthe following editorial note:\u2014\u201cThe state of Mr. Spencer\u2019s health\nunfortunately not permitting him, to give in the form of articles\nthe results of his observations on American society, it is thought\nuseful to reproduce, under his own revision and with some additional\nremarks, what he has said on the subject; especially as the accounts of\nit which have appeared in this country are imperfect: reports of the\nconversation having been abridged, and the speech being known only by\ntelegraphic summary._\n\n_\u201cThe earlier paragraphs of the conversation, which refer to Mr.\nSpencer\u2019s persistent exclusion of reporters and his objections to the\ninterviewing system, are omitted, as not here concerning the reader.\nThere was no eventual yielding, as has been supposed. It was not to\na newspaper-reporter that the opinions which follow were expressed,\nbut to an intimate American friend: the primary purpose being to\ncorrect the many misstatements to which the excluded interviewers had\ngiven currency; and the occasion being taken for giving utterance to\nimpressions of American affairs._\u201d\u2014ED.]\n\n\nI.\u2014A CONVERSATION: _October 20, 1882_.\n\nHas what you have seen answered your expectations?\n\nIt has far exceeded them. Such books about America as I had looked into\nhad given me no adequate idea of the immense developments of material\ncivilization which {472} I have everywhere found. The extent, wealth,\nand magnificence of your cities, and especially the splendour of New\nYork, have altogether astonished me. Though I have not visited the\nwonder of the West, Chicago, yet some of your minor modern places,\nsuch as Cleveland, have sufficiently amazed me by the results of one\ngeneration\u2019s activity. Occasionally, when I have been in places of some\nten thousand inhabitants where the telephone is in general use, I have\nfelt somewhat ashamed of our own unenterprising towns, many of which,\nof fifty thousand inhabitants and more, make no use of it.\n\nI suppose you recognize in these results the great benefits of free\ninstitutions?\n\nAh! Now comes one of the inconveniences of interviewing. I have been\nin the country less than two months, have seen but a relatively small\npart of it, and but comparatively few people, and yet you wish from me\na definite opinion on a difficult question.\n\nPerhaps you will answer, subject to the qualification that you are but\ngiving your first impressions?\n\nWell, with that understanding, I may reply that though the free\ninstitutions have been partly the cause, I think they have not been the\nchief cause. In the first place, the American people have come into\npossession of an unparalleled fortune\u2014the mineral wealth and the vast\ntracts of virgin soil producing abundantly with small cost of culture.\nManifestly, that alone goes a long way towards producing this enormous\nprosperity. Then they have profited by inheriting all the arts,\nappliances, and methods, developed by older societies, while leaving\nbehind the obstructions existing in them. They have been able to pick\nand choose from the products of all past experience, appropriating the\ngood and rejecting the bad. Then, besides these favours of fortune,\nthere are factors proper to themselves. I perceive in American faces\ngenerally a great amount of determination\u2014a kind of \u201cdo or die\u201d {473}\nexpression; and this trait of character, joined with a power of work\nexceeding that of any other people, of course produces an unparalleled\nrapidity of progress. Once more, there is the inventiveness which,\nstimulated by the need for economizing labour, has been so wisely\nfostered. Among us in England, there are many foolish people who, while\nthinking that a man who toils with his hands has an equitable claim to\nthe product, and if he has special skill may rightly have the advantage\nof it, also hold that if a man toils with his brain, perhaps for years,\nand, uniting genius with perseverance, evolves some valuable invention,\nthe public may rightly claim the benefit. The Americans have been more\nfar-seeing. The enormous museum of patents which I saw at Washington\nis significant of the attention paid to inventors\u2019 claims; and the\nnation profits immensely from having in this direction (though not in\nall others) recognized property in mental products. Beyond question,\nin respect of mechanical appliances the Americans are ahead of all\nnations. If along with your material progress there went equal progress\nof a higher kind, there would remain nothing to be wished.\n\nThat is an ambiguous qualification. What do you mean by it?\n\nYou will understand me when I tell you what I was thinking the other\nday. After pondering over what I have seen of your vast manufacturing\nand trading establishments, the rush of traffic in your street-cars\nand elevated railways, your gigantic hotels and Fifth Avenue palaces,\nI was suddenly reminded of the Italian Republics of the Middle Ages;\nand recalled the fact that while there was growing up in them great\ncommercial activity, a development of the arts, which made them the\nenvy of Europe, and a building of princely mansions which continue to\nbe the admiration of travellers, their people were gradually losing\ntheir freedom.\n\nDo you mean this as a suggestion that we are doing the like?\n\nIt seems to me that you are. You retain the forms of {474} freedom;\nbut, so far as I can gather, there has been a considerable loss of the\nsubstance. It is true that those who rule you do not do it by means of\nretainers armed with swords; but they do it through regiments of men\narmed with voting papers, who obey the word of command as loyally as\ndid the dependants of the old feudal nobles, and who thus enable their\nleaders to override the general will, and make the community submit\nto their exactions as effectually as their prototypes of old. It is\ndoubtless true that each of your citizens votes for the candidate he\nchooses for this or that office, from President downwards; but his hand\nis guided by an agency behind which leaves him scarcely any choice.\n\u201cUse your political power as we tell you, or else throw it away,\u201d\nis the alternative offered to the citizen. The political machinery\nas it is now worked, has little resemblance to that contemplated at\nthe outset of your political life. Manifestly, those who framed your\nConstitution never dreamed that twenty thousand citizens would go to\nthe poll led by a \u201cboss.\u201d America exemplifies at the other end of\nthe social scale, a change analogous to that which has taken place\nunder sundry despotisms. You know that in Japan, before the recent\nRevolution, the divine ruler, the Mikado, nominally supreme, was\npractically a puppet in the hands of his chief minister, the Shogun.\nHere it seems to me that \u201cthe sovereign people\u201d is fast becoming a\npuppet which moves and speaks as wire-pullers determine.\n\nThen you think that Republican institutions are a failure?\n\nBy no means: I imply no such conclusion. Thirty years ago, when often\ndiscussing politics with an English friend, and defending Republican\ninstitutions, as I always have done and do still, and when he urged\nagainst me the ill-working of such institutions over here, I habitually\nreplied that the Americans got their form of government by a happy\naccident, not by normal progress, and that they would have to go back\nbefore they could go forward. What has since happened seems to me\nto have justified that {475} view; and what I see now, confirms me\nin it. America is showing, on a larger scale than ever before, that\n\u201cpaper Constitutions\u201d will not work as they are intended to work.\nThe truth, first recognized by Mackintosh, that Constitutions are\nnot made but grow, which is part of the larger truth that societies,\nthroughout their whole organizations, are not made but grow, at once,\nwhen accepted, disposes of the notion that you can work as you hope\nany artificially-devised system of government. It becomes an inference\nthat if your political structure has been manufactured and not grown,\nit will forthwith begin to grow into something different from that\nintended\u2014something in harmony with the natures of the citizens, and the\nconditions under which the society exists. And it evidently has been so\nwith you. Within the forms of your Constitution there has grown up this\norganization of professional politicians altogether uncontemplated at\nthe outset, which has become in large measure the ruling power.\n\nBut will not education and the diffusion of political knowledge fit men\nfor free institutions?\n\nNo. It is essentially a question of character, and only in a secondary\ndegree a question of knowledge. But for the universal delusion about\neducation as a panacea for political evils, this would have been made\nsufficiently clear by the evidence daily disclosed in your papers.\nAre not the men who officer and control your Federal, your State,\nand your Municipal organizations\u2014who manipulate your caucuses and\nconventions, and run your partisan campaigns\u2014all educated men? And has\ntheir education prevented them from engaging in, or permitting, or\ncondoning, the briberies, lobbyings, and other corrupt methods which\nvitiate the actions of your administrations? Perhaps party newspapers\nexaggerate these things; but what am I to make of the testimony of your\ncivil service reformers\u2014men of all parties? If I understand the matter\naright, they are attacking, as vicious and dangerous, a system {476}\nwhich has grown up under the natural spontaneous working of your free\ninstitutions\u2014are exposing vices which education has proved powerless to\nprevent?\n\nOf course, ambitious and unscrupulous men will secure the offices, and\neducation will aid them in their selfish purposes. But would not those\npurposes be thwarted, and better Government secured, by raising the\nstandard of knowledge among the people at large?\n\nVery little. The current theory is that if the young are taught what is\nright, and the reasons why it is right, they will do what is right when\nthey grow up. But considering what religious teachers have been doing\nthese two thousand years, it seems to me that all history is against\nthe conclusion, as much as is the conduct of these well-educated\ncitizens I have referred to; and I do not see why you expect better\nresults among the masses. Personal interests will sway the men in\nthe ranks, as they sway the men above them; and the education which\nfails to make the last consult public good rather than private good,\nwill fail to make the first do it. The benefits of political purity\nare so general and remote, and the profit to each individual is so\ninconspicuous, that the common citizen, educate him as you like, will\nhabitually occupy himself with his personal affairs, and hold it not\nworth his while to fight against each abuse as soon as it appears. Not\nlack of information, but lack of certain moral sentiment, is the root\nof the evil.\n\nYou mean that people have not a sufficient sense of public duty?\n\nWell, that is one way of putting it; but there is a more specific way.\nProbably it will surprise you if I say the American has not, I think, a\nsufficiently quick sense of his own claims, and, at the same time, as a\nnecessary consequence, not a sufficiently quick sense of the claims of\nothers\u2014for the two traits are organically related. I observe that they\ntolerate various small interferences and dictations which Englishmen\nare prone to resist. I am told that the {477} English are remarked on\nfor their tendency to grumble in such cases; and I have no doubt it is\ntrue.\n\nDo you think it worth while for people to make themselves disagreeable\nby resenting every trifling aggression? We Americans think it involves\ntoo much loss of time and temper, and doesn\u2019t pay.\n\nExactly; that is what I mean by character. It is this easy-going\nreadiness to permit small trespasses, because it would be troublesome\nor profitless or unpopular to oppose them, which leads to the habit\nof acquiescence in wrong, and the decay of free institutions. Free\ninstitutions can be maintained only by citizens, each of whom is\ninstant to oppose every illegitimate act, every assumption of\nsupremacy, every official excess of power, however trivial it may seem.\nAs Hamlet says, there is such a thing as \u201cgreatly to find quarrel in\na straw,\u201d when the straw implies a principle. If, as you say of the\nAmerican, he pauses to consider whether he can afford the time and\ntrouble\u2014whether it will pay, corruption is sure to creep in. All these\nlapses from higher to lower forms begin in trifling ways, and it is\nonly by incessant watchfulness that they can be prevented. As one of\nyour early statesmen said\u2014\u201cThe price of liberty is eternal vigilance.\u201d\nBut it is far less against foreign aggressions upon national liberty\nthat this vigilance is required, than against the insidious growth\nof domestic interferences with personal liberty. In some private\nadministrations which I have been concerned with, I have often insisted\nthat instead of assuming, as people usually do, that things are going\nright until it is proved that they are going wrong, the proper course\nis to assume that they are going wrong until it is proved that they\nare going right. You will find continually that private corporations,\nsuch as joint-stock banking companies, come to grief from not acting\non this principle; and what holds of these small and simple private\nadministrations holds still more of the great and complex public\nadministrations. {478} People are taught, and I suppose believe,\nthat the heart of man \u201cis deceitful above all things, and desperately\nwicked;\u201d and yet, strangely enough, believing this, they place implicit\ntrust in those they appoint to this or that function. I do not think so\nill of human nature; but, on the other hand, I do not think so well of\nhuman nature as to believe it will go straight without being watched.\n\nYou hinted that while Americans do not assert their own individualities\nsufficiently in small matters, they, reciprocally, do not sufficiently\nrespect the individualities of others.\n\nDid I? Here, then, comes another of the inconveniences of interviewing.\nI should have kept this opinion to myself if you had asked me no\nquestions; and now I must either say what I do not think, which I\ncannot, or I must refuse to answer, which, perhaps, will be taken to\nmean more than I intend, or I must specify, at the risk of giving\noffence. As the least evil, I suppose I must do the last. The trait I\nrefer to comes out in various ways, small and great. It is shown by\nthe disrespectful manner in which individuals are dealt with in your\njournals\u2014the placarding of public men in sensational headings, the\ndragging of private people and their affairs into print. There seems to\nbe a notion that the public have a right to intrude on private life as\nfar as they like; and this I take to be a kind of moral trespassing.\nThen, in a larger way, the trait is seen in this damaging of private\nproperty by your elevated railways without making compensation; and\nit is again seen in the doings of railway autocrats, not only when\noverriding the rights of shareholders, but in dominating over courts\nof justice and State governments. The fact is that free institutions\ncan be properly worked only by men, each of whom is jealous of his own\nrights, and also sympathetically jealous of the rights of others\u2014who\nwill neither himself aggress on his neighbours in small things or\ngreat, nor tolerate aggression on them by others. The Republican form\nof government is the highest form of government; but because of this\nit {479} requires the highest type of human nature\u2014a type nowhere at\npresent existing. We have not grown up to it; nor have you.\n\nBut we thought, Mr. Spencer, you were in favour of free government in\nthe sense of relaxed restraints, and letting men and things very much\nalone, or what is called _laissez faire_?\n\nThat is a persistent misunderstanding of my opponents. Everywhere,\nalong with the reprobation of Government intrusion into various spheres\nwhere private activities should be left to themselves, I have contended\nthat in its special sphere, the maintenance of equitable relations\namong citizens, governmental action should be extended and elaborated.\n\nTo return to your various criticisms, must I then understand that you\nthink unfavourably of our future?\n\nNo one can form anything more than vague and general conclusions\nrespecting your future. The factors are too numerous, too vast, too far\nbeyond measure in their quantities and intensities. The world has never\nbefore seen social phenomena at all comparable with those presented\nin the United States. A society spreading over enormous tracts, while\nstill preserving its political continuity, is a new thing. This\nprogressive incorporation of vast bodies of immigrants of various\nbloods, has never occurred on such a scale before. Large empires,\ncomposed of different peoples, have, in previous cases, been formed\nby conquest and annexation. Then your immense _plexus_ of railways\nand telegraphs tends to consolidate this vast aggregate of States in\na way that no such aggregate has ever before been consolidated. And\nthere are many minor co-operating causes, unlike those hitherto known.\nNo one can say how it is all going to work out. That there will come\nhereafter troubles of various kinds, and very grave ones, seems highly\nprobable; but all nations have had, and will have, their troubles.\nAlready you have triumphed over one great trouble, and {480} may\nreasonably hope to triumph over others. It may, I think, be concluded\nthat, both because of its size and the heterogeneity of its components,\nthe American nation will be a long time in evolving its ultimate\nform, but that its ultimate form will be high. One great result is, I\nthink, tolerably clear. From biological truths it is to be inferred\nthat the eventual mixture of the allied varieties of the Aryan race\nforming the population, will produce a finer type of man than has\nhitherto existed; and a type of man more plastic, more adaptable, more\ncapable of undergoing the modifications needful for complete social\nlife. I think that whatever difficulties they may have to surmount,\nand whatever tribulations they may have to pass through, the Americans\nmay reasonably look forward to a time when they will have produced a\ncivilization grander than any the world has known.\n\n\nII.\u2014A SPEECH:\n\n_Delivered on the occasion of a Complimentary Dinner in New York, on\nNovember 9, 1882._\n\nMr. President and Gentlemen:\u2014Along with your kindness there comes\nto me a great unkindness from Fate; for, now that, above all times\nin my life, I need full command of what powers of speech I possess,\ndisturbed health so threatens to interfere with them that I fear I\nshall very inadequately express myself. Any failure in my response\nyou must please ascribe, in part at least, to a greatly disordered\nnervous system. Regarding you as representing Americans at large, I\nfeel that the occasion is one on which arrears of thanks are due. I\nought to begin with the time, some two-and-twenty years ago, when my\nhighly valued friend Professor Youmans, making efforts to diffuse my\nbooks here, interested on their behalf the Messrs. Appleton, who have\never treated me so honourably and so handsomely; and I ought to detail\nfrom that time onward the various {481} marks and acts of sympathy by\nwhich I have been encouraged in a struggle which was for many years\ndisheartening. But, intimating thus briefly my general indebtedness\nto my numerous friends, most of them unknown, on this side of the\nAtlantic, I must name more especially the many attentions and proffered\nhospitalities met with during my late tour, as well as, lastly and\nchiefly, this marked expression of the sympathies and good wishes\nwhich many of you have travelled so far to give, at great cost of that\ntime which is so precious to the American. I believe I may truly say,\nthat the better health which you have so cordially wished me, will be\nin a measure furthered by the wish; since all pleasurable emotion is\nconducive to health, and, as you will fully believe, the remembrance of\nthis event will ever continue to be a source of pleasurable emotion,\nexceeded by few, if any, of my remembrances.\n\nAnd now that I have thanked you, sincerely though too briefly, I am\ngoing to find fault with you. Already, in some remarks drawn from me\nrespecting American affairs and American character, I have passed\ncriticisms, which have been accepted far more good-humouredly than I\ncould have reasonably expected; and it seems strange that I should now\npropose again to transgress. However, the fault I have to comment upon\nis one which most will scarcely regard as a fault. It seems to me that\nin one respect Americans have diverged too widely from savages, I do\nnot mean to say that they are in general unduly civilized. Throughout\nlarge parts of the population, even in long-settled regions, there\nis no excess of those virtues needed for the maintenance of social\nharmony. Especially out in the West, men\u2019s dealings do not yet betray\ntoo much of the \u201csweetness and light\u201d which we are told distinguish\nthe cultured man from the barbarian. Nevertheless, there is a sense\nin which my assertion is true. You know that the primitive man lacks\npower of application. Spurred by hunger, by danger, by revenge, he\ncan exert himself {482} energetically for a time; but his energy is\nspasmodic. Monotonous daily toil is impossible to him. It is otherwise\nwith the more developed man. The stern discipline of social life has\ngradually increased the aptitude for persistent industry; until, among\nus, and still more among you, work has become with many a passion.\nThis contrast of nature has another aspect. The savage thinks only of\npresent satisfactions, and leaves future satisfactions uncared for.\nContrariwise, the American, eagerly pursuing a future good, almost\nignores what good the passing day offers him; and when the future good\nis gained, he neglects that while striving for some still remoter good.\n\nWhat I have seen and heard during my stay among you has forced on\nme the belief that this slow change from habitual inertness to\npersistent activity has reached an extreme from which there must begin\na counterchange\u2014a reaction. Everywhere I have been struck with the\nnumber of faces which told in strong lines of the burdens that had\nto be borne. I have been struck, too, with the large proportion of\ngray-haired men; and inquiries have brought out the fact, that with you\nthe hair commonly begins to turn some ten years earlier than with us.\nMoreover, in every circle I have met men who had themselves suffered\nfrom nervous collapse due to stress of business, or named friends who\nhad either killed themselves by overwork, or had been permanently\nincapacitated, or had wasted long periods in endeavours to recover\nhealth. I do but echo the opinion of all the observant persons I have\nspoken to, that immense injury is being done by this high-pressure\nlife\u2014the physique is being undermined. That subtle thinker and poet\nwhom you have lately had to mourn, Emerson, says, in his essay on the\nGentleman, that the first requisite is that he shall be a good animal.\nThe requisite is a general one\u2014it extends to the man, to the father,\nto the citizen. We hear a great deal about \u201cthe vile body;\u201d and many\nare encouraged by the phrase to transgress the laws of {483} health.\nBut Nature quietly suppresses those who treat thus disrespectfully one\nof her highest products, and leaves the world to be peopled by the\ndescendants of those who are not so foolish.\n\nBeyond these immediate mischiefs there are remoter mischiefs. Exclusive\ndevotion to work has the result that amusements cease to please; and,\nwhen relaxation becomes imperative, life becomes dreary from lack of\nits sole interest\u2014the interest in business. The remark current in\nEngland that, when the American travels, his aim is to do the greatest\namount of sight-seeing in the shortest time, I find current here also:\nit is recognized that the satisfaction of getting on devours nearly all\nother satisfactions. When recently at Niagara, which gave us a whole\nweek\u2019s pleasure, I learned from the landlord of the hotel that most\nAmericans come one day and go away the next. Old Froissart, who said\nof the English of his day that \u201cthey take their pleasures sadly after\ntheir fashion,\u201d would doubtless, if he lived now, say of the Americans\nthat they take their pleasures hurriedly after their fashion. In large\nmeasure with us, and still more with you, there is not that abandonment\nto the moment which is requisite for full enjoyment; and this\nabandonment is prevented by the ever-present sense of multitudinous\nresponsibilities. So that, beyond the serious physical mischief caused\nby overwork, there is the further mischief that it destroys what value\nthere would otherwise be in the leisure part of life.\n\nNor do the evils end here. There is the injury to posterity. Damaged\nconstitutions reappear in children, and entail on them far more of\nill than great fortunes yield them of good. When life has been duly\nrationalized by science, it will be seen that among a man\u2019s duties,\ncare of the body is imperative; not only out of regard for personal\nwelfare, but also out of regard for descendants. His constitution\nwill be considered as an entailed estate, which he ought to pass\non uninjured, if not improved, to those who follow; and it will be\nheld that millions bequeathed by him {484} will not compensate for\nfeeble health and decreased ability to enjoy life. Once more, there\nis the injury to fellow-citizens, taking the shape of undue disregard\nof competitors. I hear that a great trader among you deliberately\nendeavoured to crush out every one whose business competed with\nhis own; and manifestly the man who, making himself a slave to\naccumulation, absorbs an inordinate share of the trade or profession\nhe is engaged in, makes life harder for all others engaged in it, and\nexcludes from it many who might otherwise gain competencies. Thus,\nbesides the egoistic motive, there are two altruistic motives which\nshould deter from this excess in work.\n\nThe truth is, there needs a revised ideal of life. Look back through\nthe past, or look abroad through the present, and we find that the\nideal of life is variable, and depends on social conditions. Every\none knows that to be a successful warrior was the highest aim among\nall ancient peoples of note, as it is still among many barbarous\npeoples. When we remember that in the Norseman\u2019s heaven the time was\nto be passed in daily battles, with magical healing of wounds, we see\nhow deeply rooted may become the conception that fighting is man\u2019s\nproper business, and that industry is fit only for slaves and people\nof low degree. That is to say, when the chronic struggles of races\nnecessitate perpetual wars, there is evolved an ideal of life adapted\nto the requirements. We have changed all that in modern civilized\nsocieties; especially in England, and still more in America. With the\ndecline of militant activity, and the growth of industrial activity,\nthe occupations once disgraceful have become honourable. The duty to\nwork has taken the place of the duty to fight; and in the one case, as\nin the other, the ideal of life has become so well established that\nscarcely any dream of questioning it. Practically, business has been\nsubstituted for war as the purpose of existence.\n\nIs this modern ideal to survive throughout the future? I think not.\nWhile all other things undergo continuous {485} change, it is\nimpossible that ideals should remain fixed. The ancient ideal was\nappropriate to the ages of conquest by man over man, and spread of\nthe strongest races. The modern ideal is appropriate to ages in which\nconquest of the earth and subjection of the powers of Nature to human\nuse, is the predominant need. But hereafter, when both these ends\nhave in the main been achieved, the ideal formed will probably differ\nconsiderably from the present one. May we not foresee the nature of\nthe difference? I think we may. Some twenty years ago, a good friend\nof mine, and a good friend of yours too, though you never saw him,\nJohn Stuart Mill, delivered at St. Andrews an inaugural address on the\noccasion of his appointment to the Lord Rectorship. It contained much\nto be admired, as did all he wrote. There ran through it, however,\nthe tacit assumption that life is for learning and working. I felt at\nthe time that I should have liked to take up the opposite thesis. I\nshould have liked to contend that life is not for learning, nor is life\nfor working, but learning and working are for life. The primary use\nof knowledge is for such guidance of conduct under all circumstances\nas shall make living complete. All other uses of knowledge are\nsecondary. It scarcely needs saying that the primary use of work is\nthat of supplying the materials and aids to living completely; and\nthat any other uses of work are secondary. But in men\u2019s conceptions\nthe secondary has in great measure usurped the place of the primary.\nThe apostle of culture as it is commonly conceived, Mr. Matthew\nArnold, makes little or no reference to the fact that the first use of\nknowledge is the right ordering of all actions; and Mr. Carlyle, who is\na good exponent of current ideas about work, insists on its virtues for\nquite other reasons than that it achieves sustentation. We may trace\neverywhere in human affairs a tendency to transform the means into the\nend. All see that the miser does this when, making the accumulation of\nmoney his sole satisfaction, he forgets that money is of value only\nto {486} purchase satisfactions. But it is less commonly seen that\nthe like is true of the work by which the money is accumulated\u2014that\nindustry too, bodily or mental, is but a means; and that it is as\nirrational to pursue it to the exclusion of that complete living it\nsubserves, as it is for the miser to accumulate money and make no use\nof it. Hereafter, when this age of active material progress has yielded\nmankind its benefits, there will, I think, come a better adjustment of\nlabour and enjoyment. Among reasons for thinking this, there is the\nreason that the process of evolution throughout the organic world at\nlarge, brings an increasing surplus of energies that are not absorbed\nin fulfilling material needs, and points to a still larger surplus for\nthe humanity of the future. And there are other reasons, which I must\npass over. In brief, I may say that we have had somewhat too much of\n\u201cthe gospel of work.\u201d It is time to preach the gospel of relaxation.\n\nThis is a very unconventional after-dinner speech. Especially it will\nbe thought strange that in returning thanks I should deliver something\nvery much like a homily. But I have thought I could not better convey\nmy thanks than by the expression of a sympathy which issues in a fear.\nIf, as I gather, this intemperance in work affects more especially the\nAnglo-American part of the population\u2014if there results an undermining\nof the physique, not only in adults, but also in the young, who, as I\nlearn from your daily journals, are also being injured by overwork\u2014if\nthe ultimate consequence should be a dwindling away of those among\nyou who are the inheritors of free institutions and best adapted to\nthem; then there will come a further difficulty in the working out of\nthat great future which lies before the American nation. To my anxiety\non this account you must please ascribe the unusual character of my\nremarks.\n\nAnd now I must bid you farewell. When I sail by the _Germanic_ on\nSaturday, I shall bear with me pleasant {487} remembrances of my\nintercourse with many Americans, joined with regrets that my state of\nhealth has prevented me from seeing a larger number.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT.\u2014A few words may fitly be added respecting the causes of\nthis over-activity in American life\u2014causes which may be identified\nas having in recent times partially operated among ourselves, and as\nhaving wrought kindred, though less marked, effects. It is the more\nworth while to trace the genesis of this undue absorption of the\nenergies in work, since it well serves to illustrate the general truth\nwhich should be ever present to all legislators and politicians, that\nthe indirect and unforeseen results of any cause affecting a society\nare frequently, if not habitually, greater and more important than the\ndirect and foreseen results.\n\nThis high pressure under which Americans exist, and which is most\nintense in places like Chicago, where the prosperity and rate of growth\nare greatest, is seen by many intelligent Americans themselves to be\nan indirect result of their free institutions and the absence of those\nclass-distinctions and restraints existing in older communities. A\nsociety in which the man who dies a millionaire is so often one who\ncommenced life in poverty, and in which (to paraphrase a French saying\nconcerning the soldier) every news-boy carries a president\u2019s seal in\nhis bag, is, by consequence, a society in which all are subject to a\nstress of competition for wealth and honour, greater than can exist in\na society whose members are nearly all prevented from rising out of\nthe ranks in which they were born, and have but remote possibilities\nof acquiring fortunes. In those European societies which have in great\nmeasure preserved their old types of structure (as in our own society\nup to the time when the great development of industrialism began to\nopen ever-multiplying careers for the producing and distributing\nclasses) there is so little chance of overcoming the obstacles to any\ngreat rise in position or possessions, that {488} nearly all have\nto be content with their places: entertaining little or no thought\nof bettering themselves. A manifest concomitant is that, fulfilling,\nwith such efficiency as a moderate competition requires, the daily\ntasks of their respective situations, the majority become habituated\nto making the best of such pleasures as their lot affords, during\nwhatever leisure they get. But it is otherwise where an immense growth\nof trade multiplies greatly the chances of success to the enterprising;\nand still more is it otherwise where class-restrictions are partially\nremoved or wholly absent. Not only are more energy and thought put into\nthe time daily occupied in work, but the leisure comes to be trenched\nupon, either literally by abridgment, or else by anxieties concerning\nbusiness. Clearly, the larger the number who, under such conditions,\nacquire property, or achieve higher positions, or both, the sharper\nis the spur to the rest. A raised standard of activity establishes\nitself and goes on rising. Public applause given to the successful,\nbecoming in communities thus circumstanced the most familiar kind of\npublic applause, increases continually the stimulus to action. The\nstruggle grows more and more strenuous, and there comes an increasing\ndread of failure\u2014a dread of being \u201cleft,\u201d as the Americans say: a\nsignificant word, since it is suggestive of a race in which the harder\nany one runs, the harder others have to run to keep up with him\u2014a word\nsuggestive of that breathless haste with which each passes from a\nsuccess gained to the pursuit of a further success. And on contrasting\nthe English of to-day with the English of a century ago, we may see\nhow, in a considerable measure, the like causes have entailed here\nkindred results.\n\nEven those who are not directly spurred on by this intensified struggle\nfor wealth and honour, are indirectly spurred on by it. For one of its\neffects is to raise the standard of living, and eventually to increase\nthe average rate of expenditure for all. Partly for personal enjoyment,\n{489} but much more for the display which brings admiration, those\nwho acquire fortunes distinguish themselves by luxurious habits. The\nmore numerous they become, the keener becomes the competition for that\nkind of public attention given to those who make themselves conspicuous\nby great expenditure. The competition spreads downwards step by step;\nuntil, to be \u201crespectable,\u201d those having relatively small means feel\nobliged to spend more on houses, furniture, dress, and food; and are\nobliged to work the harder to get the requisite larger income. This\nprocess of causation is manifest enough among ourselves; and it is\nstill more manifest in America, where the extravagance in style of\nliving is greater than here.\n\nThus, though it seems beyond doubt that the removal of all political\nand social barriers, and the giving to each man an unimpeded career,\nmust be purely beneficial; yet there is (at first) a considerable\nset-off from the benefits. Among those who in older communities have\nby laborious lives gained distinction, some may be heard privately to\nconfess that \u201cthe game is not worth the candle;\u201d and when they hear\nof others who wish to tread in their steps, shake their heads and\nsay\u2014\u201cIf they only knew!\u201d Without accepting in full so pessimistic an\nestimate of success, we must still say that very generally the cost of\nthe candle deducts largely from the gain of the game. That which in\nthese exceptional cases holds among ourselves, holds more generally in\nAmerica. An intensified life, which may be summed up as\u2014great labour,\ngreat profit, great expenditure\u2014has for its concomitant a wear and\ntear which considerably diminishes in one direction the good gained in\nanother. Added together, the daily strain through many hours and the\nanxieties occupying many other hours\u2014the occupation of consciousness\nby feelings that are either indifferent or painful, leaving relatively\nlittle time for occupation of it by pleasurable feelings\u2014tend to\nlower its level more than its level is raised by the gratifications\nof achievement {490} and the accompanying benefits. So that it may,\nand in many cases does, result that diminished happiness goes along\nwith increased prosperity. Unquestionably, as long as order is fairly\nmaintained, that absence of political and social restraints which gives\nfree scope to the struggles for profit and honour, conduces greatly\nto material advance of the society\u2014develops the industrial arts,\nextends and improves the business organizations, augments the wealth;\nbut that it raises the value of individual life, as measured by the\naverage state of its feeling, by no means follows. That it will do\nso eventually, is certain; but that it does so now seems, to say the\nleast, very doubtful.\n\nThe truth is that a society and its members act and react in such wise\nthat while, on the one hand, the nature of the society is determined\nby the natures of its members; on the other hand, the activities of\nits members (and presently their natures) are re-determined by the\nneeds of the society, as these alter: change in either entails change\nin the other. It is an obvious implication that, to a great extent the\nlife of a society so sways the wills of its members as to turn them to\nits ends. That which is manifest during the militant stage, when the\nsocial aggregate coerces its units into co-operation for defence, and\nsacrifices many of their lives for its corporate preservation holds\nunder another form during the industrial stage, as we at present know\nit. Though the co-operation of citizens is now voluntary instead of\ncompulsory; yet the social forces impel them to achieve social ends\nwhile apparently achieving only their own ends. The man who, carrying\nout an invention, thinks only of private welfare to be thereby secured,\nis in far larger measure working for public welfare: instance the\ncontrast between the fortune made by Watt and the wealth which the\nsteam-engine has given to mankind. He who utilizes a new material,\nimproves a method of production, or introduces a better way of carrying\non business, and does this for the purpose of distancing competitors,\ngains {491} for himself little compared with that which he gains for\nthe community by facilitating the lives of all. Either unknowingly or\nin spite of themselves, Nature leads men by purely personal motives to\nfulfil her ends: Nature being one of our expressions for the Ultimate\nCause of things, and the end, remote when not proximate, being the\nhighest form of human life.\n\nHence no argument, however cogent, can be expected to produce much\neffect: only here and there one may be influenced. As in an actively\nmilitant stage of society it is impossible to make many believe\nthat there is any glory preferable to that of killing enemies; so,\nwhere rapid material growth is going on, and affords unlimited scope\nfor the energies of all, little can be done by insisting that life\nhas higher uses than work and accumulation. While among the most\npowerful of feelings continue to be the desire for public applause\nand dread of public censure\u2014while the anxiety to achieve distinction,\nnow by conquering enemies, now by beating competitors, continues\npredominant\u2014while the fear of public reprobation affects men more\nthan the fear of divine vengeance (as witness the long survival of\nduelling in Christian societies); this excess of work which ambition\nprompts, seems likely to continue with but small qualification. The\neagerness for the honour accorded to success, first in war and then in\ncommerce, has been indispensable as a means to peopling the Earth with\nthe higher types of man, and the subjugation of its surface and its\nforces to human use. Ambition may fitly come to bear a smaller ratio\nto other motives, when the working out of these needs is approaching\ncompleteness; and when also, by consequence, the scope for satisfying\nambition is diminishing. Those who draw the obvious corollaries from\nthe doctrine of Evolution\u2014those who believe that the process of\nmodification upon modification which has brought life to its present\nheight must raise it still higher, will anticipate that the \u201clast\ninfirmity of noble mind\u201d will in the distant future slowly {492}\ndecrease. As the sphere for achievement becomes smaller, the desire\nfor applause will lose that predominance which it now has. A better\nideal of life may simultaneously come to prevail. When there is fully\nrecognized the truth that moral beauty is higher than intellectual\npower\u2014when the wish to be admired is in large measure replaced by the\nwish to be loved; that strife for distinction which the present phase\nof civilization shows us will be greatly moderated. Along with other\nbenefits may then come a rational proportioning of work and relaxation;\nand the relative claims of to-day and to-morrow may be properly\nbalanced.\n\nTHE END.\n\n{493}\n\n\n\n\nSUBJECT-INDEX.\n\n(For this Index the Author is indebted to F. HOWARD COLLINS, Esq., of\nEdgbaston, Birmingham.)\n\n\n_A priori_, method, III, 199\u2013203.\n\nAbsolute, The:\n  Martineau on, II, 250\u20138;\n  and relativity of knowledge, II, 260.\n\nAbstract, definition of, II, 78.\n\nAbstract nouns, succeed concrete, I, 323.\n\nAbstraction, comparative psychology, I, 365\u20136.\n\nAccommodation bills:\n  morals of banking, III, 133\u20137;\n  state tamperings with money, III, 326\u201335, 335\u201347.\n\nAcoustics:\n  genesis, II, 57, 60\u20131;\n  \u201cbeats,\u201d II, 169\u201370.\n\nAcquisitiveness, comparative psychology, I, 367.\n\nAction and reaction:\n  universal, III, 101;\n  the axiom, III, 221.\n\nActivity, relation to growth, I, 63\u20134.\n\nAdaptation:\n  individual and social, III, 277\u20138;\n  of alimentary canal, III, 421.\n\nAddress, forms of, III, 15\u20136.\n\n_Adelaide_, Admiralty certificate of, III, 239.\n\nAdjective, collocation of substantive, III, 340\u20131.\n\nAdministrative Nihilism, the title, II, 438, 442.\n\nAdmiralty, ship certificates, III, 239.\n\nAdulteration:\n  examples, III, 113;\n  silk, III, 124\u20137.\n\n\u00c6sthetics, and natural selection, I, 408.\n\nAgriculture, in France, III, 267\u20138.\n\nAir, expansion without pressure, I, 118.\n\nAlas! intonation of, II, 409.\n\nAlbert, Prince, on representative government, III, 284.\n\n_Alg\u00e6_:\n  development and homogeneity, I, 90;\n  cell membrane, I, 439;\n  cells, I, 446.\n\nAlgebra:\n  genesis, II, 56;\n  classification of sciences, II, 85;\n  subject matter, II, 113, 115;\n  evolution, II, 156;\n  (_see also_ Mathematics.)\n\nAlimentary canal:\n  evolution, III, 204;\n  differentiation, III, 406;\n  and nervous system, III, 409;\n  adaptation, III, 421.\n\nAllegory, compound metaphor, II, 354.\n\nAllotropism, complexity of elements, I, 155, 373.\n\nAlternative necessity, law of, II, 191\u20132.\n\nAltruism:\n  development, I, 346\u201350;\n  comparative psychology, I, 367\u20139.\n\n_Amazon_, burning of the ship, III, 239.\n\nAmerica:\n  paleontological evidence, I, 17;\n  effects of subsidence, I, 42\u20133;\n  age of rocks, I, 200\u20135, 206, 209, 210;\n  admiration for wealth, III, 149\u201351;\n  progress in, III, 278;\n  paper currency, III, 328, 345;\n  liberty, III, 381\u20132;\n  militancy and industrialism, III, 415\u20136, 484\u201392;\n  politics, III, 457;\n  the Americans, III, 471\u201392;\n  New York, III, 472;\n  Cleveland, III, 472;\n  free institutions, III, 472;\n  patents, 473;\n  freedom, III, 473\u20134, 477;\n  republicanism, III, 474\u20135;\n  education, III, 475\u20136;\n  character, III, 476, 482\u20137;\n  railways, III, 478;\n  future, III, 479\u201380;\n  hair, III, 482;\n  health, III, 482, 483\u20134;\n  pleasures in, III, 482\u20133;\n  causes of over-activity, III, 487\u201392.\n\n_Am\u0153ba_, instability of homogeneous, I, 86.\n\nAmsterdam, English enterprise in, III, 278.\n\nAnalysis, psychology and classification, I, 245\u201357.\n\nAnarchy, and despotism, III, 159.\n\nAnatomy:\n  transcendental, I, 63;\n  organic correlation, I, 96\u2013101.\n\nAndes, age of rocks, I, 200\u20131.\n\nAndrews, Prof. T., researches, I, 164\u20137.\n\nAnger:\n  natural language of, I, 340\u201350;\n  indications, II, 402, 404, 405;\n  and laughter, II, 462\u20133.\n\nAnglesea, age of rocks, I, 198.\n\nAnimals:\n  number of species, I, 1\u20132;\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 14\u20137, 35;\n  structure, I, 73, 76, 372\u20133;\n  form, I, 73, 76;\n  chemical composition, I, 74, 76;\n  specific gravity, I, 74, 76;\n  temperature, I, 74, 76;\n  self-mobility, I, 75, 76;\n  evolution and homogeneity, I, 83\u20134;\n  distribution and heat, I, 223\u20134;\n  also terrestrial change, I, 224\u20136;\n  social analogy, I, 272\u20137;\n  origin of worship, I, 308\u201330;\n  indistinguishable from plants, I, 375\u20136;\n  function, I, 392\u20133;\n  gracefulness, II, 381, 385;\n  muscular excitement, II, 400, 403.\n\n_Annulosa_:\n  integration, I, 67\u201371;\n  division of labour, I, 287\u20138;\n  nervous system, I, 300;\n  controlling system, III, 407.\n\nAnthropology, comparative psychology of man, I, 351\u201370.\n\nAntipodes, belief in, II, 199.\n\nAnti-realism, H. Sidgwick\u2019s criticism, II, 242\u201350.\n\nAphis, development, I, 65\u20136.\n\nApoplexy:\n  belief in spirits, I, 311\u20132;\n  heart disease, I, 411.\n\nAppleton, D. & Co., as publishers, III, 480.\n\nApprobation, love of, I, 36\u20137, II, 421.\n\nArago, F. J. D.:\n  distribution of nebul\u00e6, I, 112;\n  also forms, I, 122, 123, 124.\n\nArchitect, the State as, III, 239.\n\nArchitecture:\n  relation to painting and sculpture, I, 24;\n  types, II, 375\u201380;\n  symmetry in buildings, II, 376\u20137;\n  Gothic type, II, 374, 377, 378;\n  Grecian, II, 376, 377, 378.\n\nArgyll, Duke of, criticism of, I, 467\u201378.\n\nArithmetic, and test of necessity, II, 196\u20137; (_See also_ Mathematics.)\n\nArmy:\n  maladministration, III, 233, 247, 257, 308, 310, 399;\n  parliamentary representatives, III, 297, 303, 304;\n  compulsory co-operation, III, 451\u20134.\n\nArrest, H. L. d\u2019, planetoids, I, 174.\n\nArt:\n  recognition of likeness, II, 34;\n  interdependence of the arts, II, 68\u201371;\n  use and beauty in historical pictures, II, 373;\n  contrast in, II, 373\u20134;\n  English and continental, III, 430.\n\nArthur, Sir G., Van Diemen\u2019s Land convicts, III, 161.\n\n_Articulata_, nervous system, I, 301.\n\nAssyrians:\n  language and painting, I, 25\u20136;\n  sculpture, I, 26, 29.\n\nAstronomy:\n  evolution and increase in heterogeneity, I, 10\u201311, 35;\n  nebular hypothesis and multiplication of effects, I, 38\u20139, 59;\n  history and generalization in, I, 192;\n  geology and earth\u2019s motion, I, 221\u20134;\n  analogy from survival of the fittest, I, 478;\n  science and common knowledge, II, 3;\n  Hegel\u2019s classification, II, 13;\n  Comte\u2019s, II, 21\u20137;\n  genesis, II, 48\u20139, 52, 55;\n  genesis of trigonometry, II, 55\u20136;\n  genesis of physical, II, 59;\n  interdependence of sciences, II, 66\u20137, 70\u20131;\n  and abstract science, II, 80;\n  and concrete, II, 88\u201392;\n  terrestrial evolution, II, 94\u20139;\n  deals with aggregates, II, 99;\n  Bain on classification of sciences, II, 111;\n  also Mill, II, 114;\n  discovery of laws, II, 149;\n  evolution, II, 152;\n  judgments of reason and common sense, II, 243\u20134;\n  laws of motion, II, 271\u20135, 283\u20138;\n  motion of system, II, 293;\n  exact science, III, 199.\n\nAustralia:\n  size of the human limb, I, 17;\n  age of rocks, I, 206;\n  fauna, I, 216.\n\n_Australian_, the ship, and admiralty certificate, III, 239.\n\nAustria, paper currency, III, 345.\n\nAuthority, and intelligence, III, 311.\n\nAxioms:\n  knowledge implied by, II, 270, 277\u201388;\n  origin of physical, II, 298\u2013301, 313\u20134, 315\u201320;\n  Thomson and Tait on physical, III, 220\u20131.\n\nBabinet, M., on nebular hypothesis, I, 121.\n\nBach, J. S., and heredity, I, 407.\n\nBacon, Francis, Viscount St. Alban\u2019s:\n  organization of sciences, II, 121;\n  literary style, II, 365;\n  \u201cA crowd is not company,\u201d III, 44.\n\n_Bacteria_, action of light, I, 465\u20136.\n\nBaer, C. von, formula of, and general evolution, I, 35, II, 137\u20138.\n\nBail, prison discipline, III, 180\u20137.\n\nBaillie-Cochrane, Mr., on Munich prison, III, 172.\n\nBain, A.:\n  _Emotions and the Will_, I, 241\u201364;\n  _Mental and Moral Science_, I, 332;\n  classification of sciences, II, 105\u201317;\n  on logic, II, 105\u20136;\n  mathematics, II, 106\u20137;\n  incongruities, II, 463.\n\nBalfour, F. M.:\n  on invagination, I, 452;\n  development of nervous system, I, 454.\n\nBall, embryological analogy, I, 452.\n\nBalloon, reason for ascent, I, 427.\n\nBallot, Carlyle on, III, 300.\n\nBalzac, H. de, quoted, II, 364.\n\nBank notes:\n  forgery, III, 134;\n  issue, III, 349\u201350, 352, 355.\n\nBank of England:\n  advances by, III, 330\u20135, 335\u201347;\n  note issue, III, 349\u201350.\n\nBankers, local integration, I, 103.\n\nBanking:\n  morals of trade, III, 131\u20137;\n  accommodation bills, III, 133\u20137;\n  evolution, III, 255\u20136.\n\nBankruptcy:\n  morals of trade, III, 129\u201331;\n  and Bank of England, III, 330\u20132, 341;\n  evils of law, III, 438\u20139.\n\nBanks:\n  State tamperings, III, 326\u201357;\n  joint-stock, III, 347\u201354;\n  and free-trade, III, 355\u20137;\n  and government, III, 425\u20137.\n\nBarbadoes, sugar, III, 122.\n\nBarnacle goose, myth of, II, 162.\n\nBarometer:\n  action, I, 426;\n  scientific knowledge, II, 3, 5.\n\nBaron, the title, III, 15, 28.\n\nBarracks, maladministration, III, 233, 257.\n\nBarristers:\n  and traders, III, 139;\n  number in parliament, III, 298, 303, 304.\n\nBarter, and measures, II, 46; (_see also_ Exchange.)\n\nBas-relief, increase in heterogeneity, I, 26, 27.\n\nBeats, acoustical, II, 169\u201370.\n\nBeauty:\n  officialism, I, 335\u20136;\n  and use, II, 370\u20134;\n  personal, II, 387\u201399.\n\nBees:\n  sex of, I, 48;\n  analogy for distribution of nebul\u00e6, I, 114.\n\nBeethoven, L. von:\n  heredity, I, 406;\n  Adela\u00efde of, II, 447.\n\nBeliefs:\n  and pedigree, I, 108;\n  different meaning of, II, 188\u201391, 193, 222.\n\nBerkeley, Bishop, subject and object, II, 329.\n\nBerlin:\n  English enterprise, III, 278;\n  water supply, III, 429.\n\nBills of accommodation, morals of banking, III, 133\u20137.\n\nBiluchis, robbery, III, 218, 221.\n\nBiology:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 14\u20137, 35;\n  multiplication of effects, I, 46\u201353;\n  concrete science, II, 89\u201392;\n  deals with aggregates, II, 103;\n  Bain on classification, II, 109\u201311;\n  origin of species, II, 131;\n  evolution of science, II, 153;\n  universality of law, II, 159;\n  organic matter and incident forces, II, 177;\n  organic differentiation, III, 405.\n\nBirds:\n  in newly discovered lands, I, 255\u20136;\n  use and disuse, I, 418;\n  colour as illustrating propositions, II, 205\u20138;\n  muscular excitement, II, 400, 403;\n  origin of music, II, 428;\n  evolution, II, 438.\n\nBlack horse, the phrase, II, 340.\n\nBlacksmith, arm and heredity, I, 475.\n\nBlackstone, Sir Wm., persons ineligible for parliament, III, 296.\n\nBlister:\n  effect on walking, I, 403;\n  action of medicine, I, 448.\n\nBlood:\n  multiplication of effects, I, 47;\n  nutrition and growth, I, 289;\n  function and supply, I, 290;\n  social analogy, I, 291\u20138;\n  mental mass and bodily state, I, 354.\n\nBoard-meetings, railway, III, 77\u201380.\n\nBondage, from freedom to, III, 445\u201370.\n\nBones:\n  evolution and ratio of, I, 17;\n  weight in duck, I, 417\u20138;\n  water hen, I, 418.\n\nBookkeeping:\n  railway, III, 59;\n  officialism, III, 253.\n\nBooks, serial arrangement, II, 28.\n\nBotany:\n  classification, II, 64;\n  discovery of laws, II, 150.\n\nBow, the obeisance, III, 18, 19.\n\nBraid, morals of trade, III, 119.\n\nBrain:\n  effect on viscera, I, 290;\n  analogy to parliament, I, 302\u20135;\n  mental and bodily mass, I, 353\u20134;\n  size of jaw, I, 397;\n  embryo development, I, 454.\n\nBribery:\n  of buyers, III, 114\u20138;\n  of juries, III, 396.\n\nBricks:\n  position of falling, I, 99;\n  and building, III, 239;\n  tax on, III, 243.\n\nBritish Association, and government, III, 436.\n\n_British Quarterly Review_, criticism, II, 267\u2013301, 315\u201320.\n\nBronze, multiplication of effects, I, 55\u20136.\n\nBrown-S\u00e9quard, E., epilepsy in guinea pigs, I, 415\u20136.\n\nBuilders, strike of, III, 363\u20134, 365, 383.\n\nBuildings Acts:\n  failure, III, 239, 240\u20131, 275;\n  displacements caused by, III, 281;\n  representative government, III, 301.\n\nBull-dog, jaws of, I, 401.\n\nBurial, primitive ideas, III, 6\u201311.\n\nBuyers, in clothing trades, III, 114\u20138.\n\nCabet, S., Icarian colony, III, 457.\n\nCabs:\n  officialism, III, 250;\n  in New York, III, 291;\n  representative government, III, 302.\n\nCadence, defined, II, 422.\n\nCaird, Rev. Princ., reply to criticism, II, 219\u201321.\n\nCalculus:\n  implies absolute equality, II,38;\n  classification of sciences, II, 84;\n  evolution, II, 156.\n\nCambium, in plants, I, 450.\n\nCambrian system, thickness, I, 231.\n\nCampbell, G., on style, II, 338\u20139.\n\nCanals:\n  first English, III, 257;\n  officialism, III, 267.\n\nCandles:\n  multiplication of effects, I, 37;\n  morals of trade, III, 128;\n  Price\u2019s school, III, 256.\n\nCannibalism, in Fiji, III, 217\u20138.\n\nCannon ball, disintegration, I, 436.\n\nCaoutchouc, effects of, I, 58.\n\nCapital:\n  direction of flow, III, 101\u20133, 264;\n  amount of railway, III, 108;\n  relative and absolute ethics, III, 155\u20137;\n  State tamperings with, III, 326\u201335, 335\u201347.\n\nCaptains, certificated, of ships, III, 241.\n\nCaradoc sandstone, age, I, 201.\n\nCarat, a small bean, II, 44.\n\nCarboniferous system, origin, I, 237.\n\nCarlyle, Thomas:\n  on people, III, 293;\n  the ballot, III, 300;\n  the real rulers, III, 316\u20137;\n  quotation from _Heroes and Hero-worship_, II, 357.\n\nCarpenter, W. B., evolution and paleontology, I, 16.\n\nCarus, P., on Kantian ethics, III, 206\u20137.\n\nCastles:\n  use and beauty, II, 371;\n  situation, II, 376.\n\nCat, muscular excitement, II, 400\u20131, 403.\n\nCatalepsy, belief in spirits, I, 311\u20132.\n\nCaterpillar, mistake by, I, 419.\n\nCausation:\n  establishment of belief, I, 109;\n  ignorance of, III, 487\u201392.\n\nCause:\n  multiplication of effects, I, 37;\n  consciousness of, II, 127;\n  proportionality to effect, II, 300\u20131, 302\u20135, 305\u20137, 310\u201311, 318\u201320.\n\nCell, doctrine of, I, 442\u20133.\n\nCentralization, French, III, 268.\n\nCerebrum, consciousness of, representative, I, 303.\n\nCeremony:\n  increase of heterogeneity, I, 20\u20131;\n  evolution, III, 11\u20136, 23, 50;\n  obeisances, III, 17\u201322;\n  primitive man, III, 24;\n  Chinese, III, 25;\n  evolution of governments, III, 27\u20138, 50.\n\nCerney springs, III, 387\u201392.\n\nChaldeans, prediction of eclipses, II, 48\u20139.\n\nChalk, complexity of, III, 195\u20136.\n\nChancery:\n  rules, III, 232;\n  maladministration, III, 247, 272;\n  dread of, III, 396.\n\nChange:\n  pleasure of, III, 454;\n  universal, III, 458\u201360.\n\nCharity, and government, III, 434.\n\n_Charlotte_, The, naval maladministration, III, 234.\n\nCheek-bones, personal beauty, I, 390\u20132.\n\nCheltenham, water supply, III, 387\u201392.\n\nChemistry:\n  multiplication of effects, I, 43\u20135, 59;\n  unstable equilibrium, I, 83;\n  organic evolution, I, 83\u20134;\n  complexity of elements, I, 155\u20139, 371\u20134;\n  organic synthesis, I, 374;\n  genesis, II, 51, 58, 60;\n  galvanic electricity, II, 61;\n  classification, II, 64;\n  abstract concrete science, II, 85\u20138;\n  terrestrial evolution, II, 95\u20139;\n  deals with properties, II, 102, 103;\n  Bain on classification, II, 107\u201311;\n  elements, II, 195;\n  development, II, 423.\n\nCheques (_see_ Money).\n\nChesil Beach, size of stones, I, 432.\n\nChicken, evolution of mind, I, 377.\n\nChiefs:\n  differentiation, I, 284\u20135;\n  duties and individual nervous system, I, 299\u2013307;\n  primitive belief in spirits, I, 344.\n\nChildren:\n  emotions and expression, I, 339\u201350;\n  lack generalization, I, 354;\n  and traits of savage, I, 355;\n  mental variability, I, 356\u20137;\n  impulsiveness, I, 358;\n  vocabulary, II, 336;\n  poor law and illegitimate, III, 244;\n  old and new education, III, 277.\n\nChina, manners and fashion, III, 25.\n\nChisholme, Mrs., colonization society, III, 258.\n\nCholera, private and state enterprise, III, 238\u20139.\n\nChopin, F., character, II, 417.\n\nChrysalis, transformations, II, 163.\n\nChurch:\n  differentiation from State, I, 21;\n  officialism, III, 251, 252;\n  corn laws, III, 361;\n  franchise and rates, III, 362.\n\nCircle, relation to hyperbola, I, 5.\n\nCirculars, morals of trade, III, 123\u20134.\n\n_Cirrhipedia_, classification, I, 248.\n\nCivilization, development of sympathy, II, 425.\n\nClassification:\n  psychology and analysis, I, 245\u201357;\n  historical, I, 248;\n  non-linear of sciences, II, 27\u20139;\n  recognition of likeness and unlikeness, II, 29\u201331, 34;\n  and language, II, 31\u20133, 40;\n  and reasoning, II, 33, 34, 40;\n  genesis of science, II, 63\u20135, 72;\n  (_See also_ Sciences, Classification of the.)\n\nClearing house, banker\u2019s, III, 425.\n\nClimate:\n  increase of heterogeneity, I, 13\u20134, 35;\n  and paleontological evidence, I, 221\u20134.\n\nCoach:\n  and railway travelling, III, 110\u20132;\n  Palmer, III, 441.\n\nCoats of arms, derivation, I, 28.\n\nCognitions, defined, I, 261\u20132, II, 241.\n\nColeridge, S. T., sonnet quoted, II, 352.\n\nColligation, the word, II, 368\u20139.\n\nColloids, evolution of life, I, 374.\n\nComets, origin, direction and constitution, I, 125\u20138, 153, 177\u20138.\n\nCommon sense:\n  judgment of reason, II, 243\u20134;\n  anomalies, III, 401\u20134, 445.\n\nCompanies (_see_ Joint-stock companies.)\n\nComparative Psychology (see Psychology.)\n\nCompass, faulty Admiralty, III, 234, 252.\n\nCompetition:\n  effect of railway, III, 97, 106\u20137;\n  effects, III, 448\u20139;\n  American, III, 487\u201392.\n\nComte, A.:\n  classification of sciences, II, 15\u201329;\n  mathematics, II, 15\u201319;\n  astronomy, II, 21\u20133;\n  progress of mathematics, II, 56;\n  on gravitation, II, 65, 66;\n  on education, II, 72, 133;\n  Littr\u00e9 on classification of, II, 74\u20136;\n  abstract and concrete science, II, 79;\n  science and positivism, II, 118\u201322, 128, 139;\n  origin of knowledge, II, 122\u20135;\n  propositions of, II, 125\u201332;\n  and social statics, II, 134\u20137;\n  Mill on philosophy, II, 143;\n  Fouill\u00e9e on, II, 143\u20134;\n  progress from simple to complex, II, 147;\n  positivism rejected by Mr. Spencer, II, 221.\n\nConcrete:\n  precedes abstract, I, 323;\n  definition, II, 78.\n\nConduct (_see_ Morals.)\n\nConglomerate, origin, I, 444.\n\nConic sections, relation of circle to hyperbola, I, 5.\n\nConscience:\n  corporate and individual, III, 61\u20132;\n  Kant on human, III, 192;\n  Lubbock, III, 192\u20133;\n  and duty, III, 210\u20131.\n\nConsciousness, the phrase, state of, II, 326\u20137.\n\nConservatism:\n  and social state, I, 356;\n  of women, I, 363;\n  Emerson on, III, 35;\n  effects, III, 43\u20134.\n\nContract:\n  principle of, III, 90, 108;\n  and expediency, III, 95\u20136;\n  railway proprietary, III, 108\u201312;\n  enforcement in Spain, III, 218;\n  effect of breaches, III, 220;\n  State to enforce, III, 334, 336.\n\nContractors:\n  sociological division of labour, I, 106;\n  railway, III, 72\u20134, 83, 88, 108.\n\nContrast:\n  in literature and art, II, 373\u20134;\n  in music, II, 444, 446.\n\nConvicts (_see_ Prison Ethics.)\n\nCo\u00f6peration:\n  needful to social life, III, 450;\n  voluntary, III, 450\u20131;\n  compulsory, III, 451\u20134;\n  and socialism, III, 454\u20136.\n\nCopernicus, N., solar theory, I, 193.\n\nCopula, arrangement of sentences, II, 342\u20134.\n\nCorn laws:\n  representative government, III, 294;\n  and clergy, III, 361.\n\nCorporations, representative government, III, 289.\n\nCorrelation, organic, I, 96\u2013101.\n\nCostume:\n  and political opinion, III, 1\u20135, 30;\n  reform and custom, III, 30\u20136, 36\u20137;\n  development, III, 447.\n\nCotton:\n  industry and locality, I, 104;\n  manufacture, II, 68.\n\nCounterpoint, origin of music, II, 448.\n\nCounties, social development, I, 288.\n\nCourage, emotional expression, I, 343\u201350.\n\nCrabs, of Kentucky caves, I, 400\u20131, 402.\n\nCreation (_see_ Special creation.)\n\nCredit, State tamperings with money, III, 326\u201335, 335\u201347.\n\nCreed:\n  fatal to science, I, 463;\n  use and beauty, II, 371.\n\nCriminals (_see_ Prison Ethics.)\n\nCritical point, of gases, I, 164\u20137.\n\nCritics, faith in, II, 322.\n\nCrofton, Captain, prison discipline, III, 186.\n\nCromwell, O., and representative government, III, 315\u20136.\n\nCroshek, the name, I, 313.\n\nCrosse, A. F., on Hungarian music, II, 449.\n\nCroydon, board of health, III, 241.\n\n_Crustacea_, integration, I, 68\u201371.\n\nCubit, length of, II, 43, 44.\n\nCuriosity, comparative psychology, I, 364\u20135.\n\nCurtsy, obeisance, III, 18\u20139.\n\nCustom:\n  and political opinion, III, 1\u20135, 30;\n  Eastern, III, 25;\n  and reform, III, 30\u20136, 36\u20137;\n  effect on railways, III, 110\u20132.\n\nCuvier, Baron de, organic correlation, I, 96\u2013101.\n\nD\u2019Alembert, J. le R., composition of forces, II, 24.\n\nDamaras, ethics of the, III, 193.\n\nDancing:\n  origin and differentiation, I, 30\u20132;\n  grace in, II, 381, 382;\n  and pleasure, II, 402;\n  evolution, II, 441.\n\nDarwin, Charles:\n  natural selection of one variation, I, 407, 421;\n  natural selection and heredity, I, 408\u201312, 421;\n  on E. Darwin, I, 417;\n  inheritance of functionally produced changes, I, 417\u201321, 422;\n  origin of music, II, 426\u201337;\n  on the phrase natural selection, I, 429;\n  effect of changed conditions, I, 433.\n\nDarwin, Dr. E., organic evolution, I, 390\u20131, 397.\n\nDavy, Sir H., chemical elements, III, 195.\n\nDawn, as name, I, 318, 319, 324.\n\nDeath:\n  primitive ideas, III, 6;\n  punishment and associations, III, 158, 187;\n  duty and inclination, III, 212, 213, 215;\n  rate in barracks, III, 257;\n  improvement in rate, III, 447.\n\nDeduction:\n  and physiology, I, 77\u201381, 107;\n  qualitative and quantitative science, II, 7.\n\nDeer, growth of horns, I, 393.\n\nDefoe, D., _Complete English Tradesman_, III, 141.\n\nDeities, primitive ideas, III, 6\u201311, 12.\n\nDe la Beche, Sir H., paleontological evidence, I, 205.\n\nDemocracy, change inaugurated, III, 49.\n\nDesire, associated with talent, I, 54.\n\nDespotism:\n  and social state, I, 268, III, 313;\n  and anarchy, III, 159;\n  and representative government, III, 309\u201310.\n\nDevelopment:\n  hypothesis, I, 1\u20137;\n  relation to function, I, 63\u20134;\n  (_see also_ Evolution.)\n\nDevonian System, age of, I, 203\u20135, 210.\n\nDewar, Prof., complexity of elements, I, 162.\n\nDifferentiation, sociological, I, 102\u20137.\n\nDirectors:\n  and railway companies, III, 52\u201363, 69;\n  and shareholder\u2019s interests, III, 82\u20138, 108;\n  morals of banking, III, 131\u20137.\n\nDisease:\n  multiplication of effects, I, 47;\n  dissimilar effects, I, 100;\n  beliefs about, II, 153;\n  criminality, III, 167;\n  representative government, III, 301, 304;\n  body and nerve functions, III, 419\u201322, 443.\n\nDistribution, individual and social, I, 291\u20138.\n\nDividends, railway, III, 57, 98.\n\nDivision of labour:\n  multiplication of effects, I, 53\u20138;\n  sociological, I, 105\u20136, 292\u20133, III, 323;\n  illustrations and growth, I, 266;\n  social and individual nervous system, I, 299\u2013307;\n  progress of science, II, 24\u20137.\n\nDixon, T. H., on Norfolk Island convicts, III, 176.\n\nDogs:\n  size of jaws, I, 398\u2013400, 401, 422;\n  use and disuse, I, 469\u201371;\n  simile of Hodgson, II, 231\u20133;\n  gracefulness, II, 381, 385;\n  muscular excitement, II, 400, 403;\n  origin of music, II, 428.\n\nDon, the title, III, 14.\n\nDownes, Dr., on light and protoplasm, I, 465\u20136.\n\nDrama:\n  cause of laughter, II, 461;\n  representative government, III, 301.\n\nDraper, honesty and bankruptcy, III, 129\u201331.\n\nDrawing, comparative psychology, I, 366.\n\nDreams, belief in spirits, I, 310\u20133.\n\nDress:\n  and political opinion, III, 1\u20135, 30;\n  custom and reform, III, 30\u20136, 36\u20137;\n  and extravagance, III, 36\u20137;\n  and enjoyment, III, 40\u20136.\n\nDrunkenness, and temperance, III, 446.\n\nDuck, weight of bones, I, 417\u20138.\n\nDuty:\n  Kant and pursuit of happiness, III, 207\u20139;\n  and inclination, III, 209\u201313.\n\nDyeing, morals of trade, III, 125.\n\nDymond, J., _Principles of Morality_, I, 346.\n\nDynamics, Comte\u2019s classification, II, 19.\n\nEar, embryological development, I, 454.\n\nEarth:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 11\u20134, 35;\n  rotatory movement, I, 135, 136;\n  number of satellites, I, 139;\n  density and heat, I, 144\u20138, 148\u201352;\n  size, I, 145;\n  paleontology and motion, I, 221\u20134;\n  laws of motion, II, 272, 283\u20138;\n  (_see also_ Geology.)\n\nEase, and grace, II, 382.\n\nEast Indies, effects of upheaval, I, 49\u201352.\n\nEchoes, belief in spirits, I, 310\u20133.\n\nEclipse, prediction of, II, 48.\n\nEctoderm:\n  development, I, 284;\n  social and individual analogy, I, 298\u20139;\n  differentiation, III, 405.\n\nEducation:\n  comparative psychology, I, 370;\n  development of science, II, 72;\n  Comte\u2019s views, II, 133;\n  and conservatism, III, 43;\n  old and new, III, 277;\n  representative government, III, 301;\n  parliamentary reform, III, 375\u20139;\n  and government, III, 435\u20136;\n  development, III, 446, 459\u201360;\n  American, III, 475\u20136.\n\nEffect:\n  proportionality to cause, II, 300\u20131, 302\u20135, 305\u20137, 310\u201311, 318\u201320;\n  relation to cause, III, 487\u201392.\n\nEgg, evolution of mind, I, 377.\n\nEgyptians:\n  language and painting, I, 25\u20136;\n  sculpture, I, 26\u20137, 29, 30;\n  music, I, 32.\n\nElectricity:\n  multiplication of effects, I, 59;\n  genesis of galvanic, II, 61;\n  Whewell on progress of theory, II, 62;\n  abstract-concrete science, II, 88;\n  mode of molecular motion, II, 126;\n  what is? 168\u201372, 186\u20137;\n  also thermo-, II, 172\u20136;\n  statical and molecular motion, II, 180\u20133, 186\u20137;\n  induction, II, 183;\n  voltaic and molecular motion, II, 183\u20134, 186\u20137.\n\nElements, complexity of, I, 155\u20139, 162, 371\u20134.\n\nEll, the measure, II, 44.\n\nEllipse, relation to circle, I, 5.\n\nEmbryo:\n  relation to adult, I, 6;\n  early changes in, I, 445;\n  development, I, 451\u20138.\n\nEmbryology:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 17\u20139;\n  multiplication of effects, I, 48;\n  organic correlation, I, 97;\n  importance of, II, 8\u20139;\n  von Baer\u2019s formula, II, 137\u20138.\n\nEmerson, R. W.:\n  _Lectures on the Times_, II, 354;\n  use and ornament, II, 370;\n  on conservatism, III, 35.\n\nEmotion:\n  Bain\u2019s definition, I, 258\u201360;\n  defined, I, 262;\n  of beauty, I, 335\u20136;\n  relation to idea, I, 336;\n  expression in children, I, 339\u201350;\n  and intellect, I, 353, II, 465;\n  sexual sentiment, I, 363\u20134;\n  sociality, freedom, approbation, and acquisitiveness, I, 366\u20137;\n  poetry and effect on language, II, 357\u201361;\n  demonstration of, II, 401\u20133;\n  nervous and muscular system, II, 453\u20138;\n  physiology of laughter, II, 458\u201364;\n  waste, repair, and language, II, 361\u20137;\n  and health, III, 481.\n\nEmpiricism:\n  reasoning of, II, 201\u20135;\n  test of truth, II, 214\u20137.\n\nEndoderm:\n  development, I, 284;\n  differentiation, III, 405.\n\nEndymion, the myth, I, 326, 327.\n\nEnergy, conservation and persistence of force, II, 295.\n\nEngel, Carl, on ancient music, II, 414.\n\nEngineers:\n  and railways, III, 68\u201372, 83, 88, 108;\n  society, III, 362\u20133, 365;\n  English and French, III, 427\u20138.\n\nEngines, dissimilarity of similar, I, 99.\n\nEngland:\n  government in, I, 302\u20135;\n  enterprise in, III, 278\u201380;\n  representative government in, III, 305\u20139, 318\u20139;\n  militancy and industrialism, III, 416;\n  political liberty, III, 445.\n\nEnglish language:\n  words, II, 336\u20138;\n  Latin and Greek words, II, 367\u20139.\n\nEntomology, insect transformations, II, 163.\n\nEpiblast, development, I, 452\u20133.\n\nEpilepsy:\n  belief in spirits, I, 311\u20132;\n  in guinea pigs, I, 415\u20136.\n\nEquality:\n  relations of likeness, I, 35\u20137, 40;\n  quantitative prevision, II, 41\u20139;\n  and barter, II, 46;\n  and mechanics, II, 50;\n  and law, II, 52;\n  and astronomy, II, 53;\n  hydrostatics, II, 57;\n  optics, II, 57;\n  acoustics, II, 57;\n  dynamics, II, 58.\n\nEquity (_see_ Justice.)\n\nEsquire, the title, III, 13, 28, 32.\n\nEthics:\n  use and disuse, I, 463\u20135;\n  of lower races, II, 192\u20135;\n  _Quarterly Review_ criticisms, II, 259\u201365;\n  absolute politics, III, 217\u201328;\n  (_see also_ Kant, Morality, Morals, Prison Ethics.)\n\nEuclid:\n  test of necessity, II, 198;\n  axioms, II, 282\u20133.\n\nEvidence, valuation of, II, 161\u20137.\n\nEvolution:\n  and special creation, I, 1\u20137;\n  of solar system, I, 128\u201331;\n  law of elements, I, 156;\n  Hugh Miller on, I, 219;\n  geological record, I, 226\u201332, 232\u201340;\n  emotional, I, 250\u20137;\n  of mind, I, 263, 376\u20138;\n  of animal worship, I, 329;\n  comparative psychology of man, I, 352;\n  mental and bodily mass, 353\u20134;\n  rate of mental, I, 355;\n  mental variability, I, 356\u20137;\n  impulsiveness, I, 357\u20139;\n  Martineau on, I, 371\u201388;\n  complexity of elements, I, 371\u20134;\n  of life from not life, I, 374\u20135;\n  plants and animals indistinguishable, I, 375\u20136;\n  the word, I, 380;\n  and originating mind, I, 381\u20136;\n  materialism, I, 386\u20138;\n  and catastrophism in geology, I, 389\u201390;\n  Dr. Darwin and Lamarck, I, 390\u20131,397;\n  and reproductive system, I, 409, 412, 422\u20135;\n  summary on use and disuse, I, 421\u20135;\n  effect of conditions, I, 427\u201335;\n  of life, I, 458\u201360, 460\u20132;\n  Huxley on, I, 462\u20133;\n  terrestrial, II, 94\u20139;\n  von Baer\u2019s formula, II, 137\u20138;\n  outline of synthetic philosophy, II, 140\u20132;\n  advance in complexity of science, II, 150\u20137;\n  Quarterly Reviewer on, II, 261\u20135;\n  Prof. Tait on, II, 274\u20135;\n  relation of thoughts to things, II, 320;\n  Prof. Green on, II, 323;\n  limitation of traits, II, 438;\n  of musical scales, II, 440\u20131;\n  of dancing, II, 441;\n  of music, II, 448\u20139;\n  Kant and, III, 197\u20139, 206\u20137;\n  and Kantian assumptions, III, 203\u20136, 206\u20137;\n  officialism, III, 255;\n  individual and social, III, 263\u20135;\n  railways, III, 266;\n  language, III, 402\u20133;\n  universal, III, 458;\n  industrialism, III, 459;\n  education, III, 459\u201360;\n  prospective, III, 491\u20132.\n\nExchange:\n  origin, I, 54, II, 46;\n  State tamperings with money, III, 326\u201335, 335\u201347.\n\nExchequer bills, and Bank of England, III, 331.\n\nExcitement, poetry and effect on language, II, 357\u201361.\n\nExcluded middle, law of, II, 191\u20132.\n\nExpediency:\n  doctrine of, III, 95\u20136;\n  relative and absolute ethics, III, 152\u20137, 188, 333;\n  and penal code, III, 159\u201363, 188.\n\nExperience hypothesis:\n  origin of knowledge, II, 122\u20135;\n  reasoning of empiricism, II, 201\u20135;\n  consciousness of object, II, 211\u20134;\n  and _a priori_ truths, II, 287\u20138.\n\nExtravagance:\n  and fashion, III, 36\u20137;\n  representative government, III, 290\u20131;\n  good for trade, III, 293.\n\nEyes:\n  position in development, I, 71\u20132, 454;\n  brighter from good news, II, 402.\n\nFactors of organic evolution, I, 389\u2013478.\n\nFaculties, exhausted by exercise, II, 361\u20137.\n\nFainting, belief in spirits, I, 311\u20132.\n\nFarming, by owner and bailiff, III, 246.\n\nFashion:\n  origin, III, 28;\n  extravagance of, III, 36\u20137;\n  social intercourse and pleasure, III, 36\u201346;\n  need of change, III, 46\u201351;\n  prospect, III, 51.\n\nFather, the title, III, 12, 13, 21.\n\nFaye, M.:\n  solar constitution, I, 182;\n  solar spots, I, 183\u20134, 188\u20139.\n\nFeathers, structure and function, I, 392.\n\nFeatures, and personal beauty, II, 387\u201399.\n\nFeelings:\n  definition, I, 262\u20134;\n  evolution, I, 263\u20134;\n  indications of, II, 400\u20133;\n  loudness of voice, II, 404\u20135;\n  also timbre, II, 405, 411;\n  and pitch, II, 406, 411;\n  and intervals, II, 406\u20139, 411;\n  variability of pitch, II, 409, 411;\n  emphasis and time in music, II, 412\u20133;\n  relation of music to sympathy, II, 424\u20136;\n  nervous and muscular system, II, 453\u20138.\n\nFeet, obeisance of uncovering, III, 17.\n\nFetichism, political, III, 393\u2013400.\n\nFigures of speech, II, 350\u20135.\n\nFiji:\n  ethics in, III, 193;\n  life in, III, 217\u20138, 221.\n\nFingers:\n  heredity and number, I, 413\u20134, 475;\n  and memory, II, 465.\n\nFire, indirect effects, III, 242.\n\n_First Principles_:\n  Martineau on, II, 250\u20138;\n  data of philosophy, II, 286.\n\nFish:\n  evolution and heterogeneity, I, 15\u20137;\n  temperature, I, 75, 76;\n  self-mobility, I, 76;\n  paleontological remains, I, 227, 235, 240;\n  eating of, III, 47;\n  anomalies, III, 401.\n\nFlint implements, discovery, I, 413.\n\nFlocculi, appearance of nebul\u00e6, I, 118\u201325.\n\nFood:\n  absorption and deductive biology, I, 77\u201381;\n  for the dead, I, 311\u20132;\n  nutrition, III, 408;\n  and government, III, 423\u20134.\n\nFoot, the measure, II, 44.\n\nForce:\n  cognition of its persistence, II, 269, 275;\n  Tait on central forces, II, 290\u20133;\n  persistence and conservation of energy, II, 295;\n  relation to motion, II, 310\u20134.\n\nForgery, III, 134.\n\nForms of thought, consciousness of object, II, 211\u20134.\n\nFossils (_see_ Paleontology.)\n\nFouill\u00e9e, Alfred, on Comte\u2019s philosophy, II, 143\u20134.\n\nFowls, use and disuse, I, 418.\n\nFrance:\n  English and French sheep, II, 396, 398;\n  agriculture and officialism, III, 267\u20138;\n  representative government, III, 318\u20139, 320;\n  paper currency, III, 345;\n  liberty in, III, 381;\n  banks in, III, 426;\n  engineering, III, 427\u20138.\n\nFranchise (_see_ Parliamentary Reform.)\n\nFreedom:\n  manners and customs, III, 30\u20136, 36\u20137, 46\u201351;\n  to bondage, III, 445\u201370;\n  loss of American, III, 473\u20134, 477, 478\u20139.\n\nFree trade:\n  effects on industry, I, 22\u20133;\n  and officialism, III, 268\u201370;\n  and banking, III, 356.\n\nFriendly societies, and individualism, III, 433\u20134.\n\nFrog, reflex action, II, 308.\n\nFugue, origin, I, 33.\n\nFunction:\n  relation to growth, I, 63\u20134;\n  and to integration of parts, I, 73;\n  and to structure, I, 249.\n\nGalactic circle, nebular distribution, I, 112.\n\nGalton, F., _English Men of Science_, I, 360.\n\nGanglia (_see_ Nervous System.)\n\nGas:\n  heat and liquifaction, I, 164\u20137;\n  English enterprise, III, 278.\n\nGastrula stage, of embryos, I, 452, 457.\n\nGeneral:\n  Comte\u2019s use of word, II, 20;\n  definition, II, 79.\n\nGeneralization:\n  universal tendency, I, 192;\n  absent in children, I, 354;\n  comparative psychology, I, 365\u20136.\n\nGenerosity, comparative psychology, I, 368.\n\nGenius:\n  literary style, II, 365\u20137;\n  non-recognition, III, 299\u2013300.\n\nGeology:\n  special creation and evolution, I, 6\u20137;\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 11\u20134, 14\u20137, 35;\n  life and multiplication of effects, I, 39\u201346, 49\u201353;\n  illogical, I, 192\u2013240;\n  evolution of, I, 192\u20138;\n  Wernerian, I, 194\u20137;\n  Huttonian, I, 195\u20137;\n  age of systems, I, 198\u2013205;\n  and paleontological evidence, I, 205\u201312;\n  past and present changes, I, 212\u20138;\n  Hugh Miller\u2019s doctrines, I, 218\u201320;\n  breaks in record, I, 220\u20136, 226\u201332, 232\u201340;\n  original object of Geological Society, I, 241;\n  catastrophism and evolution, I, 389\u201390;\n  genesis, II, 60;\n  concrete science, II, 89\u201392;\n  terrestrial evolution, II, 95\u20139;\n  deals with aggregates, II, 100;\n  English map, II, 257;\n  (_see also_ Earth.)\n\nGeometry:\n  Comte\u2019s classification, II, 16\u201321;\n  origin, II, 40, 151;\n  genesis, II, 48\u201350, 59;\n  genesis of trigonometry, II, 55\u20136;\n  interdependence of science and art, II, 69;\n  and abstract science, II, 79\u201380;\n  classification of sciences, II, 84;\n  the name, II, 113, 115;\n  evolution, II, 155;\n  test of necessity, II, 198\u2013200.\n\nGerard, E., Hungarian music, II, 450\u20131.\n\nGesticulation, and language, II, 335.\n\nGhost:\n  the word misleading, I, 311;\n  outline of theory, III, 8.\n\nGiraffe, correlation of parts, I, 402\u20135.\n\nGl\u00fcck, C. W. von, Handel on, II, 448.\n\nGnomon, use, II, 53\u20134.\n\nGod:\n  belief in personal, II, 223;\n  primitive ideas, III, 6\u201311, 12, 23.\n\nGold:\n  digging for, and evolution, III, 264;\n  efflux of, III, 341\u20133;\n  (_see also_ Money.)\n\nGood, meaning of word, III, 202.\n\nGothic, allied to vegetative style, II, 376, 377, 378.\n\nGould, J., on colour of birds, I, 433.\n\nGout, and heredity, II, 395.\n\nGovernment:\n  differentiation of, I, 21;\n  ideal society, II, 131\u20132;\n  evolution and divergence of, III, 22, 24\u201330, 50;\n  criminal code, III, 157;\n  what is representative government good for? III, 283\u2013325;\n  belief in English, III, 284;\n  flaws, &c., III, 284\u201391;\n  selection of representatives, III, 291\u2013300;\n  individualism and the state, III, 416\u201337, 442\u20134;\n  and food supply, III, 423\u20134;\n  banks, III, 425\u20136;\n  engineering, III, 427\u20138;\n  water supply, III, 429;\n  art and literature, III, 430\u20131;\n  and churches, III, 434;\n  charity, III, 434;\n  education, III, 435\u20136;\n  railways, III, 437;\n  post-office, III, 440\u20132;\n  (_see also_ Over-legislation.)\n\nGracefulness, II, 381\u20136.\n\nGrand, the word great, II, 368.\n\nGranite:\n  metamorphism, I, 229;\n  at Phil\u00e6, I, 437.\n\nGravitation:\n  Newton and law of, II, 26\u20137;\n  discovery of laws, II, 148.\n\nGreat, and the word grand, II, 367\u20139.\n\nGreat Western Railway:\n  _versus_ Rushout, III, 94;\n  and South Western, III, 97\u20138;\n  and North Western, III, 107.\n\nGreece:\n  sculpture, I, 27, 30;\n  dancing, I, 31;\n  poetry, I, 31;\n  music, I, 33;\n  architecture, II, 376, 377, 378;\n  personal beauty, II, 391\u20133;\n  early poems, II, 414\u20138.\n\nGreek language:\n  Latin and English words, II, 367\u20139;\n  sociology and knowledge of, III, 377.\n\nGreen, Prof. T. H., criticism, II, 322\u201332.\n\nGreenwich Hospital, funds, III, 398.\n\nGreyhounds, use and disuse in, I, 469\u201371.\n\nGrief, voice of, II, 405.\n\nGrocers, morals of trade, III, 121\u20133.\n\nGrotz, A., on science and religion, II, 225.\n\nGrowth:\n  relation to activity, I, 63\u20134;\n  various forms, I, 65\u20137;\n  social, I, 265\u20139, 306.\n\nGuinea pigs, epilepsy in, I, 415\u20136.\n\nGuizot, M.:\n  social aggregation, I, 282;\n  and specialization, I, 287;\n  political machinery, III, 276, 399.\n\nGulliver, L., an imaginary, on English institutions, III, 305\u20139.\n\nGurney, E., on origin of music, II, 437\u201343.\n\nHabit (_see_ Heredity.)\n\nHair:\n  and political opinion, III, 1\u20135;\n  obeisance of offering, III, 21;\n  colour of American, III, 482.\n\nHallo! intonation of, II, 407.\n\nHamburg, currency, III, 339.\n\nHamilton, Sir W.:\n  on space, II, 191\u20132;\n  the word belief, II, 222\u20133;\n  Grotz on, II, 225;\n  necessity of causation, II, 320;\n  (_see also_ Mill.)\n\nHampstead Heath, II, 370.\n\nHand:\n  the measure, II, 44;\n  ribbing of skin, I, 448;\n  rubbing together of hands, II, 402.\n\nHandel, G. F., on Gl\u00fcck, II, 448.\n\nHappiness, Kant and pursuit of, III, 207\u20139; (_see also_ Kant.)\n\nHarmony, origin of music, II, 448.\n\nHarp, strings in ancient, II, 415.\n\nHarris, Mr., on Norfolk Island convicts, III, 176.\n\nHastings, railway service, II, 97.\n\nHat, obeisance of removal, III, 20, 27, 47.\n\nHayward, R. B., criticism, II, 307\u201314.\n\nHead:\n  obeisance of uncovering, III, 20;\n  putting dust on, III, 21.\n\nHealth:\n  and criminality, III, 167;\n  failure of boards of, III, 241, 248, 290;\n  representative government, III, 301, 304;\n  body and nerve functions, III, 419\u201322, 443;\n  and feeling, III, 481;\n  in America, III, 482, 483\u20134.\n\nHeart.:\n  integration, I, 67;\n  disease, I, 410\u201311;\n  effect of emotion, II, 454, 455, 464;\n  and nervous system, III, 420\u20131.\n\nHeat:\n  multiplication of effects, I, 37, 38, 39, 47, 59;\n  terrestrial effects of diminishing, I, 40\u20136;\n  cause of heterogeneity, I, 82;\n  nebular change, I, 118;\n  liquefaction of gases, I, 164\u20137;\n  terrestrial motion and paleontological evidence, I, 221\u20134;\n  rock metamorphism, I, 229\u201330, 232;\n  action on bodies, I, 436;\n  genesis of science, II, 62, 63;\n  abstract concrete science, II, 88;\n  what is thermo-electricity? II, 172\u20136;\n  effect on compound molecules, II, 178\u201380, 186;\n  insensible motion, II, 266\u20138, 276.\n\nHegel, G. W. F.:\n  \u201cto philosophize on Nature,\u201d II, 10, 11;\n  classification of sciences, II, 12\u20135.\n\nHeraldry, and manners and fashion, III, 26, 27\u20138.\n\nHeredity:\n  the general law, I, 64, 103, 104;\n  organic development, I, 90\u20132;\n  moral sentiments, I, 338;\n  effect of sex, I, 362;\n  size of jaw, I, 397\u2013400, 422;\n  musical faculty, I, 406\u20137;\n  natural selection, I, 408\u201312;\n  functional modifications, I, 415\u20137;\n  Darwin\u2019s belief in their inheritance, I, 417\u201321, 422;\n  summary on use and disuse, I, 421\u20135;\n  also their bearing on ethics, psychology, and sociology, I, 463\u20135;\n  Duke of Argyll\u2019s criticism, I, 467\u201378;\n  personal beauty, II, 387\u201399;\n  officialism, III, 255.\n\nHero-worship, III, 317.\n\nHerr, the title, III, 14.\n\nHerschel, Sir J.:\n  Magellanic clouds, I, 116\u20137;\n  form of nebul\u00e6, I, 122, 124;\n  variation of terrestrial temperature, I, 222, 223;\n  complexity of elements, I, 372;\n  cause and effect, II, 306, 319.\n\nHerschel, Sir W.:\n  on nebulous matter, I, 110;\n  stellar magnitude and distance, I, 115;\n  stellar genesis, I, 129;\n  solar surface, I, 185, 187.\n\nHeterogeneity:\n  increase in, displayed by astronomy, I, 10\u201311, 35;\n  geology, I, 11\u201314, 35;\n  meteorology, I, 13\u20134, 35;\n  biology, I, 14\u20137, 35;\n  man, I, 17\u20139, 35;\n  society, I, 19\u201323, 35;\n  ceremony, I, 20\u20131;\n  religion, I, 20\u20133;\n  language, I, 23\u20136;\n  writing, I, 24\u20136;\n  the arts, I, 24\u201330;\n  poetry, music and drama, I, 30\u20132;\n  literature and science, I, 34\u20135;\n  development, I, 67;\n  (_see also_ Multiplication of Effects.)\n\nHistory, measure of time, II, 45\u20139.\n\nHobbes, T., commonwealth of, I, 270\u20132.\n\nHodgson, S. H.:\n  criticism of, II, 225\u201334;\n  reply to Prof. Green, II, 321\u20132, 329.\n\nHomogeneous:\n  instability of the, I, 81\u20134, 459\u201360;\n  orderly heterogeneity, I, 84\u201393.\n\nHonesty:\n  in trade and bankruptcy, III, 129\u201331, 138;\n  of lower races, III, 194;\n  state tamperings with money, III, 326\u201335, 335\u201347;\n  and social grade, III, 359;\n  and officialism, III, 397.\n\nHornbills, head excrescences of, I, 392.\n\nHorns, evolution of, I, 395.\n\nHorse, the phrase black, II, 340.\n\nHoskins, G. A., on Valencia prison, III, 177\u20138.\n\nHuguenots, Smiles on the, I, 360.\n\nHumboldt, A. von, distribution of nebul\u00e6, I, 113, 114, 115.\n\nHume, D.:\n  subject and object, II, 329;\n  law codification, III, 258.\n\nHungary, music in, II, 449.\n\nHutton, James, geological theory, I, 195, 197.\n\nHutton, Richard H., \u201ca questionable parentage for morals,\u201d I, 331\u201350.\n\nHuxley, T. H.:\n  evolution and biological heterogeneity, I, 17;\n  organic correlation, I, 96\u2013101;\n  belief in double personality, I, 310;\n  on \u201cOrigin of Species,\u201d I, 389\u201390;\n  on evolution, I, 462\u20133;\n  a creed fatal to science, I, 463;\n  specialized administration, III, 404\u20135;\n  endoderm and ectoderm, III, 405;\n  function of parliament, III, 417;\n  and altruism, III, 433;\n  administrative nihilism, III, 438, 442\u20134.\n\nHybrids, origin of worship, I, 320\u20132, 329.\n\n_Hydra_, the, naval maladministration, III, 234.\n\nHydrogen, liquefaction, I, 160.\n\nHydrostatics, genesis, II, 57, 59.\n\n_Hydrozoa_:\n  analogy to social organism, I, 280\u20133;\n  development, I, 284;\n  circulation, I, 291;\n  nervous system, III, 422.\n\nHyperbola, relation to circle, I, 5.\n\n_Hyperion_, verse from, II, 344.\n\nHypoblast, embryo development, I, 452\u20133, 455.\n\nHypothesis, effect on observation, II, 162\u20137.\n\nIce, temperature as illustrating propositions, II, 205\u20138.\n\nIdealism:\n  reasoning of, II, 201;\n  Sidgwick\u2019s criticism, II, 242\u201350.\n\nIdeas:\n  relation to emotions, I, 336\u20138;\n  comparative psychology, I, 365\u20136;\n  actual and pseud-, I, 383.\n\nIdols, worship of, III, 393.\n\nImitativeness, comparative psychology, I, 364.\n\nImpatience, indications of, II, 402.\n\nImpulsiveness, comparative psychology, I, 357\u20139.\n\nInclination, and duty, III, 210\u20131.\n\nInconceivability, Mill on, II, 193\u2013200.\n\nIncongruities, Bain on, II, 463.\n\nIncuriosity, comparative psychology, I, 364\u20135.\n\nIndeed! intonation of, II, 408.\n\nIndia:\n  prisons of, III, 189\u201391;\n  ethics in, III, 193\u20135;\n  failure of government, III, 249.\n\nIndividual, and the State, III, 416\u201337, 442\u20134.\n\nInduction:\n  qualitative and quantitative science, II, 7;\n  electrical, II, 183.\n\nIndustrialism:\n  and social organism, III, 412\u20136;\n  development of, III, 459;\n  and unionism, III, 465;\n  in America, III, 487\u201392.\n\nIndustry:\n  multiplication of effects, I, 53\u20138;\n  effects of railways, I, 57;\n  boundaries ignored by, I, 289.\n\nInfant:\n  relation to ovum, I, 6;\n  resemblance to uncivilized, I, 18.\n\n_Infusoria_, cell membrane, I, 441.\n\nInsanity:\n  and heredity, I, 416, II, 396;\n  Pentonville Prison, III, 162;\n  and life, III, 164;\n  and bodily functions, III, 419\u201320.\n\nInsects:\n  temperature, I, 75;\n  self-mobility, I, 76;\n  mimicry, I, 396;\n  colours of, I, 433;\n  metamorphosis, III, 410.\n\nIntaglio, increase of heterogeneity, I, 26.\n\nIntegration:\n  longitudinal and tranverse, I, 67\u201373;\n  relation to function, I, 73;\n  sociological, I, 102\u20137.\n\nIntellect, effect of emotion, II, 465.\n\nIntelligence:\n  relation to sexual sentiment, I, 363\u20134;\n  and authority, III, 311.\n\nIntonation, origin in churches, II, 416.\n\nInvagination, Balfour on, I, 452.\n\nInvolution, and evolution, I, 380.\n\nIreland:\n  prison discipline, III, 174;\n  and bad legislation, III, 275;\n  currency in, III, 337, 344\u20135;\n  bank of, III, 348.\n\nIrish elk, correlation of parts, I, 402.\n\nIron:\n  analogy from cutting, I, 97\u20138;\n  industry and locality, I, 104;\n  complexity of, I, 373.\n\nIsomerism:\n  complexity of elements, I, 155;\n  evolution of life, I, 374\u20135.\n\nItaly, language, II, 423.\n\nJam, association of ideas, I, 337.\n\nJaw:\n  personal beauty, II, 389\u201390, 391;\n  size, I, 397\u2013400, 473;\n  size of teeth, I, 401;\n  drooping from excitement, II, 464.\n\nJoint-stock companies:\n  history, III, 52, 108;\n  failure of Act, III, 241;\n  importance of, III, 257;\n  maladministration, III, 286;\n  banking, III, 347\u201354;\n  regulative system, III, 463.\n\nJupiter:\n  rotatory movement, I, 135, 136;\n  motion of satellites, I, 137, 141\u20132;\n  number of satellites, I, 139\u201340;\n  density and heat, I, 144\u20138, 148\u201352;\n  size, I, 145;\n  luminosity, I, 150;\n  orbit, I, 169.\n\nJuries, bribery of, III, 396.\n\nJustice:\n  re-representative sentiment, I, 263;\n  development of sympathy, I, 347\u201350;\n  comparative psychology, I, 368;\n  and equity, II, 52;\n  and prison ethics, III, 165, 167, 180, 181;\n  political ethics, III, 225, 228;\n  faulty administration, III, 232, 235;\n  over-legislation, III, 272;\n  and representative government, III, 317\u201323, 324, 380;\n  duty of state, III, 334;\n  and officialism, III, 395\u2013400;\n  needful to society, III, 469.\n\nKames, Lord, arrangement of sentences, II, 343.\n\nKant, I.:\n  forms of thought, II, 77;\n  space and time, II, 226\u20137, 229\u201332, III, 197\u20139;\n  form and matter, II, 230\u20131, 232;\n  and experientialism, II, 234\u20135;\n  Max M\u00fcller on Spencer and, II, 235\u20138;\n  Spencer\u2019s disagreement from, II, 238;\n  ethics, III, 192\u2013216;\n  on lower races, III, 192\u20135;\n  examples of unaided perception, III, 195\u20137;\n  reasoning of, III, 199\u2013203;\n  space, III, 203, 207;\n  on good will, III, 201\u20133, 207;\n  and evolution, III, 203\u20136, 207;\n  Carus on ethics, III, 206\u20137;\n  pursuit of happiness, III, 207\u20139;\n  duty and inclination, III, 209\u201313;\n  ethical principles, III, 213\u20136.\n\nKent, W. S., on _infusoria_, I, 440.\n\nKepler, J:\n  laws of, I, 36;\n  belief in planetary spirits, I, 108;\n  solar theory, I, 193.\n\nKid, laughter caused by, II, 461\u20132.\n\nKirchhoff, solar spots, I, 187.\n\nKissing, obeisance of, III, 18.\n\nKneeling, obeisance of, III, 19.\n\nKnight, the title, III, 15, 28.\n\nKnowledge:\n  common and scientific, II, 1\u20138, 29;\n  dependent on experience, II, 122;\n  relativity, II, 122, 220\u20131;\n  and word belief, II, 188\u201391;\n  Quarterly Reviewer on, II, 260;\n  and reasoning, III, 199, 201;\n  and political ethics, III, 225.\n\nLabour:\n  division of, I, 19\u201323, 283\u201391;\n  right to, III, 466.\n\nLady, the title, III, 14.\n\n_Lady of the Lake_, quoted, II, 351.\n\nLaing, Mr., on railway construction, III, 105\u20136.\n\nLamarck, J. B. P. A. de M., organic evolution, I, 390\u20131, 397.\n\nLancashire:\n  cotton industry, I, 266;\n  effect of railway competition, III, 97, 106.\n\nLandowners, railway policy, III, 63\u20137.\n\nLandscape, appreciation of, I, 335\u20136.\n\nLanguage:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 23\u20136, II, 366\u20137;\n  belief in spirits, I, 311\u20132;\n  poverty of Australian, I, 315;\n  precedence of concrete nouns, I, 323;\n  comparative psychology, I, 365\u20136;\n  classification, II, 31\u20133, 34, 40;\n  Saxon words, II, 336\u20138;\n  under excitement, and poetry, II, 357\u201361;\n  emotional waste and repair, II, 361\u20137;\n  Latin, Greek, and old English, II, 367\u20139;\n  duality and development, II, 421\u20133;\n  sociology and knowledge, III, 302;\n  of subordination, III, 312;\n  evolution, III, 402\u20133.\n\nLankester, Prof. E. Ray, on heredity, I, 476.\n\nLaplace, P. S. Marquis de:\n  genesis and structure of solar system, I, 128\u20139, 130, 131;\n  planetary axial movements, I, 132\u20136;\n  lunar axial motion, I, 141;\n  motion of satellites, I, 142;\n  planetoids, I, 168, 174, 178.\n\nLatham, R. G., on grammar, II, 333.\n\nLatin, Greek and English words, II, 367\u20139.\n\nLaugel, M., on _First Principles_, II, 118.\n\nLaughter, physiology of, II, 452\u201366.\n\nLaw:\n  multiplication of effects, I, 37;\n  genesis of science, II, 51;\n  belief in natural, II, 123;\n  conditions affecting discovery, II, 145\u20138, 148\u201350;\n  evolution of sciences, II, 150\u20137;\n  prospective, II, 157\u20139;\n  universality of, II, 159\u201360;\n  religion and manners, III, 4, 23;\n  and morality, III, 10\u201311, 23, 50;\n  for primitive man, III, 24;\n  officialism and reform, III, 252, 258\u20139;\n  and over-legislation, III, 272;\n  legal verbiage, III, 273;\n  cost, III, 308;\n  representative government, III, 317\u201323;\n  knowledge of, and parliamentary reform, III, 375\u20139;\n  (_see also_ Over-legislation.)\n\nLawyers:\n  and railways, III, 67\u201372, 83, 88, 108;\n  in parliament, III, 298, 303, 304.\n\nLeather, morals of trade, III, 123.\n\nLeaves, cells in, I, 446.\n\nLegislation, and social growth, I, 265\u20139; (_see also_ Over-legislation.)\n\nLength, morals of trade, III, 118\u20139.\n\nLepchas, ethics, III, 193, 194.\n\nLiability (_see_ Banks _and_ Joint-Stock Companies).\n\nLiberalism, behaviour of party, III, 464.\n\nLiberty:\n  French idea of, II, 343;\n  traits of reform, III, 30\u20136;\n  social use, III, 46\u201351;\n  degree of, for people, III, 381;\n  in America, III, 473\u20134, 477, 478\u20139.\n\nLibraries, free, III, 370.\n\nLicensing law, failure, III, 244.\n\nLiebig, J. von, analogy from blood corpuscles, I, 293\u20134.\n\nLife:\n  evolution from not-life, I, 374\u20135;\n  plants and animals indistinguishable, I, 375\u20136;\n  evolution of mind, I, 376\u20138;\n  survival and degree of, I, 405\u20138, 421;\n  evolution and action of medium, I, 458\u201360, 460\u20132;\n  primitive ideas of, III, 6\u201311;\n  maintenance and prison ethics, III, 163\u201371;\n  failure of assurance act, III, 241\u20132;\n  sociology and knowledge of, III, 304;\n  and pleasure, III, 315;\n  and sociology, III, 325;\n  increase in longevity, III, 447;\n  Mill and Spencer on, III, 485.\n\n_Life Drama_, quoted, II, 351, 353.\n\nLight:\n  multiplication of effects, I, 37, 38, 39, 59;\n  action on bodies, I, 436;\n  and on protoplasm, I, 465\u20136;\n  genesis of science, II, 61;\n  polarization, II, 63;\n  effect on molecules, II, 178;\n  perception of white, III, 196;\n  (_see also_ Optics).\n\nLikeness:\n  of classification, II, 29\u201331, 34;\n  of language, II, 31\u20133, 34;\n  of reasoning, II, 33\u20134;\n  of art, II, 34;\n  relation to equality, II, 35\u20137.\n\n_Lindsay, W. S._, Admiralty certificate, III, 239.\n\nLiterature:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 34\u20135;\n  multiplication of effects, I, 57;\n  use and beauty, II, 371;\n  contrast in, II, 373\u20134;\n  popularity of authors, III, 299\u2013300;\n  and sociology, III, 376\u20137;\n  English and continental, III, 430\u20131.\n\nLittr\u00e9, E., on Comte\u2019s classification, II, 74\u20136, 81\u20133.\n\nLiver:\n  development, I, 106;\n  use and disuse, I, 419.\n\nLiverpool, and Manchester railway, III, 63, 266.\n\nLiverworts, cells in, I, 446.\n\nLocke, J.:\n  and experientialism, II, 234\u20135;\n  and evolution, II, 237.\n\nLocomotive engine:\n  effects of, I, 56\u20138;\n  balance weight, II, 383.\n\nLogic:\n  Hegel\u2019s classification, II, 12\u20135;\n  implies equality, II, 40;\n  abstract science, II, 77, 81\u20135;\n  terrestrial evolution, II, 99;\n  Bain on relation to psychology, II, 105\u20136;\n  Sidgwick\u2019s criticism, II, 241;\n  Tristram Shandy on, II, 333.\n\nLondon:\n  and Birmingham railway, III, 63;\n  New River to, III, 257;\n  representative government, III, 289;\n  water supply, III, 429.\n\nLord, the title, III, 12\u20135, 21.\n\nLove:\n  Darwin and origin of music, II, 426\u201337;\n  also Gurney, II, 437\u201343.\n\nLoyalty, and social state, III, 312.\n\nLubbock, Sir John:\n  derivation of tribal names, I, 314;\n  _Origin of Civilization_, I, 331;\n  conscience of lower races, III, 192\u20133;\n  banker\u2019s clearing house, III, 425\u20136.\n\nLungs:\n  development, I, 67, 106;\n  use and disuse, I, 419;\n  relation to voice, II, 404\u20135.\n\nLyell, Sir C.:\n  age of rocks, I, 204;\n  paleontological evidence, I, 205, 208\u201312;\n  geological hiatus, I, 220\u20131;\n  uniformitarianism and geological record, I, 227, 229.\n\nLyre, increase in heterogeneity, I, 32, II, 415.\n\nMachine, and organism, III, 456\u20138.\n\nMachinery, disliked by labourers, III, 362, 376.\n\nMacaulay, Lord, on Post-office, III, 441.\n\nMackintosh, Sir J., on constitutions, I, 265, 269.\n\nMacLennan, J. F., plant and animal worship, I, 308\u20139, 320.\n\nMaconochie, Captain, \u201cmark\u201d prison system, III, 175\u20137.\n\nMadam, the title, II, 14, 26.\n\nMagellanic clouds, Sir J. Herschel on, I, 116\u20137.\n\nMagnetism, abstract concrete science, II, 88.\n\nMagnificent, and the word grand, II, 367\u20139.\n\nMagnitudes, relation of thought, II, 252\u20133.\n\nMaize, transformation of, I, 434.\n\nMajority, right of, III, 89, 94.\n\n_Mammalia_:\n  evolution and heterogeneity, I, 15\u20137;\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 17\u20139;\n  temperature, I, 75, 76;\n  self-mobility, I, 76;\n  organic correlation, I, 97;\n  paleontological remains, I, 227, 238, 240;\n  imitation of evolution, II, 438.\n\nMammary glands, evolution, I, 395.\n\nMan:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 17\u20139, 35;\n  multiplication of effects, I, 52\u20133;\n  traits of primitive, III, 24.\n\nManchester, electors in, III, 385.\n\nManners:\n  and fashion, III, 1\u201351;\n  evolution of ceremonies, III, 11\u20136, 23, 50;\n  origin, III, 28;\n  Swift on, III, 44.\n\nMansel, Dean H. L.:\n  criticism, II, 221\u20135;\n  Grotz on, II, 225.\n\n_Marchantia_, cells in, I, 446.\n\n_Mariana_, quoted, II, 356.\n\n_Marmion_, quoted, II, 343.\n\nMars:\n  rotatory motion, I, 135, 136;\n  number of satellites, I, 139\u201340;\n  and motion, I, 142;\n  density and heat, I, 144\u20138, 148\u201352.\n\n_Marsupialia_, integration, I, 69\u201370.\n\nMartineau, Rev. J.:\n  on evolution, I, 371\u201388;\n  criticism, II, 250\u20138.\n\nMaster, the title, III, 15, 16.\n\nMaterialism, and evolution, I, 386\u20138.\n\nMathematics:\n  things learnt, II, 1;\n  Oken on, II, 10\u201311;\n  Comte\u2019s classification, II, 16\u201321;\n  implies equality, II, 40;\n  genesis, II, 48\u201350;\n  abstract science, II, 77, 84\u20135;\n  terrestrial evolution, II, 99;\n  deals with relations, II, 102, 103;\n  Bain on nature of, II, 105\u20136;\n  origin, II, 151;\n  evolution, II, 156;\n  ultimate truths, II, 283;\n  exact science, III, 199\u2013200;\n  and political ethics, III, 225;\n  mental development, III, 255;\n  and sociology, III, 303, 305.\n\nMatter:\n  discovery of laws, II, 148;\n  inscrutable, II, 247;\n  Martineau\u2019s criticism, II, 257;\n  properties, II, 277, 315\u20136.\n\nMayer, J., as physicist, II, 269, 314.\n\nMeasurement:\n  origin of weight, II, 43\u20135;\n  of time, II, 45\u20136.\n\nMechanics:\n  Comte\u2019s classification, II, 19;\n  genesis, II, 50, 56, 59;\n  abstract concrete science, II, 85\u20138,101;\n  terrestrial evolution, II, 97;\n  Bain on science classification, II, 112;\n  science classification, II, 117;\n  origin, II, 151;\n  evolution, II, 155, 156;\n  real and ideal, III, 222\u20133.\n\nMechanics\u2019 Institutes, representative government, III, 286.\n\nMedicine, association of ideas, I, 337.\n\n_Medusa_, vascular system, I, 79.\n\n_Meg\u0153ra_, naval maladministration, III, 234.\n\n_Melbourne_, the, and Admiralty certificate, III, 239.\n\nMemory:\n  and test of truth, II, 215;\n  and emotion, II, 465.\n\nMendelejeff, D., complexity of elements, I, 155.\n\nMendelssohn-Bartholdy, F., character, II, 417.\n\nMercantile Marine Act, failure of, III, 260, 276, 295.\n\nMercury:\n  rotatory movement, I, 135, 136;\n  number of satellites, I, 139;\n  density, I, 144;\n  density and heat, I, 144\u20138, 148\u201352.\n\nMesoblast, embryo development, I, 453, 455.\n\nMetallurgy, genesis, II, 51.\n\nMetamorphic rocks, age, I, 198.\n\nMetamorphosis, universal, III, 458\u201360.\n\nMetaphor, and simile, II, 352\u20134.\n\nMetaphysics:\n  Comte on, II, 123;\n  reasoning of, II, 201\u20135;\n  relation to physics, II, 268.\n\n_Metaphyta_, origin, I, 444.\n\n_Metazoa_:\n  origin, I, 444;\n  embryo development, I, 451\u20138.\n\nMeteorology:\n  increase in heterogeneity of climates, I, 13\u20134, 35;\n  effect of American subsidence, I, 43;\n  concrete science, II, 92.\n\nMeteors:\n  constitution of comets, I, 127;\n  origin, I, 174\u20137.\n\nMetonymy, effectiveness, II, 350.\n\nMettray, reformatory, III, 173.\n\nMilitancy:\n  political ethics, III, 227\u20138;\n  and industrialism, III, 416;\n  in America, III, 484.\n\nMilky way, distribution of nebul\u00e6, I, 112.\n\nMill, J. S.:\n  letter on morals to, I, 333;\n  classification of science, II, 114;\n  on Comte\u2019s philosophy, II, 143;\n  on Hamilton and word belief, II, 188\u201391;\n  noumenal existence, II, 191\u20132;\n  inconceivable and unbelievable, II, 193\u2013200;\n  test of necessity, II, 196;\n  general agreement with, II, 217;\n  on the State and banks, III, 348, 357;\n  on life, III, 485.\n\nMiller, Hugh:\n  life and doctrines, I, 218\u201320;\n  terrestrial life, I, 220.\n\nMimicry:\n  of savages, I, 364;\n  evolution, I, 396.\n\nMineralogy, and classification, II, 64, 92, 108.\n\nMind (_see_ Psychology.)\n\nMissionaries, development, III, 458\u20139.\n\nMivart, Prof. St. George, genesis of species, I, 332.\n\nMole, pelvis in, I, 97.\n\nMolecules, mutual action and electricity, II, 178\u201384, 184\u20137.\n\nMolesworth, Sir W., on buildings acts, III, 240.\n\n_Mollusca_:\n  great age of, I, 217;\n  circulation, I, 296.\n\n_Molluscoida_, social analogy, I, 281.\n\n_Monaclin\u00e6_, cell membrane, I, 440.\n\nMonarchy, and representative government, III, 309\u201310, 310\u20137, 317\u201323.\n\nMoney:\n  analogy to blood corpuscles, I, 293\u20134;\n  trading with bad, III, 141;\n  state tamperings with, III, 326\u201357;\n  and joint-stock banks, III, 347\u201354;\n  and free trade, III, 355\u20137; anomaly\n  of interest, III, 401.\n\nMonkeys, origin of music, II, 432.\n\n_Monotremata_, integration, I, 69\u201370.\n\nMonsieur, the title, III, 14, 15.\n\nMontesinos, Captain, prison discipline, III, 177\u20138.\n\nMonth, measure of time, II, 45\u20139.\n\nMoon:\n  axial motion, I, 141;\n  heat and contraction, I, 149;\n  as name, I, 317, 327.\n\nMoquin-Tandon, A., plant leaves, I, 433.\n\nMorality:\n  _Quarterly Review_ criticism, II, 259\u201365;\n  and law, III, 10\u201311, 23, 50;\n  and awe of authority, III, 311;\n  average social, III, 359, 360.\n\nMorals:\n  and moral sentiments, I, 331\u201350;\n  parentage of, I, 331\u20134, 334\u201350;\n  the science of right conduct, I, 333;\n  relation to expediency, I, 333;\n  prospect, III, 30, 51;\n  average of, and trade, III, 137\u201340.\n\nMoray, Sir R., on Barnacle geese, II, 162.\n\nMosses, cell membrane, I, 439.\n\nMotion:\n  of animals and plants, I, 75, 76;\n  discovery of laws, II, 148;\n  implies thing moving, II, 205\u20136, 207;\n  inscrutable, II, 247;\n  insensible forms, II, 266, 276;\n  Tait on laws of, II, 271\u20135;\n  Spencer on laws of, II, 297\u2013320;\n  axioms and laws of, II, 298\u2013301, 315\u201320;\n  relation to force, II, 310\u20134;\n  and gracefulness, II, 381\u20136.\n\nMouat, Dr. F. J., on prisons, III, 189\u201391.\n\nMoulton, J. F., _British Quarterly Review_, II, 307.\n\nMountains:\n  age and altitude, I, 13;\n  formation, I, 40;\n  as name, I, 318.\n\nMozart, J. C. W. T.:\n  heredity, I, 406;\n  character, II, 417;\n  _Addio_ of, II, 447.\n\nMucous membrane, effect of surroundings, I, 449, 450.\n\nM\u00fcller, F. Max:\n  misinterpretation of names, I, 315, 327;\n  on abstract nouns, I, 323, 324;\n  criticism, II, 235\u20138.\n\nMultiplication, various forms, I, 65\u20137.\n\nMultiplication of effects:\n  general, I, 35\u20138;\n  astronomy, I, 38\u20139;\n  geology, I, 39\u201346;\n  biology, I, 46\u201353;\n  sociology, I, 53\u20138;\n  science, literature and art, I, 59.\n\nMunich, prison, III, 171\u20133\n\nMurchison, Sir R.:\n  Silurian system, I, 199, 231;\n  paleontological evidence, I, 206;\n  azoic rocks, I, 228.\n\nMurder, social co-operation, III, 217\u201320, 224.\n\nMuscle:\n  waste and repair, I, 362;\n  evolution, I, 396;\n  size of jaws, I, 398\u2013400, 422;\n  origin of music, II, 403\u20134;\n  nervous system and action of, II, 453\u20138;\n  laughter and action of, II, 458\u201364.\n\nMusic:\n  origin, I, 30\u20131;\n  increase in heterogeneity, 31\u20134;\n  comparative psychology, I, 366;\n  development of faculty, I, 406\u20137;\n  Kantian ideas of space, II, 227;\n  contrast in, II, 373;\n  origin and function, II, 400\u201351;\n  originally vocal, II, 403\u20134;\n  feelings and loudness of voice, II, 404, 410;\n  and timbre, II, 405, 411;\n  pitch, II, 406, 411;\n  intervals, II, 406\u20139, 411;\n  variability of pitch, II, 409, 411;\n  tremolo, staccato, and slur, II, 412;\n  time in, II, 412\u20133;\n  slow divergence from speech, II, 414\u20138;\n  indirect evidence of theory, II, 418\u201320;\n  function, II, 420\u20134;\n  relation to sympathy, II, 424\u20136;\n  Darwin on origin, II, 426\u201337;\n  of lowest tribes, II, 433\u20137;\n  Gurney on origin, II, 437\u201343;\n  evolution of scales, II, 440\u20131;\n  sensational effects, II, 443\u20134;\n  perceptional, II, 445\u20137;\n  emotional, II, 447;\n  harmony, II, 448;\n  counterpoint, II, 448;\n  and evolution, II, 448\u20139;\n  Hungarian, II, 449\u201351;\n  and social intercourse, III, 41, 42;\n  sensation of sound, III, 197;\n  indirect effects, III, 245;\n  free, III, 370.\n\nMyddelton, Sir Hugh, New River, III, 257, 429.\n\nMythology, primitive, III, 6\u201311.\n\nMyths, origin of animal worship, I, 322\u20138.\n\nNails, heredity and negro blood, II, 396.\n\nNames:\n  origin of animal worship, I, 311\u20137, 317\u201320, 328;\n  of hybrids, I, 320\u20132;\n  misinterpretation of nicknames, I, 325\u20138, 328\u201330;\n  classification, II, 31\u20133, 34, 40;\n  and evolution of ceremonies, III, 11\u20136, 23.\n\nNapoleon I., and his marshals, III, 309.\n\nNatural selection:\n  essay on progress, I. 53;\n  the phrase, I, 428\u201330;\n  (_see also_ Survival of the fittest).\n\nNavy:\n  maladministration, III, 233\u20134, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252, 399;\n  officers in parliament, III, 297, 304.\n\nNaylor, Rev. B., on Norfolk Island convicts, III, 176.\n\nNebul\u00e6:\n  appearance, I, 118\u201325;\n  Sir J. Herschel on regular and irregular, I, 122;\n  origin, direction and constitution of comets, I, 125\u20138, 153;\n  origin, I, 153.\n\nNebular hypothesis:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 10\u201311;\n  discoveries of Herschel and Rosse, I, 110\u20132;\n  and ultimate mystery, I, 154;\n  evolution of heat and condensation, I, 159\u201363;\n  essay on, I, 108\u201384;\n  distance and distribution, I, 112\u20138.\n\nNecessity, Mill on test of, II, 196\u2013200.\n\nNegro, heredity and nails, II, 396.\n\nNeptune:\n  axial motion, I, 133\u20136;\n  density, I, 144;\n  heat, I, 144\u20138, 148\u201352.\n\nNervous system:\n  of savage and civilized, I, 18;\n  integration, I, 68\u201371;\n  analogous to government, I, 299\u2013307;\n  development from epidermis, I, 454;\n  Sidgwick\u2019s criticism, II, 238;\n  muscular action, II, 453\u20138;\n  differentiation, III, 406;\n  sympathetic, III, 408\u20139;\n  and society, III, 418;\n  positive and negative regulation, III, 419, 443.\n\nNew River Company, origin, III, 429.\n\nNew York, government, III, 289, 291.\n\nNew Zealanders, belief in another world, II, 223.\n\nNewcomb, Prof. S.:\n  nebular hypothesis, I, 121;\n  planetoids, I, 167\u20138.\n\nNewspapers, evolution, III, 431.\n\nNewton, Sir I.:\n  expansion of air, I, 118;\n  solar theory, I, 193;\n  gravity, II, 26\u20137, 291\u20133;\n  genesis of science, II, 59\u201360;\n  problem of three bodies, II, 112;\n  laws of motion, II, 271, 274, 277\u201388, 297\u2013320.\n\nNitrogen:\n  compounds, I, 157;\n  molecules, I, 158.\n\nNod, as obeisance, III, 18.\n\nNomenclature, genesis of science, II, 63\u20135, 72.\n\nNorfolk Island, prison, III, 175\u20137.\n\n_North British Review_, on _Social Statics_, II,  134.\n\nNose, personal beauty, II, 391.\n\nNottingham, Enclosure act, III, 240.\n\nNubecula, Sir J. Herschel on, I, 116\u20137.\n\nNumber and classification, II, 37.\n\nNummulites, Lyell on, I, 208.\n\nNutrition:\n  individual and social, I, 289\u201390;\n  process, III, 408;\n  social, III, 413.\n\nOak, acorn and music, II, 442.\n\nObeisance, forms of, III, 17\u201322, III, 25.\n\nObermair, M., on prisons, III, 171.\n\nObject:\n  consciousness of, II, 211\u20134;\n  relation to subject, II, 323\u201332.\n\nObservation and hypothesis, II, 160\u20137.\n\nOfficialism:\n  failure, III, 394, 395;\n  Lord Palmerston on, III, 395;\n  (_see also_ Over-legislation).\n\nOffspring, and parents\u2019 qualities, II, 395, 398.\n\nOken, L., classification of sciences, II, 9\u201312.\n\nOlbers, H. W. M., hypothesis, I, 167, 171, 173.\n\nOld Red Sandstone (_see_ Devonian System.)\n\nOmnibus, and officialism, III, 250.\n\nOolite, age of, I, 202\u20135.\n\nOpium, dissimilar effects, I, 100.\n\nOptics:\n  multiplication of effects, I, 59;\n  genesis, II, 57, 59, 61;\n  interdependence of sciences, II, 66;\n  abstract concrete science, II, 85\u20138;\n  Bain on classification of sciences, II, 107.\n\nOrange, planet analogy, I, 133\u20134.\n\nOrders, signature of, III, 120.\n\nOrganic matter:\n  chemistry, I, 83\u20134;\n  evolution, I, 458\u201360.\n\nOrganisms:\n  differentiation, III, 405;\n  social and individual, III, 411\u20136;\n  and machinery, III, 456\u20138.\n\nOrgans, rudimentary, III, 204.\n\n_Origin of Species_:\n  Huxley on, I, 389\u201390;\n  effect of, I, 393\u20134.\n\nOriginality, literary style, II, 365\u20137.\n\n_Ossian_, quoted, II, 355.\n\nOsteology, correlation, I, 96\u2013101.\n\nOver-legislation:\n  essay on, III, 229\u201382;\n  individual uncertainty, III, 229\u201331;\n  examples of failure in legislation, III, 231\u201345;\n  probability of success, III, 245\u20136;\n  slowness of, III, 246\u20137;\n  stupidity, III, 247\u20139;\n  unadaptive, III, 249;\n  corruptness, III, 250\u20132;\n  fixity, III, 252;\n  officialism and trade contrasted, III, 253\u20139;\n  is there a sphere for officialism? III, 259\u201368;\n  free trade, III, 268\u201370;\n  negative evils, III, 270\u20136;\n  enervation of, III, 276\u201380;\n  faith in governments, III, 280\u20132;\n  dangers, III, 368\u201370;\n  and collective wisdom, III, 391\u20132.\n\nOvum, relation to infant, I, 6.\n\nOwen, Prof. Sir R.:\n  evolution and paleontology, I, 16;\n  organic correlation, I, 96\u2013101.\n\nOxygen:\n  deductive biology, I, 77\u201381;\n  liquefaction, I, 160;\n  action on protoplasm, I, 465\u20136.\n\nPacific Ocean, upheaval and geological record, I, 232\u201340.\n\nPain:\n  expression in children, I, 339\u201350;\n  indications of, II, 401\u20133, 404;\n  loudness of voice, II, 404\u20135.\n\nPainting:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 24\u201330;\n  multiplication of effects, I, 59.\n\nPalmerston, Lord, III, 395.\n\nPal\u00e6ozoic, the title, I, 15.\n\nPaleontology:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 14\u20137;\n  life and multiplication of effects, I, 49\u201353;\n  organic correlation, I, 96\u2013101;\n  age of strata, I, 205\u201312;\n  past and present geological changes, I, 212\u20138;\n  gaps in record, I, 220\u20131, 226\u201332;\n  effect of climate on evidence, I, 221\u20134;\n  and of terrestrial change, I, 224\u20136;\n  effect of upheaval, I, 232\u201340.\n\nPanama Canal, III, 267.\n\nPantheism, rejected by H. Spencer, II, 221.\n\nPaper tax, III, 243; (_see also_ Money.)\n\nParents and offspring, II, 395\u20136, 398.\n\nParabola, relation to circle, I, 5.\n\n_Paradise Lost_, quoted, II, 346.\n\nParasites, natural selection, I, 379\u201380.\n\nParkhurst, criminals at, III, 258.\n\nParliament:\n  analogy to brain, I, 302\u20135;\n  railways and members of, III, 65\u20137, 74\u20137, 83, 86;\n  and parliamentary agents, III, 67\u201371, 108;\n  right of majority, III, 94;\n  belief in acts, III, 109, 306\u20137;\n  20,000 statutes, III, 232;\n  officialism and acts of, III, 258\u20139;\n  badly drawn acts, III, 273;\n  selection of members, III, 291;\n  members of, III, 295\u20139;\n  ineligible members, III, 296;\n  bank act, III, 338, 339, 340;\n  private bills, III, 359;\n  Thames water supply, III, 387\u201392;\n  function, III, 417;\n  (_see also_ Over-legislation.)\n\nParliamentary reform:\n  essay on, III, 358\u201386;\n  apprehended dangers, III, 360\u20138, 368\u201370;\n  direct and indirect taxation, III, 370\u20135;\n  value of representative government, III, 380;\n  Reform Bill, III, 380\u20136.\n\nPassengers Act, failure, III, 241.\n\nPassion, social analogy, I, 269\u201371.\n\nPatent-office, accounts, III, 398.\n\nPatents:\n  failure, III, 456;\n  American, III, 473.\n\nPatterns, piracy, III, 126\n\nPedigree, importance, I, 108; (_see also_ Heredity.)\n\nPeel, Sir Robert:\n  on legislation, III, 280\u20131;\n  Bank Act, III, 338, 339, 340, 357.\n\nPenal code (_see_ Prison ethics.)\n\nPentonville, treatment at, III, 161\u20132.\n\nPerception:\n  relation to science, II, 1\u20138;\n  presentative-representative, I, 261.\n\nPerseverance, of savages, I, 375.\n\nPersonal beauty, essay, II, 387\u201399.\n\nPerthes, B. de, flint implements, I, 413.\n\nPeru, social organization, III, 470.\n\nPestalozzi, H. L., school name, III, 2.\n\nPhanerogams, pollen, I, 439.\n\nPhil\u00e6, granite at, I, 437.\n\nPhilosophy, relation to religion, I, 60\u20132; (_see also_ Comte.)\n\nPhosphorus, allotropic, I, 373.\n\nPhysics:\n  Comte\u2019s classification, II, 21\u20133;\n  genesis, II, 57, 59, 60, 61;\n  interdependence of sciences, II, 67;\n  abstract-concrete science, II, 85\u20138;\n  deals with properties, II, 101, 103;\n  relation to chemistry, II, 109\u201311;\n  evolution, II, 152, 156;\n  _British Quarterly_ Reviewer on, II, 267\u2013301;\n  relation to metaphysics, II, 268;\n  axioms, II, 270, 277\u201388, 297;\n  their origin, II, 298\u2013301, 313\u20134, 315\u201320.\n\nPhysiology:\n  transcendental, I, 63\u2013107;\n  deductive, I, 76\u201381;\n  organic correlation, I, 96\u2013101;\n  individual and social organism, I, 101\u20137;\n  concrete science, II, 92;\n  development, II, 423.\n\nPicnic, interest in, II, 374.\n\nPictures, subjects of historical, II, 373; (_see also_ Painting.)\n\nPigeons:\n  beak and tongue, I, 401;\n  heredity and variation, I, 414\u20135;\n  use and disuse, I, 418;\n  origin of music, II, 428.\n\nPigs, use and disuse, I, 419.\n\nPins, stellar analogy, I, 161.\n\nPitcher plant, evolution, I, 394.\n\nPity, comparative psychology, I, 368.\n\nPlacards, derivation, I, 28.\n\nPlanetoids:\n  origin, I, 167\u201380;\n  number, I, 168, 171, 179;\n  distances, I, 169, 172, 179;\n  orbits, I, 169\u201370, 173\u20134, 179;\n  distribution, I, 171;\n  magnitudes, I, 172;\n  periods, I, 177;\n  velocity, I, 180.\n\nPlanets:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 11;\n  origin, I, 39, 153;\n  direction, I, 127, 129, 153;\n  planes of, and solar equator, I, 131\u20132;\n  axial movements, I, 132\u20136, 153;\n  arrangement and number of satellites, I, 137, 139\u201341;\n  density and heat, I, 144\u20138, 148\u201352;\n  structure, I, 163\u20137, 182;\n  origin of minor, I, 167\u201380;\n  origin of meteors, I, 174\u20137;\n  (_see also_ Astronomy.)\n\nPlants:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 14\u20137, 35;\n  structure, I, 73, 76, 391\u20132;\n  form, I, 73, 76;\n  chemical composition, I, 74, 76;\n  specific gravity, I, 74, 70;\n  temperature, I, 74, 76;\n  self-mobility, I, 75, 76;\n  evolution and homogeneity I, 83\u20134;\n  heat and distribution, I, 223\u20134;\n  also terrestrial change, I, 224\u20136;\n  and animals, I, 375\u20136;\n  evolution and sensitive, I, 377;\n  cambium, I, 449\u201350.\n\nPlateau, J. A. F., fluid rotation, I, 131.\n\nPlato, Republic, 269\u201372.\n\nPleasure:\n  expression in children, I, 339\u201350;\n  indications of, II, 401\u20133, 404;\n  loudness of voice, II, 404\u20135;\n  bodily effect, II, 454\u20138;\n  destroyed by formality, III, 36\u201346;\n  and life, III, 315;\n  social and individual organism, III, 411;\n  American life, III, 489\u201390.\n\nPlough, Hindoo worship of, II, 354.\n\nPlumber, action of pump, I, 425.\n\nPoetry:\n  origin and differentiation, I, 30\u20132;\n  and prose, II, 357\u201361;\n  development of epic and lyric, II, 416;\n  and government, III, 430\u20131.\n\nPointers, use and disuse, I, 470\u20131.\n\nPolice, officialism, III, 396\u20137.\n\nPolitical economy:\n  and railways, III, 101\u20133;\n  flow of capital, III, 264;\n  representative government, III, 303;\n  efflux of gold, III, 341\u20133.\n\nPolitics:\n  use and disuse, I, 463\u20135;\n  and costume, III, 1\u20135, 30;\n  definition, III, 226.\n\n_Polyzoa_:\n  form, I, 73;\n  composition, I, 74;\n  not sea-weeds, I, 248;\n  analogy to social organism, I, 281.\n\nPoor law, action of, III, 244.\n\nPope, A., literary style, II, 365.\n\nPorcupine, evolution of quills, I, 394\u20135.\n\nPositivism (_see_ Comte.)\n\nPost-office:\n  and officialism, III, 252;\n  and government, III, 440\u20132.\n\nPotato, complexity, III, 196.\n\nPoverty, effect of, III, 143\u20139.\n\nPredicate, arrangement of sentences, II, 342\u20134.\n\nPreference stock, effect, III, 86\u20138, 108.\n\nPrevision:\n  and science, II, 1\u20138;\n  origin of quantitative, II, 41\u20139.\n\nPrinting:\n  increase of heterogeneity, I, 26;\n  analogy from press, I, 98, II, 33;\n  printer\u2019s union rules, III, 364\u20135;\n  anomaly, III, 401.\n\nPrison Ethics:\n  essay on, III, 152\u201391;\n  relative and absolute ethics, III, 152\u20137, 188;\n  treatment of criminals, III, 157\u201363;\n  laws of life, III, 163\u201371;\n  self-maintenance, III, 168\u201371;\n  foreign prisons and reformatories, III, 172\u20138;\n  evils of excessive punishment, III, 178\u201380;\n  improved system of discipline, III, 180\u20137, 189\u201391;\n  and social state, III, 187\u20139;\n  Indian prisons, III, 189\u201391.\n\nProcter, R.A., nebular distance, I, 118.\n\nProfit, defined, I, 290.\n\nProgress:\n  its law and cause, I, 8\u201362, 81, III, 323;\n  current conception, I, 8\u20139;\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 9\u201310.\n\n_Prometheus Unbound_, quoted, II, 353.\n\nPromissory notes, State tamperings with money, III, 326\u201335, 335\u201347, 356.\n\nProperty:\n  emotion of possession, I, 253, 263, 307, II, 421;\n  and parliamentary reform, III, 358\u201360, 367\u20138.\n\nPropositions:\n  the thinkable, I, 383;\n  ultimate test, II, 14;\n  states of consciousness, II, 205\u20138;\n  testing of reasoning, II, 208\u201311;\n  arrangement of sentences, II, 344.\n\nProse:\n  and poetry, II, 357\u201361;\n  contrast in, II, 374.\n\nProtection, and officialism, III, 268\u201370.\n\n_Protophyta_:\n  composition, I, 74;\n  self-mobility, I, 75;\n  instability of homogeneous, I, 86;\n  social analogy, I, 277;\n  cell membrane, I, 439.\n\nProtoplasm, action of light, I, 465\u20136.\n\n_Protozoa_:\n  differentiation from environment, I, 73;\n  self-mobility, I, 75;\n  instability of homogeneous, I, 86;\n  social analogy, I, 277\u201383;\n  cell membrane, I, 440;\n  development, I, 452.\n\nProudhon, P. J., policy, III, 417.\n\nProxies, railway, III, 76, 78.\n\nPsychology:\n  relation of science to religion, I, 61\u20132;\n  _The Emotions and The Will_, I, 241\u201364;\n  organization provisional, I, 241\u20135;\n  classification of emotions, I, 245\u201357;\n  evolution of emotions, I, 250\u20137;\n  Bain\u2019s definition of emotion and volition, I, 258\u201360;\n  also feeling and sensation, I, 260;\n  classification of mind, I, 260\u20134;\n  comparative, of man in outline, I, 351, 353;\n  mental and bodily mass, I, 353\u20134;\n  mental complexity, I, 354\u20135;\n  rate of development, I, 355;\n  relative plasticity, I, 355\u20136;\n  variability, I, 356\u20137;\n  impulsiveness, I, 357\u20139;\n  effect of race inter-mixture, I, 359\u201360;\n  effect of sex, I, 361\u20134;\n  imitativeness, I, 364;\n  curiosity, I, 364\u20135;\n  peculiar aptitudes, I, 366;\n  sociality, freedom, approbation, and acquisitiveness, I, 366\u20137;\n  altruistic sentiments, I, 367\u20139;\n  evolution of mind, I, 376\u20138, 381\u20136;\n  use and disuse, I, 463\u20135;\n  Hegel\u2019s classification, II, 12\u20135;\n  concrete science, II, 92, 100;\n  terrestrial evolution, II, 96;\n  Bain on logic, II, 105\u20136;\n  origin of knowledge, II, 122\u20135;\n  Comte on, II, 131;\n  Sidgwick on _Principles_, II, 238\u201350.\n\nPublishers, local integration, I, 103.\n\nPump, action of, I, 425\u20136.\n\nPunishment (_see_ Prison Ethics.)\n\nPyramids, architectural types, II, 379.\n\nQuakers:\n  intonation, II, 416;\n  nonconformity, III, 2.\n\n_Quarterly Review_, criticism, II, 259\u201365.\n\nRabbits, use and disuse, I, 418.\n\nRailways:\n  effects, I, 56\u20138;\n  distributing systems, I, 296\u20138;\n  morals and policy, III, 52\u2013112;\n  directors, III, 52\u201363, 69;\n  extensions, III, 56\u20139, 71\u20132, 82\u20138, 91, 94, 96, 101\u20137, 107\u20138;\n  dividends, III, 57, 98\u20139, 105\u20136;\n  book-keeping, III, 59;\n  and land-owners, III, 63\u20137;\n  and members of parliament, III, 65\u20137, 74\u20137, 83;\n  and lawyers, III, 67\u201372, 83, 88, 108;\n  and engineers, III, 68\u201372, 83, 88, 108;\n  contractors, III, 72\u20134, 83;\n  boards, 77\u20138;\n  shares, 80\u20132, 108;\n  effect of competing lines, III, 97\u20138, 107;\n  safety, III, 99\u2013100;\n  cause and remedy of corruptions, III, 88\u201396;\n  secondary organizations, III, 92\u20133;\n  and political economy, III, 101\u20133;\n  capital, III, 108;\n  proprietary contract, III, 108\u2013112;\n  and coaching, III, 110\u20132, 255;\n  relative and absolute ethics, III, 155\u20137;\n  state inspection, III, 239\u201340;\n  individualism, III, 249;\n  evolution, III, 256, 266;\n  diffusion of literature, III, 262;\n  winding up act, III, 273;\n  legislature and accidents, III, 275;\n  English enterprise, III, 279;\n  maladministration, III, 285\u20136;\n  representative government, III, 296, 302, 304;\n  inspection, III, 399;\n  anomaly, III, 401;\n  English and French, III, 428;\n  and government, III, 437;\n  in America, III, 478.\n\nRainbow, beliefs about, II, 154.\n\nRamsgate, harbour, III, 248.\n\nRealism, Sidgwick\u2019s criticism, II, 242\u201350.\n\nReason:\n  social analogy, I, 269\u201371;\n  limited sphere, II, 221;\n  judgment of common sense, II, 243\u20134.\n\nReasoning:\n  recognition of likeness, II, 33\u20134, 37, 40;\n  of Kant, III, 199\u2013203;\n  of metaphysicians, II, 201\u20135, 208\u201311;\n  a testing of conclusions, II, 208\u201311;\n  (_see also_ Logic.)\n\nRecitative:\n  ancient and modern, II, 415\u20138;\n  Gurney on, II, 439.\n\nReflection, belief in spirits, I, 310\u20133.\n\nReflex action:\n  and emotion, I, 258;\n  impulsiveness, I, 358;\n  indication of feelings, II, 403;\n  examples, III, 453.\n\nReform:\n  and costume, III, 1\u20135;\n  and custom, III, 31.\n\nReform bill:\n  representative government, III, 294;\n  fear of, III, 358;\n  of Lord Russell, III, 380\u20136.\n\nReformation, change by, III, 49.\n\nRegulative system, social, III, 458\u201364.\n\nRelative, Martineau on the, II, 250\u20138.\n\nReligion:\n  increase of heterogeneity, I, 20\u20133;\n  relation to early art, I, 27;\n  and to science, I, 60\u20132;\n  rudimentary form of all, I, 309;\n  object of sentiment, II, 132;\n  and science, Caird on, II, 219\u201321;\n  Mansel\u2019s criticism, II, 221\u20135;\n  Grotz on, II, 225;\n  manners and law, III, 4, 23;\n  primitive ideas, III, 6\u201311;\n  and state, III, 11;\n  for primitive man, III, 24;\n  representative government, III, 301;\n  and government, III, 434.\n\nRepair, and waste, II, 362\u20137.\n\nRepresentative government:\n  knowledge of representatives, III, 300\u20139;\n  and despotism, III, 309\u201310;\n  and monarchy, III, 310\u20137;\n  superiority, III, 317\u201323, 323\u20135;\n  value of, III, 380.\n\nReproductive system, and organic evolution, I, 409, 412, 422\u20135.\n\nReptiles:\n  evolution and heterogeneity, I, 15\u20137;\n  paleontological remains, I, 227, 237, 240.\n\nRepublicanism, American, III, 474\u20135, 478\u20139.\n\nRespiration, effect of emotion, II, 459.\n\nReviewing, morals of trade, III, 139.\n\nRhythm, in speech, II, 440.\n\nRibbon, morals of trade, III, 127.\n\nRight (_see_ Ethics.)\n\nRoads, distributing system, I, 296\u20138.\n\nRobbery:\n  social co-operation, III, 217\u201320;\n  of Messrs. Walker, III, 439.\n\nRoberts, I., photographs of, I, 180.\n\nRobinson, F., Icarian colony, III, 457.\n\nRocking stone, origin, I, 437.\n\nRocks, age of, I, 198\u2013205.\n\n_Rodentia_, transverse integration, I, 69.\n\nRomilly, Sir S., on judicial system, III, 272.\n\nRooks, cawing of, I, 337, 338.\n\nRoots, imbedded and exposed, I, 447.\n\nRosse, Lord, nebular hypothesis, I, 110\u20131.\n\nRossini, G. A., heredity, I, 406.\n\nRoyal Institution, III, 436.\n\nRoyal Society, published barnacle goose myth, II, 162.\n\nRuskin, J., effects of art, I, 59.\n\nRussell, Lord John:\n  on minorities, III, 295;\n  reform bill, III, 380\u20136.\n\nRussia:\n  age of rocks in, I, 200\u20131, 206;\n  paper currency, III, 345.\n\nSachs, J., on cell membranes, I, 438\u20139.\n\nSafety, in railways, III, 99\u2013100.\n\nSatellites:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 11;\n  origin, I, 39;\n  arrangement and number, I, 137\u20138;\n  distribution, I, 138;\n  number and forces, I, 139\u201340;\n  motion, I, 141\u20133, 153\u20134.\n\nSaturn:\n  origin of rings, I, 39;\n  rotatory movement, I, 135, 136;\n  motion of satellites, I, 137;\n  their distance, I, 138;\n  their number, I, 139\u201340;\n  rotation of rings, I, 142;\n  location, I, 143;\n  density and heat, I, 144\u20138, 148\u201352.\n\nSaxon words, II, 336\u20138.\n\nScales, unstable equilibrium of, I, 82.\n\nScepticism, reasoning of, II, 201.\n\nSchleiden, M. J., cell doctrine, I, 443.\n\nSchool, Price\u2019s, III, 256.\n\nSchopenhauer, A., ethics, III, 212.\n\nSchwann, T., cell doctrine, I, 443.\n\nScience:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 34\u20135;\n  multiplication of effects, I, 59;\n  relation to religion, I, 60\u20132;\n  establishment of causation, I, 109;\n  creed fatal to, I, 463;\n  and common knowledge, II, 1\u20138, 29, 71;\n  Oken\u2019s classification, II, 9\u201312;\n  Hegel\u2019s, II, 12\u20135;\n  Comte\u2019s, II, 15\u201329;\n  progress analytic and synthetic, II, 24\u20137;\n  linear arrangement, II, 27\u20139;\n  interdependent with arts, II, 67\u201371, 94\u20139;\n  summary of genesis, II, 71\u20133;\n  interdependence of, II, 94\u20139;\n  Comte and Positivism, II, 118\u201322, 128, 139;\n  origin and evolution, II, 150\u20137;\n  \u201cpractical,\u201d II, 151;\n  Caird on religion and science, II, 219\u201321;\n  exact, III, 199\u2013200.\n\nSciences, Classification of the:\n  Littr\u00e9 on Comte\u2019s, II, 74\u20136;\n  characteristics of a true, II, 76;\n  abstract concrete, II, 77\u20138, 85\u201388, 92\u20134;\n  concrete, II, 77\u201381, 88\u201392, 92\u20134;\n  divisions of abstract, II, 81\u20135, 92\u20134;\n  needs three dimensions, II, 92\u20134;\n  concrete deals with aggregates, II, 99\u2013103;\n  abstract-concrete, with properties, II, 101\u20133;\n  abstract with relations, II, 102\u20133;\n  Bain, II, 105\u201317;\n  Mill, II, 114;\n  Comte, II, 130.\n\nScotch, dialect, II, 424.\n\nScotland:\n  age of rocks, I, 198\u2013205;\n  bank success, III, 348.\n\nScott, Sir W., anecdote of, II, 466.\n\nScrofula, heredity, II, 395.\n\nSculpture, heterogeneity of, I, 24\u201330.\n\nSea, action on:\n  geological formations, I, 212, 213;\n  upheaved land, I, 232\u201340;\n  shores, I, 431\u20132, 444.\n\nSelene, the myth, I, 326.\n\nSenior wrangler, criticism of, II, 302\u20135, 305\u20137.\n\nSensations:\n  defined, I, 260, 262;\n  evolution, I, 264;\n  demonstration of, II, 401\u20133;\n  pleasure of music, II, 444\u20135;\n  (_see also_ Psychology.)\n\nSense, disablement of organs, III, 116\u20137.\n\nSentences, arrangement of, II, 341\u201350.\n\nSettlement, failure of law of, III, 244.\n\nSewers commission, III, 238, 248.\n\nSex:\n  mental development, I, 355;\n  comparative psychology, I, 361\u20134.\n\nShadows:\n  belief in spirits, I, 310\u20135;\n  colour, II, 165\u20136.\n\nShares:\n  railway, III, 80\u20132, 108;\n  directors and holders of, III, 82\u20138;\n  preference, III, 86;\n  depressed by rail extension, III, 94, 98\u20139, 106;\n  morals of banking, III, 131\u20137;\n  relative and absolute ethics, III, 155\u20137.\n\nShakespeare, W., I, 317, III, 283.\n\nShears, analogy from iron, I, 97\u20138.\n\nSheep, English and French, II, 396, 398.\n\nShell, use and beauty, II, 370.\n\nShips:\n  naval maladministration, III, 233\u20134, 247, 248, 251, 252, 258, 259;\n  private administration, III, 234, 238;\n  and Admiralty certificate, III, 239, 241;\n  tonnage law, III, 244;\n  officialism, III, 253;\n  mercantile marine acts, III, 260;\n  screw propeller, III, 261;\n  representative government, III, 301.\n\nShoes, removing, III, 17.\n\nShooting stars, origin, I, 174\u20137.\n\nShopkeepers, lying and believing, III, 118.\n\nSidgwick, H., criticism, II, 238\u201350.\n\nSight:\n  and exercise, II, 362, 363;\n  and state of faculties, II, 364.\n\nSignature, of orders, III, 120.\n\nSignor, the title, III, 14, 21.\n\nSigns, force of gesticulative, II, 335.\n\nSilk, trade morals, III, 120, 124\u20137.\n\nSilurian system:\n  age, I, 198\u2013205;\n  paleontological evidence, I, 206\u20137;\n  thickness, I, 231.\n\nSimile:\n  use and position, II, 350\u20132;\n  and metaphor, II, 354.\n\nSinging, II, 410\u20134; (_see also_ Music.)\n\nSir, the title, III, 14, 15, 16, 21, 26.\n\nSirius, distance from sun, I, 113, 114.\n\nSkating, grace in, II, 385.\n\nSkin, action of medicine, I, 448, 450.\n\nSkull, personal beauty, II, 389\u201390, 391.\n\nSlave trade, former opinion, III, 141.\n\nSmall-pox, effects, I, 47.\n\nSmell, sense of:\n  and eye position, I, 72;\n  in dogs, I, 470;\n  exercise, II, 362.\n\nSmith, Adam:\n  theory of morals, I, 346;\n  importance, III, 316;\n  non-university training, III, 377\u20138.\n\nSmoke bill, of London, III, 250.\n\nSneeze, and laughter, II, 460.\n\nSnow, officialism, II, 249\u201350.\n\nSoap:\n  adulterant, III, 125;\n  tax, III, 243.\n\nSocial organism:\n  the, I, 265\u2013307;\n  analogy to individual, I, 269\u201372, 272\u20133, 277, 291\u20138, 306\u20137, III, 411\u201316;\n  difference, I, 273\u20137;\n  analogy to lower animal forms, I, 277\u201383;\n  division of labour, I, 283\u201391.\n\n_Social Statics_:\n  origin of morals, I, 332\u20133;\n  of sympathy, I, 317;\n  Comte and title of, II, 134\u20137;\n  thesis of, II, 262.\n\nSocialism:\n  compulsory co-operation, III, 454\u20136;\n  and regulative system, III, 460\u20134;\n  effect, III, 467;\n  evils, III, 467\u201370.\n\nSociality, and psychology, I, 366\u20137, 368.\n\nSociety:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 19\u201323, 35;\n  a growth, I, 265\u20139, 306;\n  the ideal, II, 131\u20132;\n  self-conscious, III, 141;\n  influence of wealth, III, 143\u20139;\n  political ethics and the individual, III, 226\u20138;\n  evolution, III, 263\u20135;\n  increasing complexity, III, 323\u20135;\n  average morality, III, 359;\n  and individual organism, III, 411\u20136;\n  regulative system, III, 463;\n  (_see also_ Prison Ethics, Sociology.)\n\nSociology:\n  multiplication of effects, I, 53\u201360;\n  homogeneity unstable, I, 83;\n  individual and social organism, I, 101\u20137;\n  psychical traits and social state, I, 354, 355;\n  conservatism, I, 356;\n  mental variability, I, 356\u20137;\n  impulsiveness, I, 357\u20139;\n  effect of mixing races, I, 359\u201360;\n  and of sexes, I, 361\u20134;\n  curiosity, I, 361\u20135;\n  imitativeness, I, 364;\n  peculiar aptitudes, I, 366;\n  sociality, freedom, approbation, and acquisitiveness, I, 366\u20137;\n  altruistic sentiments, 367\u20139;\n  use and disuse, I, 463\u20135;\n  genesis, II, 57;\n  concrete science, II, 92;\n  terrestrial evolution, II, 96;\n  deals with aggregates, II, 100, 103;\n  a word of Comte\u2019s, II, 133;\n  universality of law, II, 159;\n  representative government, III, 302;\n  life, III, 325;\n  education, III, 375\u20139;\n  cause and effect, III, 487\u201392.\n\nSolar system:\n  heterogeneity, I, 10\u201311;\n  origin, I, 108\u201310;\n  Laplace on, I, 128\u20139;\n  evolution, I, 128\u201331.\n\nSolicitor, and trader, III, 139.\n\nSound:\n  multiplication of effects, I, 37;\n  Kantian ideas of space, II, 227;\n  as illustrating crude and transfigured realism, II, 245\u20136;\n  velocity, II, 267;\n  sensation, III, 197.\n\nSpace:\n  concept of, I, 247;\n  Hutton on intuitions of, I, 339;\n  classification of science, II, 77, 81\u20135;\n  Bain on nature of mathematics, II, 105\u20136;\n  Hamilton II, 191\u20132;\n  Hodgson, II, 220\u201334;\n  Kant, II, 220\u20137, 229\u201332, 236\u20138;\n  Martineau, II, 257;\n  consciousness, II, 308;\n  Kant and evolution, III, 197\u20139, 203, 207.\n\nSpain:\n  contracts in, III, 218;\n  representative government, III, 317\u20139.\n\nSpalding, D., experiments of, II, 226.\n\nSparta, social type, III, 415.\n\nSpecial creation:\n  lack of facts, I, 1;\n  and evolution, I, 1\u20137;\n  conception of, I, 265.\n\nSpecialized administration, III, 401\u201344.\n\nSpecies:\n  number of, I, 1;\n  evolution and creation, I, 1\u20137;\n  effect of upheavals, I, 49\u201352;\n  of climate, I, 221\u20134;\n  of terrestrial change, I, 224\u20136;\n  fertility of varieties, II, 397\u20138.\n\nSpecific gravity:\n  of animals and plants, I, 74, 76;\n  of planets, I, 144\u20138, 154;\n  solar system, I, 163.\n\nSpectrum analysis, complexity of elements, I, 372\u20134.\n\nSpeech, figures of, II, 350\u20135; (_see also_ Language.)\n\nSpencer, Herbert, propositions held by, II, 125\u201332.\n\nSpencer, Rev. Thomas, III, 361.\n\nSpheroid, ring formation, I, 133\u20134.\n\nSpine, and evolution, III, 205.\n\nSpirit, the word misleading, I, 311.\n\nSpirits, belief in, I, 311\u20132, 344.\n\nSponges:\n  form of, I, 73;\n  instability of homogeneous, I, 87.\n\nStaccato, in singing, II, 412.\n\nStaffordshire, potteries, I, 266.\n\nStage coach, III, 110\u20132, 255.\n\nStars:\n  distribution of nebul\u00e6, I, 112\u20138;\n  magnitude and distance, I, 115\u20138;\n  Sir W. Herschel on genesis, I, 129;\n  distance apart, I, 161;\n  star as name, I, 317, 326;\n  Kant\u2019s awe of universe, III, 192, 195;\n  (_see also_ Astronomy.)\n\nState, the:\n  duty of, III, 236;\n  and religion, III, 11, 23, 50;\n  (_see also_ Over-legislation.)\n\nStatics, Comte\u2019s classification, II, 19.\n\nSteam power, effects, I, 56\u20138.\n\nStephenson, R., on railways, III, 105\u20136.\n\nStereoscope, analogy from, II, 265.\n\nStick, equilibrium of, I, 82.\n\nStocking trade, and officialism, III, 262.\n\nStonehenge, use and beauty, II, 371\u20132.\n\nStrikes, III, 362\u20134, 365, 383.\n\nStrings, in musical instruments, II, 415.\n\nStructure:\n  animal and vegetal, I, 73\u20137;\n  relation to function, I, 249.\n\nStyle:\n  philosophy of, II, 333\u201369;\n  forcibleness of Saxon, II, 336\u20137;\n  and brevity, II, 337\u20138;\n  specific expression, II, 338\u20139;\n  sequence of words, II, 339\u201341;\n  arrangement of sentences, II, 341\u20137;\n  direct and indirect, II, 347\u201350;\n  figures of speech, II, 350\u20135.\n\nSubject:\n  consciousness of, II, 211\u20134;\n  relation to object, II, 323\u201332;\n  arrangement of sentences, II, 342\u20134.\n\nSubstantive and adjective, II, 340\u20131.\n\nSugar, morals of trade, III, 121\u20133, 125.\n\nSuicide, belief in another world, II, 223.\n\nSun:\n  origin, I, 39;\n  distance from Sirius, I, 113, 114;\n  density and heat, I, 144\u20138, 148\u201352;\n  content of, I, 151;\n  atmosphere, I, 151;\n  temperature, I, 151;\n  constitution, I, 153, 182\u201391;\n  duration of heat, I, 101;\n  willow-leaves and rice grains, I, 186, 188;\n  facul\u00e6 I, 186\u20137;\n  Faye\u2019s sun-spot theory, I, 183\u20134, 188\u20139;\n  cyclonic theory, I, 187\u201391;\n  as name, I, 317, 326, 327, 328.\n\nSurvival of the fittest:\n  Martineau on evolution, I, 379\u201381;\n  a factor only of evolution, I, 397\u2013400, 400\u20135, 405\u20138, 421\u20135;\n  and heredity, I, 408\u201312, 412\u20135;\n  the phrase, I, 429\u201330;\n  and effect of medium, I, 444\u20135;\n  and nervous system, I, 457\u20138;\n  early action of, I, 460\u20132;\n  Huxley on, I, 462\u20133;\n  Duke of Argyll\u2019s criticism, I, 467\u201378;\n  three factors, I, 472.\n\nSwift, J., on manners, III, 44.\n\nSwiss, architecture, II, 379.\n\nSyllables, style and length, II, 337\u20138.\n\nSyllogism, Hodgson on, II, 231.\n\nSymbolization, infrequent, I, 322.\n\nSymmetry, in buildings and animals, II, 376\u20137.\n\nSympathy:\n  altruism, I, 346;\n  comparative psychology, I, 368\u20139;\n  and gracefulness, II, 386;\n  music, II, 424\u20136;\n  morals of trade, III, 142\u20133.\n\n_Syncrypta_, life in, I, 443.\n\nSynecdoche, effective, II, 350.\n\nSynthesis, chemical, I, 374.\n\nSynthetic philosophy, outline, II, 140\u20132.\n\nTailor, morals of trade, III, 117.\n\nTait, P. G.:\n  on natural philosophy, II, 269, 315\u201320;\n  axioms, II, 270, 298\u2013301, 315\u201320;\n  laws of motion, II, 271\u20135, 277\u201388, 299\u2013320;\n  ultimate scientific ideas, II, 289;\n  central forces, II, 290\u201393;\n  on synthetic philosophy, II, 294\u20136.\n\nTalent, relation to desire, I, 54.\n\nTamberlik, E., ut de poitrine, II, 442.\n\nTanner, Prof. E., use and disuse, I, 419.\n\nTape, morals of trade, III, 118, 119.\n\nTaste, exhausted by exercise, II, 362.\n\nTaxes, and parliament, III, 371\u20135.\n\nTeeth:\n  organic correlation, I, 96\u2013101;\n  size of jaw, I, 401.\n\nTelegrams, officialism, III, 396\u20137.\n\nTelegraphs:\n  analogous to nerves, I, 306;\n  private enterprise, III, 234.\n\nTelephone, in America, III, 472.\n\nTemperance society, III, 446.\n\nTemperature:\n  of solar system, I, 11;\n  animal and vegetal, I, 74, 76;\n  vegetal density, I, 144\u20138, 148\u201352;\n  solar, I, 151;\n  chemical unions, I, 159;\n  duration of solar, I, 161\u20133;\n  evolution of, and nebular hypothesis, I, 159\u201363.\n\nTen hours bill, III, 362, 365.\n\nTenby, sea shore, I, 432.\n\nTennyson, Lord, quoted, II, 356, III, 314.\n\n_Thalassicolla_, instability of homogeneous, I, 87.\n\nThames:\n  sewers commission, III, 238;\n  water supply, III, 387\u201392.\n\nTheft, punishment, III, 233.\n\nThermo-electricity, what is? II, 172\u20136.\n\nThermology, genesis, II, 61.\n\nThomson, Sir W., terrestrial density, I, 149.\n\nThomson, Sir W., and Prof. Tait, on physical axioms, III, 220\u20131.\n\nThorns, protection and growth of, I, 391.\n\nTicket of leave, system, III, 244.\n\nTime:\n  measures of, II, 45\u20139;\n  classification of science, II, 77, 81\u20135;\n  S. H. Hodgson on, II, 226\u201334;\n  Kant, II, 226\u20137, 229\u201332, 236\u20138, III, 197\u20139, 207;\n  Martineau\u2019s criticism, II, 257;\n  terrestrial motion, II, 272;\n  Emerson on, II, 354.\n\nTitles, evolution of, III, 11\u20136, 23, 27\u20138.\n\nTodleben, Gen. F. E. von, III, 309\u201310.\n\nTotemism, I, 309\u201317.\n\nTown councils:\n  representative government, III, 288;\n  parliamentary reform, III, 369\u201370, 371, 372.\n\nTown hall, building of, III, 372.\n\nTrade:\n  localization, I, 22;\n  morals of, III, 113\u201351, 448\u20139;\n  adulteration, III, 113, 121\u20133;\n  bribery, III, 114\u20138;\n  short weight, III, 118\u20139;\n  circulars, III, 123\u20134;\n  silk manufacture, III, 124\u20137;\n  candle making, III, 128;\n  elastic webbing, III, 129;\n  bankruptcy, III, 129\u201331;\n  morals of banking, III, 131\u20137;\n  average morality, III, 137\u201340;\n  and sympathy, III, 142\u20133;\n  homage to wealth, III, 143\u20139, 149\u201351;\n  ethics of free trade, III, 154;\n  (_see also_ Industry.)\n\nTrade unions:\n  parliamentary reform, III, 362\u20138, 384;\n  tyranny of, III, 382, 383;\n  selfishness, III, 465\u20137, 469.\n\nTramps, and poor law, III, 244.\n\nTranscendental Physiology (_see_ Physiology.)\n\nTremolo, in singing, II, 412.\n\nTriangle, space perception, II, 309.\n\nTrigonometry, evolution, II, 55, 155.\n\nTruth, denial of, II, 259\u201365.\n\nTyndall, J.:\n  on heat, II, 173;\n  of light, II, 178.\n\nTzigane, music, II, 450\u20131.\n\nUlcer, effects on skin, I, 448\u20139.\n\nUnbelievable, Mill on word, II, 193\u2013200.\n\nUnited States (_see_ America.)\n\nUniversity, training, III, 377\u20138.\n\nUnknowable, The:\n  knowledge of, II, 220;\n  Hodgson on, II, 234;\n  Martineau on, II, 250\u20138.\n\nUnstable equilibrium, of homogeneity, I, 81\u20134.\n\nUranus:\n  axial motion, I, 133\u20136;\n  motion of satellites, I, 137;\n  their distance, I, 138;\n  their number, I, 139\u201340;\n  density and heat, I, 144\u20138, 148\u201352.\n\n_Uroglena_, life in, I, 443.\n\nUse, and beauty, II, 370\u20134; (_see also_ Heredity.)\n\nUtilitarianism,  and Mr. Spencer\u2019s views, I, 334, 338, 347\u201350.\n\nValencia, prison discipline, III, 177\u20138.\n\nVariability, mental, I, 356\u20137.\n\nVariation, natural selection and heredity, I, 408\u201312, 421.\n\nVarieties:\n  effect of union, I, 359;\n  fertility, II, 397\u20138.\n\nVascular system:\n  deductive biology, I, 78\u201381;\n  development, I, 285\u20136;\n  and evolution, III, 204.\n\n_Vaucheria_, cell membrane, I, 439.\n\nVeddahs, invocation of, I, 311\u20132.\n\nVenus:\n  motion, I, 135, 136;\n  satellites, I, 139\u201341;\n  density and heat, I, 144\u20138, 148\u201352.\n\nVertebr\u00e6, evolution, I, 395, III, 205.\n\n_Vertebrata_:\n  evolution and heterogeneity, I, 15\u20137, 17\u20139;\n  integration, I, 68\u201371;\n  position of eyes, I, 71\u20132;\n  self-mobility, I, 76;\n  germ and instability of homogeneous, I, 88;\n  cervical vertebr\u00e6, II, 83;\n  origin of music, II, 432;\n  controlling system, III, 407.\n\n_Vestiges of Creation_, and evolution, I, 390.\n\nVienna, English enterprise in, III, 278.\n\nVoice:\n  feelings and loudness, II, 404, 410;\n  timbre, II, 405, 411;\n  pitch, II, 406, 411;\n  intervals, II, 406\u20139, 411;\n  variability, II, 409, 411;\n  ordinary and singing, II, 410\u20134.\n\nVolition, Bain\u2019s definition, I, 258\u20139.\n\n_Volvox_:\n  instability of homogeneous, I, 87;\n  life in, I, 443;\n  development, I, 456.\n\nWales, age of rocks, I, 198\u2013205, 207\u20138.\n\nWalker, Messrs., robbery at, III, 439.\n\nWalking:\n  effect of blister, I, 404;\n  grace in, II, 382.\n\nWaste, and repair, II, 362\u20137.\n\nWater:\n  compound, I, 372;\n  government carts and officialism, III, 249;\n  and supply, III, 387\u201392, 429.\n\nWealth, homage to, III, 143\u20139, 149\u201351.\n\nWeapons, division of labour, I, 54.\n\nWeber, K. M. von, heredity, I, 406.\n\nWeight, measures of, II, 43\u20135.\n\nWerner, A. G.:\n  geological theory, I, 194\u20137;\n  influence of, I, 201.\n\nWhales, not fish, I, 247.\n\nWhately, Abp.:\n  metaphor and simile, II, 352;\n  political economy, III, 423\u20134.\n\nWhewell, W.:\n  _History of Inductive Sciences_, II, 23;\n  electrical theory, II, 62.\n\nWhirlwind, sun-spot analogy, I, 190\u20131.\n\nWhite, perception of, III, 196.\n\nWill, the:\n  social analogy, I, 269\u201371;\n  Kant on, III, 201\u20133;\n  (_see also_ Psychology.)\n\nWills, registrars of, III, 251.\n\nWisdom, the collective, III, 387\u201392.\n\nWolf, as name, I, 312\u20133, 315, 316, 321.\n\nWollaston, W. H., insect colours, I, 433.\n\nWomen:\n  comparative psychology and sex, I, 361\u20134;\n  size of jaw, I, 398;\n  treatment of, III, 445\u20136.\n\nWool, industry and locality, I, 104.\n\nWords (_see_ Language.)\n\nWorkpeople, residences, III, 447.\n\nWriting:\n  increase in heterogeneity, I, 24\u20136;\n  derived from picture language, II, 33.\n\nYorkshire, woollen industry, I, 266.\n\nYours faithfully, etc., III, 16, 26.\n\nZoology:\n  genesis, II, 57;\n  classification, II, 64;\n  discovery of laws, II, 149\u201350.\n\nZoophytes, evolution of mind, I, 377.\n\nZulus, ethics, III, 193.\n\nZygomatic arches, and beauty, II, 390\u20132.\n\n\n\n\nMR. HERBERT SPENCER\u2019S WORKS.\n\n_A SYSTEM OF SYNTHETIC PHILOSOPHY._\n\n\n _8th Thousand._\n (WITH AN APPENDIX DEALING WITH CRITICISMS.)\n In one vol. 8vo, cloth, price 16s.,\n FIRST PRINCIPLES.\n\nCONTENTS.\n\nPART I.\u2014THE UNKNOWABLE.\n\n 1. Religion and Science.\n 2. Ultimate Religious Ideas.\n 3. Ultimate Scientific Ideas.\n 4. The Relativity of All Knowledge.\n 5. The Reconciliation.\n\nPART II.\u2014THE KNOWABLE.\n\n 1. Philosophy Defined\n 2. The Data of Philosophy.\n 3. Space, Time, Matter, Motion, and Force.\n 4. The Indestructibility of Matter.\n 5. The Continuity of Motion.\n 6. The Persistence of Force.\n 7. The Persistence of Relations among Forces.\n 8. The Transformation and Equivalence of Forces.\n 9. The Direction of Motion.\n 10. The Rhythm of Motion.\n 11. Recapitulation, Criticism, and Recommencement.\n 12. Evolution and Dissolution.\n 13. Simple and Compound Evolution.\n 14. The Law of Evolution.\n 15. The Law of Evolution, continued.\n 16. The Law of Evolution, continued.\n 17. The Law of Evolution, concluded.\n 18. The Interpretation of Evolution.\n 19. The Instability of the Homogeneous.\n 20. The Multiplication of Effects.\n 21. Segregation.\n 22. Equilibration.\n 23. Dissolution.\n 24. Summary and Conclusion.\n\n\n _4th Thousand._\n In two vols. 8vo, cloth, price 34s.\n THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY.\n\nCONTENTS OF VOL. I.\n\nPART I.\u2014THE DATA OF BIOLOGY.\n\n 1. Organic Matter.\n 2. The Actions of Forces on Organic Matter.\n 3. The Re-actions of Organic Matter on Forces.\n 4. Proximate Definition of Life.\n 5. The Correspondence between Life and its Circumstances.\n 6. The Degree of Life varies as the Degree of Correspondence.\n 7. The Scope of Biology.\n\nPART II.\u2014THE INDUCTIONS OF BIOLOGY.\n\n 1. Growth.\n 2. Development.\n 3. Function.\n 4. Waste and Repair.\n 5. Adaptation.\n 6. Individuality.\n 7. Genesis.\n 8. Heredity.\n 9. Variation.\n 10. Genesis, Heredity, and Variation.\n 11. Classification.\n 12. Distribution.\n\nPART III.\u2014THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE.\n\n 1. Preliminary.\n 2. General Aspects of the Special-Creation-Hypothesis.\n 3. General Aspects of the Evolution-Hypothesis.\n 4. The Arguments from Classification.\n 5. The Arguments from Embryology.\n 6. The Arguments from Morphology.\n 7. The Arguments from Distribution.\n 8. How is Organic Evolution caused?\n 9. External Factors.\n 10. Internal Factors.\n 11. Direct Equilibration.\n 12. Indirect Equilibration.\n 13. The Co-operation of the Factors.\n 14. The Convergence of the Evidences.\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n The Spontaneous-Generation Question.\n\nCONTENTS OF VOL. II.\n\nPART IV.\u2014MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT.\n\n 1. The Problems of Morphology.\n 2. The Morphological Composition of Plants.\n 3. The Morphological Composition of Plants, continued.\n 4. The Morphological Composition of Animals.\n 5. The Morphological Composition of Animals, continued.\n 6. Morphological Differentiation in Plants.\n 7. The General Shapes of Plants.\n 8. The Shapes of Branches.\n 9. The Shapes of Leaves.\n 10. The Shapes of Flowers.\n 11. The Shapes of Vegetal Cells.\n 12. Changes of Shape otherwise caused.\n 13. Morphological Differentiation in Animals.\n 14. The General Shapes of Animals.\n 15. The Shapes of Vertebrate Skeletons.\n 16. The Shapes of Animal Cells.\n 17. Summary of Morphological Development.\n\nPART V.\u2014PHYSIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT.\n\n 1. The Problems of Physiology.\n\n 2. Differentiations between the Outer and Inner Tissues of Plants.\n\n 3. Differentiations among the Outer Tissues of Plants.\n\n 4. Differentiations among the Inner Tissues of Plants.\n\n 5. Physiological Integration in Plants.\n\n 6. Differentiations between the Outer and Inner Tissues of Animals.\n\n 7. Differentiations among the Outer Tissues of Animals.\n\n 8. Differentiations among the Inner Tissues of Animals.\n\n 9. Physiological Integration in Animals.\n\n 10. Summary of Physiological Development.\n\nPART VI.\u2014LAWS OF MULTIPLICATION.\n\n 1. The Factors.\n\n 2. _\u00c0 Priori_ Principle.\n\n 3. Obverse _\u00e0 priori_ Principle.\n\n 4. Difficulties of Inductive Verification.\n\n 5. Antagonism between Growth and Asexual Genesis.\n\n 6. Antagonism between Growth and Sexual Genesis.\n\n 7. Antagonism between Development and Genesis, Asexual and Sexual.\n\n 8. Antagonism between Expenditure and Genesis.\n\n 9. Coincidence between high Nutrition and Genesis.\n\n 10. Specialities of these Relations.\n\n 11. Interpretation and Qualification.\n\n 12. Multiplication of the Human Race.\n\n 13. Human Evolution in the Future.\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n A Criticism on Professor Owen\u2019s Theory of the Vertebrate Skeleton.\n\n On Circulation and the Formation of Wood in Plants.\n\n\n _5th Thousand._\n (WITH AN ADDITIONAL PART.)\n In two vols. 8vo, cloth, price 36s.,\n THE PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGY.\n\nCONTENTS OF VOL. I.\n\nPART I.\u2014THE DATA OF PSYCHOLOGY.\n\n 1. The Nervous System.\n 2. The Structure of the Nervous System.\n 3. The Functions of the Nervous System.\n 4. The Conditions essential to Nervous Action.\n 5. Nervous Stimulation and Nervous Discharge.\n 6. \u00c6stho-Physiology.\n\nPART II.\u2014THE INDUCTIONS OF PSYCHOLOGY.\n\n 1. The Substance of Mind.\n 2. The Composition of Mind.\n 3. The Relativity of Feelings.\n 4. The Relativity of Relations between Feelings.\n 5. The Revivability of Feelings.\n 6. The Revivability of Relations between Feelings.\n 7. The Associability of Feelings.\n 8. The Associability of Relations between Feelings.\n 9. Pleasures and Pains.\n\nPART III.\u2014GENERAL SYNTHESIS.\n\n 1. Life and Mind as Correspondence.\n 2. The Correspondence as Direct and Homogeneous.\n 3. The Correspondence as Direct but Heterogeneous.\n 4. The Correspondence as extending in Space.\n 5. The Correspondence as extending in Time.\n 6. The Correspondence as increasing in Speciality.\n 7. The Correspondence as increasing in Generality.\n 8. The Correspondence as increasing in Complexity.\n 9. The Co-ordination of Correspondences.\n 10. The Integration of Correspondences.\n 11. The Correspondences in their Totality.\n\nPART IV.\u2014SPECIAL SYNTHESIS.\n\n 1. The Nature of Intelligence.\n 2. The Law of Intelligence.\n 3. The Growth of Intelligence.\n 4. Reflex Action.\n 5. Instinct.\n 6. Memory.\n 7. Reason.\n 8. The Feelings.\n 9. The Will.\n\nPART V.\u2014PHYSICAL SYNTHESIS.\n\n 1. A Further Interpretation Needed.\n 2. The Genesis of Nerves.\n 3. The Genesis of Simple Nervous Systems.\n 4. The Genesis of Compound Nervous Systems.\n 5. The Genesis of Doubly-Compound Nervous Systems.\n 6. Functions as Related to these Structures.\n 7. Psychical Laws as thus Interpreted.\n 8. Evidence from Normal Variations.\n 9. Evidence from Abnormal Variations.\n 10. Results.\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n On the Action of An\u00e6sthetics and Narcotics.\n\nCONTENTS OF VOL. II.\n\nPART VI.\u2014SPECIAL ANALYSIS.\n\n 1. Limitation of the Subject.\n\n 2. Compound Quantitative Reasoning.\n\n 3. Compound Quantitative Reasoning, continued.\n\n 4. Imperfect and Simple Quantitative Reasoning.\n\n 5. Quantitative Reasoning in General.\n\n 6. Perfect Qualitative Reasoning.\n\n 7. Imperfect Qualitative Reasoning.\n\n 8. Reasoning in General.\n\n 9. Classification, Naming, and Recognition.\n\n 10. The Perception of Special Objects.\n\n 11. The Perception of Body as presenting Dynamical, Statico-Dynamical,\n and Statical Attributes.\n\n 12. The Perception of Body as presenting Statico-Dynamical and\n Statical Attributes.\n\n 13. The Perception of Body as presenting Statical Attributes.\n\n 14. The Perception of Space.\n\n 15. The Perception of Time.\n\n 16. The Perception of Motion.\n\n 17. The Perception of Resistance.\n\n 18. Perception in General.\n\n 19. The Relations of Similarity and Dissimilarity.\n\n 20. The Relations of Cointension and Non-Cointension.\n\n 21. The Relations of Coextension and Non-Coextension.\n\n 22. The Relations of Coexistence and Non-Coexistence.\n\n 23. The Relations of Connature and Non-Connature.\n\n 24. The Relations of Likeness and Unlikeness.\n\n 25. The Relation of Sequence.\n\n 26. Consciousness in General.\n\n 27. Results.\n\nPART VII.\u2014GENERAL ANALYSIS.\n\n 1. The Final Question.\n 2. The Assumption of Metaphysicians.\n 3. The Words of Metaphysicians.\n 4. The Reasonings of Metaphysicians.\n 5. Negative Justification of Realism.\n 6. Argument from Priority.\n 7. The Argument from Simplicity.\n 8. The Argument from Distinctness.\n 9. A Criterion Wanted.\n 10. Propositions qualitatively distinguished.\n 11. The Universal Postulate.\n 12. The test of Relative Validity.\n 13. Its Corollaries.\n 14. Positive Justification of Realism.\n 15. The Dynamics of Consciousness.\n 16. Partial Differentiation of Subject and Object.\n 17. Completed Differentiation of Subject and Object.\n 18. Developed Conception of the Object.\n 19. Transfigured Realism.\n\nPART VIII.\u2014CONGRUITIES.\n\n 1. Preliminary.\n 2. Co-ordination of Data and Inductions.\n 3. Co-ordination of Syntheses.\n 4. Co-ordination of Special Analyses.\n 5. Co-ordination of General Analyses.\n 6. Final Comparison.\n\nPART IX.\u2014COROLLARIES.\n\n 1. Special Psychology.\n 2. Classification.\n 3. Development of Conceptions.\n 4. Language of the Emotions.\n 5. Sociality and Sympathy.\n 6. Egoistic Sentiments.\n 7. Ego-Altruistic Sentiments.\n 8. Altruistic Sentiments.\n 9. \u00c6sthetic Sentiments.\n\n\n _3rd Edition, revised and enlarged._\n In 8vo., cloth, price 21s., Vol. I. of\n THE PRINCIPLES OF SOCIOLOGY.\n\nCONTENTS.\n\nPART I.\u2014THE DATA OF SOCIOLOGY.\n\n 1. Super-Organic Evolution.\n\n 2. The Factors of Social Phenomena.\n\n 3. Original External Factors.\n\n 4. Original Internal Factors.\n\n 5. The Primitive Man\u2014Physical.\n\n 6. The Primitive Man\u2014Emotional.\n\n 7. The Primitive Man\u2014Intellectual.\n\n 8. Primitive Ideas.\n\n 9. The Ideas of the Animate and the Inanimate.\n\n 10. The Ideas of Sleep and Dreams.\n\n 11. The Ideas of Swoon, Apoplexy, Catelepsy, Ecstacy, and other forms\n of Insensibility.\n\n 12. The Ideas of Death and Resurrection.\n\n 13. The Ideas of Souls, Ghosts, Spirits, Demons.\n\n 14. The Ideas of Another Life.\n\n 15. The Ideas of Another World.\n\n 16. The Ideas of Supernatural Agents.\n\n 17. Supernatural Agents as causing Epilepsy and Convulsive Actions,\n Delirium and Insanity, Disease and Death.\n\n 18. Inspiration, Divination, Exorcism, and Sorcery.\n\n 19. Sacred Places, Temples, and Altars; Sacrifice, Fasting, and\n Propitiation; Praise and Prayer.\n\n 20. Ancestor-Worship in General.\n\n 21. Idol-Worship and Fetich-Worship.\n\n 22. Animal-Worship.\n\n 23. Plant-Worship.\n\n 24. Nature-Worship.\n\n 25. Deities.\n\n 26. The Primitive Theory of Things.\n\n 27. The Scope of Sociology.\n\nPART II.\u2014THE INDUCTIONS OF SOCIOLOGY.\n\n 1. What is a Society?\n 2. A Society is an Organism.\n 3. Social Growth.\n 4. Social Structures.\n 5. Social Functions.\n 6. Systems of Organs.\n 7. The Sustaining System.\n 8. The Distributing System.\n 9. The Regulating System.\n 10. Social Types and Constitutions.\n 11. Social Metamorphoses.\n 12. Qualifications and Summary.\n\nPART III.\u2014THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS.\n\n 1. The Maintenance of Species.\n\n 2. The Diverse Interests of the Species, of the Parents, and of the\n Offspring.\n\n 3. Primitive Relations of the Sexes.\n\n 4. Exogamy and Endogamy.\n\n 5. Promiscuity.\n\n 6. Polyandry.\n\n 7. Polygyny.\n\n 8. Monogamy.\n\n 9. The Family.\n\n 10. The _Status_ of Women.\n\n 11. The _Status_ of Children.\n\n 12. Domestic Retrospect and Prospect.\n\n\n _2nd Thousand._\n In 8vo, cloth, price 18s. Vol. II of\n THE PRINCIPLES OF SOCIOLOGY.\n\n (_Containing the two following divisions, which may still_\n _be had separately._)\n\n\n In one vol. 8vo, cloth, price 7s.,\n CEREMONIAL INSTITUTIONS.\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n 1. Ceremony in General.\n 2. Trophies.\n 3. Mutilations.\n 4. Presents.\n 5. Visits.\n 6. Obeisances.\n 7. Forms of Address.\n 8. Titles.\n 9. Badges and Costumes.\n 10. Further Class-Distinctions.\n 11. Fashion.\n 12. Ceremonial Retrospect and Prospect.\n\n\n In one vol. 8vo, cloth, price 12s.\n POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n 1. Preliminary.\n 2. Political Organization in General.\n 3. Political Integration.\n 4. Political Differentiation.\n 5. Political Forms and Forces.\n 6. Political Heads\u2014Chiefs, Kings, etc.\n 7. Compound Political Heads.\n 8. Consultative Bodies.\n 9. Representative Bodies.\n 10. Ministries.\n 11. Local Governing Agencies.\n 12. Military Systems.\n 13. Judicial Systems.\n 14. Laws.\n 15. Property.\n 16. Revenue.\n 17. The Militant Type of Society.\n 18. The Industrial Type of Society.\n 19. Political Retrospect and Prospect.\n\n\n _2nd Thousand._\n In one vol. 8vo., cloth, price 5_s._\n ECCLESIASTICAL INSTITUTIONS.\n\n(_Being Part VI. of the PRINCIPLES OF SOCIOLOGY._)\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n 1. The Religious Idea.\n 2. Medicine-men and Priests.\n 3. Priestly Duties of Descendants.\n 4. Eldest Male Descendants as Quasi-Priests.\n 5. The Ruler as Priest.\n 6. The Rise of a Priesthood.\n 7. Polytheistic and Monotheistic Priesthoods.\n 8. Ecclesiastical Hierarchies.\n 9. An Ecclesiastical System as a Social Bond.\n 10. The Military Functions of Priests.\n 11. The Civil Functions of Priests.\n 12. Church and State.\n 13. Nonconformity.\n 14. The Moral Influences of Priesthoods.\n 15. Ecclesiastical Retrospect and Prospect.\n 16. Religious Retrospect and Prospect.\n\n\n _5th Thousand._\n\n WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING AN ADDITIONAL CHAPTER, AND\n REPLIES TO CRITICISMS.\n\n In one vol. 8vo, cloth, price 8s.,\n\n THE DATA OF ETHICS.\n\n(_Being Part I. of the PRINCIPLES OF ETHICS._)\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n 1. Conduct in General.\n 2. The Evolution of Conduct.\n 3. Good and Bad Conduct.\n 4. Ways of Judging Conduct.\n 5. The Physical View.\n 6. The Biological View.\n 7. The Psychological View.\n 8. The Sociological View.\n 9. Criticisms and Explanations.\n 10. The Relativity of Pains and Pleasures.\n 11. Egoism _versus_ Altruism.\n 12. Altruism _versus_ Egoism.\n 13. Trial and Compromise.\n 14. Conciliation.\n 15. Absolute Ethics and Relative Ethics.\n 16. The Scope of Ethics.\n\n\n_OTHER WORKS._\n\n\n _5th Thousand._\n In one vol. 8vo, cloth, price 6s.,\n EDUCATION:\n INTELLECTUAL, MORAL, AND PHYSICAL.\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n 1. What Knowledge is of most Worth?\n 2. Intellectual Education.\n 3. Moral Education.\n 4. Physical Education.\n\n\n _Also, 20th and 21st Thousand,_\n _A CHEAP EDITION OF THE FOREGOING WORK._\n\nIn one vol. crown 8vo, price 2s. 6d.\n\n\n _Library Edition (the 9th), with a Postscript._\n In one vol., price 10s. 6d.,\n THE STUDY OF SOCIOLOGY.\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n 1. Our Need of it.\n 2. Is there a Social Science?\n 3. Nature of the Social Science.\n 4. Difficulties of the Social Science.\n 5. Objective Difficulties.\n 6. Subjective Difficulties\u2014Intellectual.\n 7. Subjective Difficulties\u2014Emotional.\n 8. The Educational Bias.\n 9. The Bias of Patriotism.\n 10. The Class-Bias.\n 11. The Political Bias.\n 12. The Theological Bias.\n 13. Discipline.\n 14. Preparation in Biology.\n 15. Preparation in Psychology.\n 16. Conclusion.\n     Postscript.\n\n\n _10th Thousand._\n In wrapper, 1s., in cloth, better paper, 2s. 6d.\n THE MAN _VERSUS_ THE STATE.\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n 1. The New Toryism.\n 2. The Coming Slavery.\n 3. The Sins of Legislators.\n 4. The Great Political Superstition.\n    Postscript.\n\n\n _4th Thousand._\n In two vols. 8vo, cloth, price 16s.,\n ESSAYS:\n SCIENTIFIC, POLITICAL, AND SPECULATIVE.\n\nCONTENTS OF VOL. I.\n\n 1. Progress: its Law and Cause.\n 2. Manners and Fashion.\n 3. The Genesis of Science.\n 4. The Physiology of Laughter.\n 5. The Origin and Function of Music.\n 6. The Nebular Hypothesis.\n 7. Bain on the Emotions and the Will.\n 8. Illogical Geology.\n 9. The Development Hypothesis.\n 10. The Social Organism.\n 11. Use and Beauty.\n 12. The Sources of Architectural Types.\n 13. The Use of Anthropomorphism.\n\nCONTENTS OF VOL. II.\n\n 1. The Philosophy of Style.\n 2. Over-Legislation.\n 3. The Morals of Trade.\n 4. Personal Beauty.\n 5. Representative Government.\n 6. Prison Ethics.\n 7. Railway Morals and Railway Policy.\n 8. Gracefulness.\n 9. State-Tamperings with Money and Banks.\n 10. Parliamentary Reform: the Dangers and the Safeguards.\n 11. Mill _versus_ Hamilton\u2014the Test of Truth.\n\n\n _3rd Edition._\n In one vol. 8vo., price 8s.,\n THIRD SERIES OF\n ESSAYS:\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n 1. The Classification of the Sciences (with a Postscript, replying to\n Criticisms).\n\n 2. Reasons for Dissenting from the Philosophy of M. Comte.\n\n 3. Laws in General.\n\n 4. The Origin of Animal-Worship.\n\n 5. Specialized Administration.\n\n 6. \u201cThe Collective Wisdom.\u201d\n\n 7. Political Fetichism.\n\n 8. What is Electricity?\n\n 9. The Constitution of the Sun.\n\n 10. Mr. Martineau on Evolution.\n\n 11. Replies to Criticisms.\n\n 12. Transcendental Physiology.\n\n 13. The Comparative Psychology of Man.\n\n\n Price 2s. 6d.,\n THE FACTORS OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION.\n\n\n DESCRIPTIVE SOCIOLOGY; OR GROUPS OF SOCIOLOGICAL FACTS, CLASSIFIED AND\n ARRANGED BY HERBERT SPENCER,\n\nCOMPILED AND ABSTRACTED BY\n\nDAVID DUNCAN, M.A., Professor of Logic, &c., in the Presidency College,\nMadras; RICHARD SCHEPPIG, Ph.D.; and JAMES COLLIER.\n\nEXTRACT FROM THE PROVISIONAL PREFACE.\n\nSomething to introduce the work of which an instalment is annexed,\nseems needful, in anticipation of the time when completion of a volume\nwill give occasion for a Permanent Preface.\n\nIn preparation for _The Principles of Sociology_, requiring as bases of\ninduction large accumulations of data, fitly arranged for comparison,\nI, some twelve years ago, commenced, by proxy, the collection and\norganization of facts presented by societies of different types,\npast and present; being fortunate enough to secure the services of\ngentlemen competent to carry on the process in the way I wished.\nThough this classified compilation of materials was entered upon\nsolely to facilitate my own work; yet, after having brought the mode\nof classification to a satisfactory form, and after having had some\nof the Tables filled up, I decided to have the undertaking executed\nwith a view to publication; the facts collected and arranged for easy\nreference and convenient study of their relations, being so presented,\napart from hypothesis, as to aid all students of Social Science in\ntesting such conclusions as they have drawn and in drawing others.\n\nThe Work consists of three large Divisions. Each comprises a set\nof Tables exhibiting the facts as abstracted and classified, and a\nmass of quotations and abridged abstracts otherwise classified, on\nwhich the statements contained in the Tables are based. The condensed\nstatements, arranged after a uniform manner, give, in each Table or\nsuccession of Tables, the phenomena of all orders which each society\npresents\u2014constitute an account of its morphology, its physiology, and\n(if a society having a known history) its development. On the other\nhand, the collected Extracts, serving as authorities for the statements\nin the Tables, are (or, rather will be, when the Work is complete)\nclassified primarily according to the kinds of phenomena to which they\nrefer, and secondarily according to the societies exhibiting these\nphenomena; so that each kind of phenomenon as it is displayed in all\nsocieties, may be separately studied with convenience.\n\nIn further explanation I may say that the classified compilations and\ndigests of materials to be thus brought together under the title of\n_Descriptive Sociology_, are intended to supply the student of Social\nScience with data, standing towards his conclusions in a relation like\nthat in which accounts of the structures and functions of different\ntypes of animals stand to the conclusions of the biologist. Until there\nhad been such systematic descriptions of different kinds of organisms,\nas made it possible to compare the connexions, and forms, and actions,\nand modes of origin, of their parts, the Science of Life could make no\nprogress. And in like manner, before there can be reached in Sociology,\ngeneralizations having a certainty making them worthy to be called\nscientific, there must be definite accounts of the institutions and\nactions of societies of various types, and in various stages of\nevolution, so arranged as to furnish the means of readily ascertaining\nwhat social phenomena are habitually associated.\n\nRespecting the tabulation, devised for the purpose of exhibiting social\nphenomena in a convenient way, I may explain that the primary aim\nhas been so to present them that their relations of simultaneity and\nsuccession may be seen at one view. As used for delineating uncivilized\nsocieties, concerning which we have no records, the tabular form\nserves only to display the various social traits as they are found to\nco-exist. But as used for delineating societies having known histories,\nthe tabular form is so employed as to exhibit not only the connexions\nof phenomena existing at the same time, but also the connexions of\nphenomena that succeed one another. By reading horizontally across a\nTable at any period, there may be gained a knowledge of the traits of\nall orders displayed by the society at that period; while by reading\ndown each column, there may be gained a knowledge of the modifications\nwhich each trait, structural or functional, underwent during successive\nperiods.\n\nOf course, the tabular form fulfils these purposes but approximately.\nTo preserve complete simultaneity in the statements of facts, as read\nfrom side to side of the Tables, has proved impracticable; here much\nhad to be inserted, and there little; so that complete correspondence\nin time could not be maintained. Moreover, it has not been possible\nto carry out the mode of classification in a theoretically-complete\nmanner, by increasing the number of columns as the classes of facts\nmultiply in the course of Civilization. To represent truly the progress\nof things, each column should divide and sub-divide in successive ages,\nso as to indicate the successive differentiations of the phenomena.\nBut typographical difficulties have negatived this: a great deal has\nhad to be left in a form which must be accepted simply as the least\nunsatisfactory.\n\nThe three Divisions constituting the entire work, comprehend three\ngroups of societies:\u2014(1) _Uncivilized Societies_; (2) _Civilized\nSocieties\u2014Extinct or Decayed_; (3) _Civilized Societies\u2014Recent or Still\nFlourishing_. These divisions have at present reached the following\nstages:\u2015\n\nDIVISION I.\u2014_Uncivilized Societies._ Commenced in 1867 by the gentleman\nI first engaged, Mr. DAVID DUNCAN, M.A. (now Professor of Logic,\n&c., in the Presidency College, Madras), and continued by him since\nhe left England, this part of the work is complete. It contains four\nparts, including \u201cTypes of Lowest Races,\u201d the \u201cNegrito Races,\u201d the\n\u201cMalayo-Polynesian Races,\u201d the \u201cAfrican Races,\u201d the \u201cAsiatic Races,\u201d\nand the \u201cAmerican Races.\u201d\n\nDIVISION II.\u2014_Civilized Societies\u2014Extinct or Decayed._ On this part of\nthe work Dr. RICHARD SCHEPPIG has been engaged since January, 1872. The\nfirst instalment, including the four Ancient American Civilizations,\nwas issued in March, 1874. A second instalment, containing \u201cHebrews and\nPh\u0153nicians,\u201d will shortly be issued.\n\nDIVISION III.\u2014_Civilized Societies\u2014Recent or Still Flourishing._ Of\nthis Division the first instalment, prepared by Mr. JAMES COLLIER, of\nSt. Andrew\u2019s and Edinburgh Universities, was issued in August, 1873.\nThis presents the English Civilization. It covers seven consecutive\nTables; and the Extracts occupy seventy pages folio. The next part,\npresenting in a still more extensive form the French Civilization, is\nnow in the press.\n\nThe successive parts belonging to these several Divisions, issued at\nintervals, are composed of different numbers of Tables and different\nnumbers of Pages. The Uncivilized Societies occupy four parts, each\ncontaining a dozen or more Tables, with their accompanying Extracts.\nOf the Division comprising Extinct Civilized Societies, the first part\ncontains four, and the second contains two. While of Existing Civilized\nSocieties, the records of which are so much more extensive, each\noccupies a single part.\n\n H. S.\n _March, 1880._\n\n\n _In Royal Folio, Price 18s._,\n No. I.\n English.\n\nCOMPILED AND ABSTRACTED\n\nBY\n\nJAMES COLLIER.\n\n\n _In Royal Folio, Price 16s._,\n No. II.\n Mexicans, Central Americans, Chibchas,\n and Peruvians.\n\nCOMPILED AND ABSTRACTED\n\nBY\n\nRICHARD SCHEPPIG, PH.D.\n\n\n _In Royal Folio, Price 18s._,\n No. III.\n Lowest Races, Negrito Races, and\n Malayo-Polynesian Races.\n\nCOMPILED AND ABSTRACTED\n\nBY\n\nPROF. DUNCAN, M.A.\n\nTYPES OF LOWEST RACES.\n\n Fuegians.\n Andamanese.\n Veddahs.\n Australians.\n\nNEGRITO RACES.\n\n Tasmanians.\n New Caledonians, etc.\n New Guinea People.\n Fijians.\n\nMALAYO-POLYNESIAN RACES.\n\n Sandwich Islanders.\n Tahitians.\n Tongans.\n Samoans.\n New Zealanders.\n Dyaks.\n Javans.\n Sumatrans.\n Malagasy.\n\n\n _In Royal Folio, Price 16s._,\n No. IV.\n African Races.\n\nCOMPILED AND ABSTRACTED\n\nBY\n\nPROF. DUNCAN, M.A.\n\n Bushmen.\n Hottentots.\n Damaras.\n Bechuanas.\n Kaffirs.\n East Africans.\n Congo People.\n Coast Negroes.\n Inland Negroes.\n Dahomans.\n Ashantis.\n Fulahs.\n Abyssinians.\n\n\n _In Royal Folio, Price 18s._,\n No. V.\n Asiatic Races.\n\nCOMPILED AND ABSTRACTED\n\nBY\n\nPROF. DUNCAN, M.A.\n\n Arabs.\n Todas.\n Khonds.\n Gonds.\n Bhils.\n Santals.\n Karens.\n Kukis.\n Nagas.\n Bodo and Dhimals.\n Mishmis.\n Kirghiz.\n Kalmucks.\n Ostyaks.\n Kamtschadales.\n\n\n _In Royal Folio, Price 18s._,\n No. VI.\n American Races.\n\nCOMPILED AND ABSTRACTED\n\nBY\n\nPROF. DUNCAN, M.A.\n\n Esquimaux.\n Chinooks.\n Snakes.\n Comanches.\n Iroquois.\n Chippewayans.\n Chippewas.\n Dakotas.\n Mandans.\n Creeks.\n Guiana Tribes.\n Caribs.\n Brazilians.\n Uaup\u00e9s.\n Abipones.\n Patagonians.\n Araucanians.\n\n\n _In Royal Folio, Price 21s._,\n No. VII.\n Hebrews and Ph\u0153nicians.\n\nCOMPILED AND ABSTRACTED\n\nBY\n\nRICHARD SCHEPPIG, PH.D.\n\n\n _In Royal Folio, Price 30s._,\n No. VIII.\n French.\n\nCOMPILED AND ABSTRACTED\n\nBY\n\nJAMES COLLIER.\n\n\nMR. HERBERT SPENCER\u2019S WORKS.\n\n_A SYSTEM OF SYNTHETIC PHILOSOPHY._\n\n FIRST PRINCIPLES                       16_s._\n\n PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY. 2 vols.         34_s._\n\n PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGY. 2 vols.      36_s._\n\n PRINCIPLES OF SOCIOLOGY, Vol. I.       21_s._\n\n          DITTO           Vol. II.      18_s._\n\n(_This Volume includes the two following Works, which are at present\npublished separately._)\n\n CEREMONIAL INSTITUTIONS                 7_s._\n\n POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS                 12_s._\n\n ECCLESIASTICAL INSTITUTIONS             5_s._\n\n THE DATA OF ETHICS                      8_s._\n\n\n_OTHER WORKS._\n\n THE STUDY OF SOCIOLOGY           10_s._ 6_d._\n\n EDUCATION                               6_s._\n\n   DITTO      _Cheap Edition_      2_s._ 6_d._\n\n ESSAYS. 2 vols.                        16_s._\n\n ESSAYS (Third Series)                   8_s._\n\n THE MAN _versus_ THE STATE        2_s._ 6_d._\n\n     DITTO       _Cheap Edition_         1_s._\n\n REASONS FOR DISSENTING FROM THE\n     PHILOSOPHY OF M. COMTE              6_d._\n\n THE FACTORS OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION  2_s._ 6_d._\n\n[For particulars see end of the volume.]\n\nWILLIAMS AND NORGATE,\n\n14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON.\n\n\n ALSO MR. SPENCER\u2019S\n _DESCRIPTIVE SOCIOLOGY_,\n\nCOMPILED AND ABSTRACTED BY\n\nPROF. DUNCAN, DR. SCHEPPIG, & MR. COLLIER.\n\nFOLIO, BOARDS.\n\n 1. ENGLISH                              18_s._\n\n 2. ANCIENT AMERICAN RACES               16_s._\n\n 3. LOWEST RACES, NEGRITOS, POLYNESIANS 18_s._\n\n 4. AFRICAN RACES                        16_s._\n\n 5. ASIATIC RACES                        18_s._\n\n 6. AMERICAN RACES                       18_s._\n\n 7. HEBREWS AND PH\u0152NICIANS               21_s._\n\n 8. FRENCH                               30_s._\n\n[For particulars see end of the volume.]\n\nWILLIAMS AND NORGATE,\n\n14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON.\n\nHarrison & Sons, Printers, St. Martin\u2019s Lane.\n\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE\n\nOriginal spelling and grammar have generally been retained, with\nsome exceptions noted below. Original printed page numbers are shown\nlike this: {52}. Original small caps are now uppercase. Italics look\n_like this_. Footnotes have been relabeled 1\u201345. The transcriber\nproduced the cover image and hereby assigns it to the public domain.\nOriginal page images are available from archive.org \u2014 search for\n\u201cessaysscientific03spenuoft\u201d.\n\nPage 81. The table rows headed by \u201cThe Company\u2019s soliciter\u201d and by\n\u201cDitto in joint account with another\u201d had a large \u201c}\u201d on the right side\nof column 3, covering both rows. In this edition, table cell borders\nhave been drawn so as to indicate the combination of information.\n\nPage 157. Inserted \u201cof\u201d into \u201cdictates abstract ethics\u201d.\n\nPage 198n. \u201cPyschology\u201d was changed to \u201cPsychology\u201d.\n\nPage 409. Changed \u201cco\u00f6dinations\u201d to \u201cco\u00f6rdinations\u201d.\n\nPage 471. A left double quotation mark was added before \u2018The earlier\nparagraphs of the conversation\u2019.\n\nPage 487. Changed \u201cwith many Americans joined with regrets that my\nstate of health has prevented, me from\u201d to \u201cwith many Americans, joined\nwith regrets that my state of health has prevented me from\u201d.\n\nPage 493. The index covers all three volumes of this series of books.\nVolume II is available as Project Gutenburg ebook #53395; all editions\nof Vol. II display the original printed page numbers, corresponding to\nthe index entries herein. Volume I is available as PG ebook #29869.\nUnfortunately, ebook #29869 displays the original page numbers only in\nthe html edition. With a little html coding skill, however, one could\nmodify the epub version to display page numbers if that is desired.\n\nPage 501. In entry \u201cGreat Western Railway:\u201d changed \u201cIII, 9;\u201d to \u201cIII,\n94;\u201d.\n\nPage 509. Changed \u201cPhilae\u201d to \u201cPhil\u00e6\u201d, to agree with Volume I.\n\nPage 510. The entry \u201c_Polyzoa_\u201d was moved below \u201cPolitics\u201d, to\nconform with alphabetical ordering. Likewise, \u201cPope\u201d was moved above\n\u201cPorcupine\u201d.\n\nPage 513. Under entry \u201cSocial organism .\u00a0.\u00a0. analogy to individual\u201d,\nchanged \u201cIII, 411\u20136\u201d to \u201cIII, 411\u201316\u201d.","title":"Essays: Scientific, Political, & Speculative; Vol. 3 of 3: Library Edition (1891), Containing Seven Essays not before Republished, and Various other Additions.","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":179592}